Pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulterii): COSEWIC assessment and status report 2016: part 2

Habitat

Habitat requirements

Throughout most of its range in Canada, the Pygmy Whitefish primarily inhabits cold, deep, lakes and, to a lesser extent, fast flowing rivers of low productivity. Access to shallow water with gravel or rocky substrate is required for spawning. It is considered a coldwater stenotherm that prefers water temperatures below 10°C and oxygen concentrations above 5 mg/l (McPhail and Carveth 1992). Pygmy Whitefish is usually found at depths greater than 30 m but have been located at depths <5 m (along lake shorelines) and as great as 168 m (Heard and Hartman 1965). Lacustrine habitat requirements are similar throughout their global range. Pygmy Whitefish, however, has been documented to undergo diurnal migrations in some lakes and may occupy shallower habitats and temporarily occupy areas of warmer water (12-18°C) and oxygen concentrations below 1 mg/l (Zemlak and McPhail 2006), indicating some variability in habitat use.

In the Athabasca River (part of DU4), Pygmy Whitefish was generally located at depths of 0.5 – 1 m in nearshore eddies along the edge of faster mainstream flow (Sullivan 2011). This reflects the difficulty of capturing Pygmy Whitefish in deepwater riverine habitat using conventional sampling methods and not necessarily a preference for shallow water habitat in rivers (Sullivan 2011). Riverine habitat requirements are likely similar throughout its global range, although search effort in rivers has not been documented outside Alberta. In the Williston Reservoir Watershed (also part of DU4) effective management of Pygmy Whitefish genetic diversity likely requires the maintenance of stream networks that interconnect lakes (Taylor et al. 2011).

Habitat trends

Pygmy Whitefish inhabit isolated lakes resulting in a fragmented distribution. The availability/suitability of boreal and montane lakes appears stable and a trend in habitat availability is not discernable in any of the DUs. Its habitat is likely secure within much of Canada because of the relative remoteness of most of the lakes involved, but localized exceptions probably occur. For instance, the water quality of portions of the Athabasca River has recently been shown to be degraded with attendant effects on fish health that may also affect Pygmy Whitefish (Schwalb et al. 2014).

Biology

In general, the biology of Pygmy Whitefish has been best studied in lakes, there is comparatively little information on the biology of the species in stream habitats, other than some study of spawning migrations upstream from lakes (McPhail 2007).

Life cycle and reproduction

Pygmy Whitefish generally matures at a young age and small size. Males mature at 1-3 years of age and 58-130 mm TL, whereas females mature at 2-4 years of age and 61-228 mm TL (Weisel and Dillon 1954, Eschmeyer and Bailey 1955; Heard and Hartman 1965; Weisel et al. 1973; Zemlak and McPhail 2004).

Migrations by Pygmy Whitefish tend to be only up-river for spawning (Northcote 1997). Migrations, when occurring, take place entirely within fresh water (i.e., Pygmy Whitefish are potamodromous). Spawning schools will travel 1 to 4 km up rivers to spawn (Barnett and Paige 2014). Spawning schools tend to be skewed towards male dominance, and schools generally spawn in close proximity (300 to 800 m) to other schools (Barnett and Paige 2014). Spawning occurs annually between September and December (McPhail 2007), but can occur as late as January (Weisel et al. 1973), when water temperatures are between 2 and 5°C (Barnett and Paige 2014). Eggs are broadcast over coarse gravel in shallow water in rivers or along lake shorelines at night (Barnett and Paige 2014) and are fertilized in the water. Fecundity is related to body size with egg production ranging between 97 to 1,000 eggs per female (Eschmeyer and Bailey 1955; Weisel et al. 1973; McPhail and Zemlak 2001). Eggs size ranged from 1.3 to 1.8 mm in diameter in the month of October (McPhail and Zemlak 2001). Pygmy Whitefish tends to be short-lived with a life expectancy between 3 and 10 years (median 7 years) (Eschmeyer and Bailey 1955; Heard and Hartmann 1965; McCart 1970; Hallock and Mongillo 1998; Rankin 1999; McPhail and Zemlak 2001). A generation time of 5.5 yrs has been calculated for Alberta populations (Sullivan 2011) and 2+ and 3+ years for males and females, respectively in Dina Lake No. 1, British Columbia (McPhail and Zemlak 2001). Information required for calculating generation time of other Canadian populations is insufficient.

Diet and feeding behaviour

Pygmy Whitefish is a generalist carnivore on aquatic invertebrates. It appears to be quite adaptable in feeding habits (Scott and Crossman 1973) with crustaceans, aquatic insects, particularly chironomids, and small molluscs being key prey items. Fish eggs may form part of the diet as well (Scott and Crossman 1973; Gowell et al. 2012). Pygmy Whitefish tends to be a deepwater inhabitant and feeds on benthic invertebrates. In some lakes, different morphological forms (so-called “high” and “low” gill-raker counts types may specialize on zooplankton and benthic invertebrates, respectively, and, thereby, occupy different trophic positions (McCart 1965; Gowell et al. 2012). Populations in streams and rivers apparently also feed on chironomid larvae and pupae, but may also feed on nymphs and various aquatic insects (McPhail 2007).

Physiology and adaptability

Pygmy Whitefish is considered a coldwater stenotherm; tolerance limits for other water quality parameters are unknown. As more populations are studied, however, a greater range of environmental tolerances, in terms of water temperature and oxygen levels (e.g., see Zemlak and McPhail 2006), is apparent, which suggests some degree of environmental adaptability.

Dispersal and migration

Spawning migrations of 1 to 4 km up rivers have been documented (Barnett and Paige 2014); however, dispersal and migration abilities of Pygmy Whitefish in general are unknown. Given its small size (typically ~150 mm TL), its ability to disperse and establish new populations rapidly is likely low (see discussion in Taylor et al. 2011).

Interspecific interactions

Pygmy Whitefish can be prey items for most predatory fishes, particularly for other salmonid species with which it shares habitat (Dryer et al. 1965; Fraley and Shepard 1989). For example, Pygmy Whitefish was found in the stomach contents of nearly 1,500 Lake Trout examined from Lake Superior (Dryer et al. 1965), the stomach contents of Lake Trout from Kathleen Lake, YT, (Millar pers. comm.), and it is suspected that the low density of Pygmy Whitefish in Atlin Lake, YT, is the result of predation by Lake Trout (Barker pers. comm.). Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was reported to feed on Pygmy Whitefish in Dina Lake No. 1, BC (McPhail and Zemlak (2001). In addition, Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Northern Pike Minnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), and Northern Pike (Esox lucius) are likely major predators of Pygmy Whitefish where they co-exist. The impact predation has on Pygmy Whitefish population size/structure is unknown.

Parasites that have been found on, or within, Pygmy Whitefish include: as an intermediate host, Henneguya zschokkei (a myxosporean parasite) in intermuscular connective tissue (Mitchell 1989); and, as a definitive host, Tetraonchus variabilis (Trematoda) on the gills (Mudry and Anderson 1977), and Neoechinorhynchus rutili (Acanthocephala) in the intestines (McDonald and Margolis 1995). Unidentified cestode larvae have been found in stomachs and livers (McPhail and Zemlak 2001).

Population sizes and trends

Sampling effort and methods

There has been little repeated sampling of the vast majority of the Pygmy Whitefish populations, so data to assess trends in abundance are generally not available. Mark- recapture field studies have been completed for only two waterbodies: Waterton Lake (in the northern basin), and a short reach of the Athabasca River (Sullivan 2011; Table 1). Annual nearshore trawl surveys conducted in Lake Superior by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) have been conducted since 1963 and provide density (fish per trawled hectare) estimates. The remaining studies provide information sufficient to calculate catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) only (Table 1).

Abundance

The small size of the Pygmy Whitefish and the great depths that it generally inhabits makes its capture using conventional fishing methods difficult. Consequently, most reports documenting Pygmy Whitefish are a product of incidental capture resulting in presence/absence data only (Table 1).

DU1, DU2, DU3, and DU7 – Southwestern Yukon Beringian, Yukon River, Pacific, and Saskatchewan - Nelson River populations

The repeated sampling field studies required for population estimates have not been completed for these populations so data consist of presence/absence data across multiple years.

DU4 – Western Arctic populations

Most of the information on abundance in DU4 consists of surveys in the Athabasca River population. Population estimates were derived from electrofishing data collected within a 45.6 km section of the Athabasca River previously known to contain Pygmy Whitefish (Sullivan 2011). The number of Pygmy Whitefish marked and recaptured was insufficient to derive a catchability coefficient. It was, therefore, assumed that Mountain Whitefish and Pygmy Whitefish have similar catchability, and that a catchability coefficient calculated for Mountain Whitefish from the same study could be used for population estimates of Pygmy Whitefish (Sullivan 2011). The population of catchable size Pygmy Whitefish within a 45.6 km reach was estimated as 1,000, with a maximum likelihood estimate of 267 adults (95% confidence limits: 50 - 450 adults, Sullivan 2011) and the remainder being sub-adult fish.

DU5 – Great Lakes - St. Lawrence populations

The USGS has conducted nearshore trawl surveys annually in Lake Superior throughout Canada and the U.S. since 1963. Trawl depths had a range of 2.8 m to 168 m with 7 to 89 trawls successfully capturing Pygmy Whitefish annually. In 1989, this sampling extended to more preferred, deeper habitat on the Canadian side of the lake beginning in 1989; therefore, the large differences in densities before and after 1989 are considered to be an effect of sampling rather than a demographic trend.

DU6 – Waterton Lake populations

Population estimates presented in Sullivan (2011) for Pygmy Whitefish in Waterton Lake were derived from mark-recapture data presented in Rasmussen et al. (2009) and based on the following assumptions: 1) the vulnerability of Pygmy Whitefish to capture in gillnets is similar to Lake Trout; and 2) Pygmy Whitefish were vulnerable to only 36% of the gillnets (i.e., 4 of the 11 panels being appropriately sized mesh). A density of 5.5 Pygmy Whitefish per hectare was calculated, translating into ~1,900 individuals, 1,800 of which were mature (based on 94% maturity ratio, Rasmussen et al. 2009). A measure of variance was calculated using actual catch data from 12 individual nets and bootstrapping to derive 10,000 possible mean catch rates (Sullivan 2011). The resulting 95% confidence intervals for a population size estimate of 1,800 were 750 and 3,300 fish (Sullivan 2011). Assessing population trends is not possible as Rasmussen et al. (2009) completed the only quantitative study on Pygmy Whitefish for Waterton Lake.

Fluctuations and trends

Pygmy Whitefish densities (number of fish per hectare trawled) in Lake Superior (DU5) have ranged from 4.3 to 54.6 fish∙ha-1 since 1989 when sampling was extended into preferred deeper habitat on the Canadian side of the lake. Since the mid-1990s, however, the density of Pygmy Whitefish appears to have declined dramatically. Based on the fitted trend line  based on data for the whole lake, density has decline 48% over the last three generations (16 years) (2000 – 25.2 fish∙ha-1 vs. 2016 – 13.1 fish∙ha-1). In contrast to the increase in density recorded when lake surveys were expanded lake-wide in 1989, the post-1994 decline has occurred during a time when sampling was consistent across the lake and is interpreted as a demographic trend rather than an artifact of sampling (Vinson pers. comm. 2015).

The population dynamics of Pygmy Whitefish in the remaining waterbodies cannot currently be assessed considering that detailed population data has only been collected from single populations with limited sampling effort, or through incidental captures. Consequently, the CPUE may not accurately reflect Pygmy Whitefish numbers in a given waterbody across longer time periods.

Rescue effect

Populations of Pygmy Whitefish tend to be highly isolated from one another by residency in remote, deep lakes. Little or no potential exists for adjacent populations to recolonize habitats should Pygmy Whitefish populations become lost or degraded in Alberta, Northwest Territories, or the Yukon, and most localities within British Columbia. Immigration from the United States through the Kootenay River (known as Kootenai River in the U.S.) and Okanagan rivers into British Columbia is possible, but likely limited by the extensive distance separating U.S. and Canadian populations. The Williston watershed in British Columbia is another potential exception, where 14 populations have some historical interconnectedness, but contemporary movement between lakes appears to be limited (Taylor et al. 2011). Canadian populations of Pygmy Whitefish in Lake Superior could experience some rescue effect from fish spawning in American waters.

Threats and limiting factors

Threats and limiting factors for Pygmy Whitefish discussed herein are, in general, poorly documented, but potential threats are probably applicable to most DUs. Threats and limiting factors that are region- or DU-specific are highlighted in the following DU-specific subsections but, again, are poorly known. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s threats calculator (Salafsky et al. 2008) returned overall threat impact estimates of “Unknown” for all DUs (see Appendix II).

Naturally occurring limiting factors

Pygmy Whitefish is considered to be a cool-coldwater stenotherm (i.e., water temperatures less than 10°C and dissolved oxygen concentrations greater than 5 mg/l) and water temperature may be the greatest natural factor limiting its distribution. The dispersal and migration abilities of Pygmy Whitefish in general are unknown. Given its small size (maximum ~150 mm TL for the “regular” form and 260 mm TL for the rare “giant” form), its ability to disperse into upstream areas of watersheds is likely limited. For example, spawning migrations are typically only 1 to 4 km upriver (Barnett and Paige 2014). Pygmy Whitefish can be prey items for most predatory fishes, particularly other salmonid species with which they share habitat (Dryer et al. 1965; Fraley and Shepard 1989). Pygmy Whitefish has been documented in the stomach contents of Lake Trout collected from Atlin Lake (Barker pers. comm. 2014) and likely is a common prey item wherever the two species coexist. Because of the high Lake Trout density and the low numbers of Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) in Atlin Lake, it is suspected Pygmy Whitefish may be supporting the Lake Trout population as a prey item (Barker pers. comm. 2014). There are, however, no data with which to quantify what, if any impact predation may be having on Pygmy Whitefish populations. The recovery of Lake Trout to pre-1940s levels in Lake Superior (Krueger and Ebner 2004; OMNR 2010) may, in part, be responsible for observed declines in Pygmy Whitefish since the 1990s (see Fluctuations and Trends).

Anthropogenic threats

Risks associated with anthropogenic threats were derived from expert opinion (consultation of seven regional biologists/scientific researchers who are familiar with the species within their regions: two from each Yukon, British Columbia, and Ontario, and one from the Northwest Territories). Actual impacts of anthropogenic activities on Pygmy Whitefish populations have, however, not been quantified.

Degradation and loss of habitat

Degradation of habitat associated with disruptive land-use practices, such as commercial forestry, hydroelectric, oil, gas and mining development, agriculture, and urbanization pose the greatest potential anthropogenic threats to Pygmy Whitefish. Siltation of spawning streams or lake shorelines would limit successful spawning, and eliminate interstitial spaces for overwintering. Nutrient enrichment from local agriculture and urban run-off could result in excessive algal growth and depression of oxygen levels in deeper waters, rendering habitat unsuitable for Pygmy Whitefish. Nutrient enrichment and siltation both may stem from poor forest-management practices and increased urban and rural land development. Construction of roads, bridges, dams and other in-stream structures may disrupt spawning migrations; however, the extent to which Pygmy Whitefish access rivers for spawning within their Canadian range is unknown.

Water-level fluctuations associated with hydroelectric production may restrict access to foraging or spawning habitat, and/or leave Pygmy Whitefish eggs and fry stranded; particularly during fall and winter reductions in water levels. Only four waterbodies known to contain Pygmy Whitefish in Canada have hydroelectric facilities with water level reductions (“drawdowns”) significant enough to potentially impact Pygmy Whitefish (Atlin Lake, YT (DU1), and Mayo Lake, YT (DU2), Kootenay Lake, BC (DU3), and Williston Reservoir, BC (DU4)). As such, the current threat to Pygmy Whitefish from hydroelectric dams does not appear widespread.

Introduced species

Pygmy Whitefish can be prey items for most predatory fishes, particularly other salmonid species with which it shares habitat (Dryer et al. 1965; Fraley and Shepard 1989; McPhail and Zemlak 2001). Pygmy Whitefish has persisted in Dina Lake No. 1, BC, despite 20 years of intentional stocking of exotic Rainbow Trout and Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (Zemlak and McPhail 2006). It is unknown, however, if the population size is depressed below what it would be in the absence of stocking, nor is it known if other populations of Pygmy Whitefish could sustain a similar stocking pressure. Intentional and unintentional stocking with non-native predatory fish may affect Pygmy Whitefish populations negatively, particularly in smaller closed basin lakes where refuge from predation may be limited.

Climate change

Global warming associated with climate change in North America is likely to exceed global means in most areas, with projected warming ranges lying between 3°C and 5°C over most of the continent to the year 2100 (Christensen et al. 2007). Impacts of climate change on coldwater habitat generally will appear locally as changes in habitat quality and regionally as range contractions northwards as thermal warming exceeds species’ preferences or tolerances (Thomas et al. 2004; Reist et al. 2006). Temperatures preferred by Pygmy Whitefish are generally present below the thermocline, i.e., in the hypolimnion (McPhail and Carveth 1992; Selegby and Hoff 1996). Surface temperatures of lakes are predicted to increase as mean air temperatures rise resulting in a deeper thermocline, reduced hypolimnetic volume and increased risk of hypolimnetic anoxia. This may reduce or eliminate habitat for many Pygmy Whitefish populations that are stenothermic and unable to adapt and survive such changes, although specific scenarios have not been modelled for Pygmy Whitefish (cf. Chu et al. 2005).

Temperature has a major controlling effect on physiological processes and on reproduction in particular. Spawning activity of cold water species is expected to be negatively impacted by an increase in fall water temperature. For example, an increase in fall water temperatures of 1°C and 3°C decreased Lake Trout survival at hatching by 2.4 and 20.1 times, respectively (Casselman 2002). The effects of increasing water temperature on reproductive success of Pygmy Whitefish has not been documented, but could be similar to that of Lake Trout given that both are generally characterized as coldwater stenotherms.

Overexploitation

Pygmy Whitefish is not considered a sport fish within Canada nor is it listed in the possession limit section of provincial or territorial sport fishing regulations, meaning they are considered non-game fish and, therefore, anglers have no restriction on the number of Pygmy Whitefish they may keep. Only five populations of Pygmy Whitefish in Jasper, Waterton, Yoho, and Kluane National Parks are protected from exploitation (see Legal Protection and Status below). In British Columbia, recreational fishery regulations, however, limit the daily catch of whitefish (all species combined) to 15. This, coupled with the small size of Pygmy Whitefish and remoteness of most waterbodies, renders them less susceptible to overexploitation.

Potential threats to specific DUs

DU1 – Southwestern Yukon Beringian populations

Threats to these populations are not well known, but may exist from the early winter drawdown of water level released from the dam on Canyon Lake, just downstream of Aishihik Lake. Draw-down may leave eggs stranded and/or restrict access to foraging habitat. There are no known threats to the Kathleen Lake population.

Pygmy Whitefish populations in Atlin Lake may experience water-level fluctuations on the order of 2.5 m/year as levels are drawn down to supply water for the hydroelectric facility on the Yukon River during the ice-covered period. Of particular concern, is the dewatering of eggs laid in late autumn (Barker pers. comm. 2014). Unfortunately, data do not exist to quantify what, if any impact water-level fluctuations may be having on Pygmy Whitefish populations.

DU2 – Yukon River populations

Little information exists on Pygmy Whitefish in the Yukon River making it difficult to assess specific threats to this population (Barker pers. comm. 2014). In the Yukon, there is little disturbance related to oil and gas, or to forestry (Barker pers. comm. 2014). The most pertinent threats would come from mining. Threats presented by hard-rock mining are likely limited and would be in the form of chronic or catastrophic release of contaminated water (Barker pers. comm. 2014). Placer mining threats would be most likely to take the form of sediment deposit from rivers and creeks onto critical areas (e.g. spawning, rearing,) and the release of deleterious substances (e.g., fuel, oil) from equipment. There are, however, no specific cases where this is known to be occurring (Barker pers. comm. 2014).

DU3 – Pacific populations

Degradation of habitat associated with disruptive land use practices, such as commercial forestry, hydroelectric and mining development, agriculture, and urbanization pose the greatest potential anthropogenic threats to Pygmy Whitefish. Within DU3, Kootenay, Okanagan, and McLeese lakes have extensive urban, recreational (e.g., cottage), agriculture (e.g., orchards) and/or forestry development within their watershed (BCMOE 2014). Nutrient input from non-point sources (e.g., agriculture, forest harvesting, and septic tank systems), run-off of road pollutants (e.g., salts, oil), and accidental spills of fuel and fertilizers from urban/rural centers are the greatest potential threats to Pygmy Whitefish and their habitat. Accidental spills of fuel or oil from recreation boats also pose a risk, but this risk is more pertinent to DU3 as a whole.

Increasing development pressure on Kootenay Lake has resulted in the Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) documenting baseline conditions of Kootenay Lake to help develop shoreline-planning policies (Schleppe 2011). Similarly, water-quality objectives for Okanagan Lake have been established to protect the lake from deterioration with the intention of protecting water quality for recreation and aesthetics, drinking water and aquatic life (fisheries) (Nordin 2005). A proactive approach to managing/protecting water quality and aquatic habitat in these lakes suggests the risk from anthropogenic activities may be low.

Corra Linn Dam is a hydroelectric facility located on the Kootenay River west of Nelson, BC. Water levels are drawn down as much as 2 m over the course of winter (Riseh 2006). Water-level fluctuations such as this may restrict access to foraging or spawning habitat, and/or leave Pygmy Whitefish eggs and/or fry stranded. It is unknown, however, what, if any impact water-level changes have had on the Pygmy Whitefish population.

Placer mining occurs adjacent to Jack of Clubs Lake (BCMOE 2014). Threats from placer mining would include sediment deposit from rivers and creeks onto spawning, rearing, and foraging habitat, and the release of deleterious substances (e.g., fuel, oil) from equipment. Placer mining operations in the region are small (relative to the Yukon) and impacts may be minimal. It is unknown if placer mining has had an impact on Pygmy Whitefish in Jack of Clubs Lake.

Stocking non-native predatory fish may negatively affect Pygmy Whitefish populations. Rainbow Trout is stocked regularly into 29% of the lakes in DU3 containing Pygmy Whitefish (e.g., Cluculz, Jack of Clubs, Moose, and Tyhee Lakes) (BCMOE 2014). Rainbow Trout may prey on Pygmy Whitefish, but more likely interact as competitors because both Pygmy Whitefish and Rainbow Trout are insectivores. Nonetheless, the impact of Rainbow Trout on Pygmy Whitefish population size/structure in these and other lakes are unknown. Rainbow Trout was stocked into Yellowhead and Okanagan lakes in the 1950s and 60s, respectively; however, there has been no recent stocking. Stocking does not occur in the remainder of the lakes containing Pygmy Whitefish in DU3.

DU4 – Western Arctic populations

The reach of the upper Athabasca River is paralleled by a major pipeline and railway corridor (Sullivan 2011). The frequency of pipeline and railway spills/accidents were estimated to occur at 0.29 and 1.5 per year as extrapolated from Alberta and Canadian statistics, respectively (Sullivan 2011). Consequently, accidental spills of deleterious substances (e.g., fuel, chemicals, fertilizer) from pipelines and railways have been identified as a significant risk to Pygmy Whitefish (Sullivan 2011).

Forestry activity likely poses the greatest threat to Pygmy Whitefish within the Williston Reservoir watershed (Davidson and Dawson 1990). Poor forestry practices can degrade Pygmy Whitefish habitat through siltation of spawning streams or lake shorelines. Nutrient enrichment from overland run-off could result in excessive algal growth and depression of oxygen levels in deeper waters. Several lakes in the Williston watershed are accessible by air only (Aiken, Quentin, Tutizzi, Weissener lakes, BC) and, thus, presumed generally isolated from anthropogenic impacts.

Water levels in Williston Reservoir are regulated by the W.A.C. Bennett Dam (a hydroelectric facility). Water levels fluctuate, 11 m annually on average (Water Survey of Canada 2015). Such extreme fluctuations in water level may pose a risk to the Pygmy Whitefish population by restricting tributary access to foraging habitat in the spring. In addition, with the creation of the reservoir, it is uncertain how it may act as a “barrier” for migration between river systems (Taylor et al. 2011). Several uranium mines are located near Lake Athabasca. Chronic or catastrophic release of contaminated water from retention ponds and/or leaching of heavy metals from tailings are of particular concern. The effects of heavy-metal exposure on fishes may include mortality, reduced fertility, slower growth and development. In addition, heavy metals alter various developmental processes during the embryonic period resulting in reductions of offspring quantity and quality (Jezierska et al. 2009). Stocking with non-native fishes may negatively affect Pygmy Whitefish populations through predation or competition. Two lakes in DU4 (Dina Lake No. 1 and Manson Lakes, BC) have been stocked (Rainbow Trout in each lake) in the last decade (BCMOE 2014). Although Pygmy Whitefish continue to persist in these lakes, it is unclear what if any impact stocking may have on population size or structure.

DU5 – Great Lakes – Upper St. Lawrence populations

Lake Superior has been historically less impacted by anthropogenic activities than the other Great Lakes and most serious issues are specific to particular shoreline areas near urban developments (USEPA 2016). For instance, extensive shoreline development is one of the most pressing issues facing Lake Superior (USEPA 2005b). Discharges of deleterious substances from point and non-point sources (e.g., waste water, sewers, fertilizers, and pesticides), recreation and commercial boats (e.g., oil and gas), and run-off of road pollutants are potential threats to Pygmy Whitefish and their habitat. Concentrations of dieldrin, mercury, PCBs, and toxaphene in Lake Superior continue to exceed the Environment Canada and US Environmental Protection Agency water-quality standards (USEPA 2014). Pharmaceuticals, personal-care products and flame retardants are being detected in the lake and are of emerging concern for fishes (USEPA 2014). Many of these compounds are endocrine disruptors affecting reproduction and development (Brausch and Rand 2011). Actual impacts of pharmaceuticals, personal-care products, and flame retardants on Pygmy Whitefish in Lake Superior are not known. However, given the area (82,100 km2) and volume (12,000 km3) of Lake Superior, and high degree of intact forest cover (85%), long-term impacts on water quality for the lake as a whole are considered to be minor (USEPA 2014).

Surface-water temperatures have increased approximately 3.5°C over the past 35 to 40 years and average annual ice-cover has decreased 79% since the 1970s (USEPA 2016). The spawning activities of coldwater species, such as Pygmy Whitefish, may be negatively impacted by rising fall water temperature if such changes, for instance, alter developmental rates such that a mismatch occurs between the timing of critical developmental stages and environmental conditions that promote survival of young (e.g., prey species availability).

Lake Superior contains several invasive fish species that may negatively affect Pygmy Whitefish through predation or competition. These species include: Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax), Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus), Eurasian Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernua), and Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp). Low-head barriers introduced to control invasive Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) may also impact Pygmy Whitefish if they use rivers to spawn.

DU6 – Waterton Lake

Upper Waterton Lake is contained entirely within a National Park. No significant development is occurring at present or is planned in the near to medium future (Sullivan 2011); consequently, local threats to habitat from anthropogenic disturbance are likely low.

The hamlet of Waterton Park (located on the shore of Upper Waterton Lake), however, has a permanent population of 160 and experiences approximately 380,000 visitors annually (Sullivan 2011). Consequently, Pygmy Whitefish and its habitat may be threatened by accidental discharges of deleterious substances from the town, boats, and run-off of road pollutants (Sullivan 2011). Waterton Lake is unique from other lakes occupied by Pygmy Whitefish in that its oligotrophic status may be maintained by low water temperatures and not low nutrient concentrations (Anderson and Dokulil 1977). Increases in lake temperature as a result of climate warming could shift the trophic state of the lake, such that it is no longer suitable for Pygmy Whitefish (Sullivan 2011).

DU7 – Nelson River

Winnange Lake is contained entirely within a Provincial Park, whereas the three other lakes are located on undeveloped, but non-park, Crown lands. Winnange Lake is an undeveloped park with no services or roads into its interior. Consequently, local threats to habitat from anthropogenic disturbance are likely low. No known exotic species have been introduced (e.g. via live-bait introductions) to the four lakes.

Methyl mercury is a contaminant of concern, even in pristine water bodies like Winnange Lake, ON, because of atmospheric deposition (Blanchfield pers. comm. 2014). Methyl mercury concentrations measured in precipitation across northwestern Ontario ranged between 0.010 to 0.179 mg/l (St. Louis et al. 1995). Nearly all methylmercury accumulation in tissues of fishes in the Experimental Lakes Area was found to originate from mercury deposited directly to the lake surface (i.e., precipitation) (Harris et al. 2007). Although Pygmy Whitefish is generally a small-bodied fish, studies of European Whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus) have demonstrated accumulation of mercury both in pelagic and benthic, non-piscivorous feeding forms (Amundsen et al. 2011). Effects of methylmercury exposure on wildlife can include mortality, reduced fertility, slower growth and development, and changes in age at maturation (Weis 2009; Amundsen et al. 2011). It is unknown, however, what, if any impact methyl mercury may be having on the Pygmy Whitefish population in northwestern Ontario lakes.

Number of locations

Pygmy Whitefish is located primarily in small, deep, boreal and montane lakes and the number of locations is interpreted in terms of a single threatening event that could rapidly affect all individuals. Given the various threats discussed above and the likelihood that the scope and intensity of each plausible threat would act independently within each lake or river, each lake or river occurrence of Pygmy Whitefish is considered a separate location. Some individual lakes and rivers, however, are quite large (e.g., Atlin Lake, Okanagan Lake, Kootenay Lake, upper Athabasca River, Lake Superior) and if more localized threats are documented, the number of locations within any one lake or river may be greater than one.

Protection, status and ranks

Legal protection and status

The protection afforded by the federal Fisheries Act is uncertain because the Pygmy Whitefish is unlikely to be considered to be of direct significance to Commercial, Recreational, or Aboriginal (CRA) fisheries. It may, however, receive protection if it can be demonstrated to be supporting a CRA fishery species.

Provincially (Alberta, Ontario) and territorially (Yukon, Northwest Territories), Pygmy Whitefish is not considered a sport fish, nor is it listed in the possession-limit section of sport fishing regulation synopses; i.e., they are considered non-game fish, which generally means that anglers have no restriction on the number of Pygmy Whitefish they may keep. Within British Columbia, Pygmy Whitefish is included in the daily limit of 15 whitefish (all species combined). The “giant” form of Pygmy Whitefish has been listed as Threatened in British Columbia (Cannings and Ptolemy 1998).

Under the National Park Sport Fishing Regulations (Minister of Justice 2010) Pygmy Whitefish is not specifically listed in the catch-and-possession limits and, therefore, falls into the category of “other species” that have a retention limit of zero. Five populations of Pygmy Whitefish within Jasper, Waterton, Yoho, and Kluane national parks are, therefore, protected from exploitation. Habitat is protected by the National Parks Act where it occurs in a national park or national park reserve.

Non-legal status and ranks

From NatureServe (2017):
Globally G5
Canada N5

Canada

Alberta S1
British Columbia S4, Yellow in BC Conservation Data Centre
Northwest Territories SU
Ontario SU
Yukon S4

United States

Alaska S4
Washington State S1S2
Montana S3
Idaho SNR
Wisconsin S2
Minnesota SNR
Michigan S4

Habitat protection and ownership

Yukon and Northwest Territories (DU1, 4)

Kathleen Lake is located within Kluane National Park. The other waterbodies known to contain Pygmy Whitefish are located on territorial-owned lands.

British Columbia (DU1-4)

Arctic Lake, Kickinghorse River, Quentin Lake, and Moose lakes are located in Arctic Lake Provincial Park, Yoho National Park, and Kwadacha Wilderness Provincial Park, respectively. The remaining 27 water bodies known to contain Pygmy Whitefish are on crown, non-park lands.

Alberta (DU4, 6)

Approximately 32 km (70%) of Upper Athabasca River with Pygmy Whitefish is located in Jasper National Park, whereas the Waterton Lakes is entirely within Waterton Lakes National Park in Canada and Glacier National Park in the US.

Saskatchewan (DU4)

Lake Athabasca straddles the border of Alberta and Saskatchewan and is within provincially owned lands.

Ontario (DU5, 7)

Winnange Lake is located within Winnange Lake Provincial Park, and the three other lakes in northwestern Ontario are located on provincially owned lands. Lake Superior straddles an international boundary. The percentage of Lake Superior used by Pygmy Whitefish within Canada is unknown. Approximately 33% of Canadian waters of Lake Superior is in the Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area, which does not protect it from exploitation.

Acknowledgements and authorities contacted

Special thanks to each of the contacts listed below for their rapid responses to my enquiries and providing direction to additional contacts. Thanks are extended to Tyler Weir (B.C. Ministry of Environment), Paul Vecsei (Golder), Randy Zemlak (B.C. Hydro), and Mark Vinson (USGS) for sharing field data and providing insight on their studies. Finally, thanks to Jenny Wu and Julie Beaulieu (COSEWIC) for completing the extent of occurrence and area of occupancy calculations.

Canadian Wildlife Service

Rhonda L. Millikin
Head Population Assessment
Canadian Wildlife Service
Environment Canada
Delta, BC
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Shelagh Bucknell
Administrative Services Assistant, Species at Risk
Environment Canada
Gloucester, ON
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Dave Duncan
Manager, Population Conservation Section
Environment Canada
Edmonton, AB
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Bruce MacDonald
Canadian Wildlife Services
Environment Canada
Yellowknife, NT
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Vanessa Charlwood
Canadian Wildlife Service
Environment Canada
Yellowknife, NT
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Rich Russell
Canadian Wildlife Services
Environment Canada
Downsview, ON
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Syd Cannings
Species at Risk Biologist
Canadian Wildlife Service
Environment Canada
Whitehorse, YT
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Simon Nadeau
Science Advisor
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Ottawa, ON
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Christie Whelan
Science Advisor
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Ottawa, ON
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Jennifer Shaw
Science Advisor, Fish Population Science
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Ottawa, ON
Contacted: Mar. 17, 2014

Doug Watkinson
Fisheries Biologist
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Winnipeg, MB
Contacted: Mar. 17, 2014

Tom Pratt
Research Scientist
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Contacted: Mar. 17, 2014

Kathleen Martin
Fisheries Biologist
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Winnipeg, MB
Contacted: Mar. 17, 2014

Paul Blanchfield
Research Scientist
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Winnipeg, MB
Contacted: Oct. 17, 2014

Parks Canada

Patrick Nantel
Office of the Chief Ecosystems Scientist
Parks Canada
Gatineau, QC
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Tamaini Snaith
Special Advisor, Ecological Integrity
Parks Canada
Gatineau, QC
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Provincial / territorial representative(s) corresponding to the range of the wildlife species

Nathan Millar
Senior Fisheries Biologist
Environment Yukon
Whitehorse, YT
Contacted: Apr. 19, 2014

Gordon Court
Provincial Wildlife Status Biologist
Dept. of Sustainable Resource Development
Government of Alberta
Edmonton, AB
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Greg A. Wilson
Aquatic Species at Risk Specialist
Ecosystem Protection & Sustainability Branch
Ministry of Environment
Victoria, BC
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Jeff Burrows
Senior Fisheries Biologist
Ministry of Environment
Nelson, BC
Contacted: Mar. 28, 2014

Suzanne Carrière
Biologist (Biodiversity)
Department of Environment
Yellowknife, NT
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Vivian R. Brownell
Senior Species at Risk Biologist
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Peterborough, ON
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Fritz Fischer
Assessment Supervisor
Upper Great Lakes Management Unit
Ignace, ON
Contacted: Apr. 19, 2014

Todd Powell
Manager, Biodiversity Programs
Environment Yukon
Whitehorse, YT
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Thomas Jung
Senior Wildlife Biologist
Environment Yukon
Whitehorse, YT
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Eric Berglund
Fisheries Assessment Biologist
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Thunder Bay, ON
Contacted: Apr. 22, 2014

Mark Vinson (USGS)
Station Chief U.S. Geological Survey
Lake Superior Biological Station
Ashland, WI USA
Contacted: April 26, 2014 and September 04, 2015

Tyler Weir
Large Lakes Ecosystems Specialist
Ecosystems Protection and Sustainability Branch
Ministry of Environment
Vancouver, BC
Contacted: Mar. 31, 2014

Conservation Data Centre(s) or Natural Heritage Information Centre(s)

Katrina Stipec
British Columbia Conservation Data Centre
Ministry of Environment
Victoria, BC
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Bruce Bennett
Yukon Conservation Data Centre
Whitehorse, YT
Contacted: Apr. 19, 2014

COSEWIC secretariat

Sonia Schnobb
Administrative Assistant
COSEWIC Secretariat
Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada
Gatineau, QC
Contacted: Mar. 13, 2014

Neil Jones, M.Sc.
Scientific Project Officer & ATK Coordinator, COSEWIC
Gatineau, QC
Contacted: Mar. 20, 2014

Jenny Wu
COSEWIC Secretariat
Canadian Wildlife Service
Environment Canada
Gatineau, QC
Contacted: Oct. 17 and Nov. 18, 2014

Other relevant contacts

Dustin Ford R.P. Bio
Senior Fisheries Biologist, Golder
Castlegar, BC
Contacted: March 13, 2014

Erling Holm
Assistant Curator of Fishes
Department of Natural History
Royal Ontario Museum
Toronto, ON
Contacted: June 30, 2015

Joseph Rasmussen
Professor, University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge, AB
Contacted: Dec. 15, 2014 (No response)

Heather Weibe
Resource Manager, Mackenzie Natural Resource District
Mackenzie, BC
Contacted: July 3, 2015

Randy Zemlak, R.P. Bio.
Natural Resource Specialist, BC Hydro
Prince George, BC
Contacted: May 26 and Dec. 15, 2014

Paul Vecsei
Fisheries Biologist, Golder
Yellowknife, NT
Dec. 15, 2014

Information sources

Amundsen, P.A., N.A, Kashulin, P., Terentjev, K.Ø. Gjelland, I.M. Koroleva, V.A. Dauvalter, S. Sandimirov, A, Kashulin, R. and Knudsen, R., 2011. Heavy metal contents in whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus) along a pollution gradient in a subarctic watercourse. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 182: 301-316.

Anderson, R., and M. Dokulil. 1977. Assessments of primary and bacterial production in three large mountain lakes in Alberta, Western Canada. International Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie 62: 97-108.

Barker, O., pers. comm. 2014. Email correspondence to Jeff Sereda April 2014. Senior Fisheries Biologist, Environment Yukon, Whitehorse, Yukon.

Barnett, H.K., and D.K. Paige. 2014. Characteristics of riverine broadcast spawning Pygmy Whitefish. Northwest Science 88: 155-168.

British Columbia Environment. 2007. Perch invasion closes eight Thompson-Nicola Lakes. British Columbia Ministry of Environment Information Bulletin. 2007ENV0072-000763, 8 June 2007.

Blanchfield, P.J., pers. comm. 2014. Email correspondence to Jeff Sereda January 2015. Fisheries Biologist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Blanchfield, P.J., pers. comm. 2015. Email correspondence to Jeff Sereda January 2015. Research Scientist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Blanchfield, P.J., E.B., Taylor, and D.A. Watkinson. 2014. Morphological and genetic analyses identify new record of a glacial relict: Pygmy Whitefish (Prosopium coulterii) from northwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 92: 267-271.

Brausch, J.M., and G.M. Rand. 2011. A review of personal care products in the aquatic environment: Environmental concentrations and toxicity. Chemosphere. 82: 1518-1532.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BCMOE). 2014. Fisheries Inventory Data Queries. [accessed October 2014.

Bronte, C.R., M.P. Ebener, D.R. Schreiner, D.S. DeVault, M.M. Petzold, D.A. Jensen, C. Richards, and S.J. Lozano. 2003. Fish community change in Lake Superior, 1970–2000. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 60: 1552-1574.

Cannings, S.G., and J. Ptolemy. 1998. Rare freshwater fish of British Columbia. British Columbia Environment, Victoria, BC. 214 pp.

Casselman, J.M. 2002. Effects of temperature, global extremes,and climate change on year-class production of warmwater, coolwater and coldwater fishes in the Great Lakes basin. Fisheries in a changing climate (ed. by N.A. McGinn), pp. 39–60. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 32, Bethesda, Maryland.

Chereshnev, I.A, and M.B. Skopets. 1992. A new record of the Pygmy Whitefish, Prosopium coulterii, from the Amguem River basin (Chukotski Peninsula). Journal of Ichthyology 32: 46-55.

Christensen, J.H., B. Hewitson, A. Busuioc, A. Chen, X. Gao, I. Held, R. Jones, R.K. Kollii, W.-T. Kwon, R. Laprise, V. Magaña Rueda, L. Mearns, C.G. Menéndez, J. Räisänen, A. Rinke, A. Sarr, and P. Whetton. 2007. Regional climate projections. Pp. 848-926 in S. Solomon, D. Quin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.). Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Chu, C. pers. comm. 2016. Email correspondence to Nick Mandrak October 2016. Research Scientist, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, Ontario.

Chu, C., N.E. Mandrak, and C.K. Minns. 2005. Potential impacts of climate change on the distributions of several common and rare freshwater fishes in Canada. Diversity and Distributions 11: 299-310.

COSEWIC. 2014. Guidelines for Recognizing Designatable Units. Website: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct2/sct2_5_e.cfm [accessed December 2014]

Davidson, P.W., and R. Dawson. 1990. Williston wildlife compensation program management plan, 1990. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Report No. 5. 44 pp.

Dryer, W., L. Erkkla, and C. Tetzloff. 1965. Food of lake trout in Lake Superior. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 94: 169-176.

Eschmeyer, P.P., and R.M. Bailey. 1955. The Pygmy Whitefish, Corgonus coulterii, in Lake Superior. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 84: 161-199.

Fraley, J., and B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and river system, Montana. Northwest Science 63:133-142.

Fraser, D.J., L.K. Weir, L. Bernatchez, M.M. Hansen, and E.B. Taylor. 2011. Extent and scale of local adaptation in salmonid fishes: review and meta-analysis. Heredity 106: 404-420.

Gowell, C.P., T.P. Quinn, and E.B. Taylor. 2012. Coexistence and origin of trophic ecotypes of Pygmy Whitefish, Prosopium coulterii, in a south-western Alaskan lake. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 25: 2432-2448.

Hallock, M., and P.E. Mongillo. 1998. Washington state status report for the Pygmy Whitefish. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Wash. 20 pp.

Harris, R.C, J.W.M. Rudd, M. Amyot, C.L. Babiarz, K. G. Beaty, P.J. Blanchfield, R.A. Bodaly, B.A. Branfireun, C.C. Gilmour, J.A. Graydon, A. Heyes, H. Hintelmann, J.P. Hurley, C.A. Kelly, D.P. Krabbenhoft, S.E. Lindberg, R.P. Mason, M.J. Paterson, C.L. Podemski, A. Robinson, K.A. Sandilands, G.R. Southworth, V.L. St. Louis, and M.T. Tate. 2007. Whole-ecosystem study shows rapid fish-mercury response to changes in mercury deposition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 16586–16591.

Heard, W.R., and W.L. Hartman. 1965. Pygmy whitefish in the Naknek River system of southwest Alaska. Fishery Bulletin 65: 555-579 pp.

Jezierska, B., K. Ługowska, and M. Witeska. 2009. The effects of heavy metals on embryonic development of fish (a review). Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 35: 625-640.

Jung, T. Email correspondence to E. Taylor Dec. 9, 2015. Yukon Environment, Government of Yukon, Whitehorse.

Krueger, C. C. and M. Ebner. 2004. Rehabilitation of lake trout in the Great Lakes: past lessons and future challenges. pp. 37-56 In: J.M. Gunn, R.J. Stedman, and R.A. Ryder (eds.). Boreal Shield watersheds: Lake trout ecosystems in a changing environment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.

Lindsey, C.C., and J.D. McPhail, 1986.Zoogeography of fishes of the Yukon and Mackenzie basins. pp. 639-674 In:C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley (eds.). Zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.

Mayhood, D.W. 1992. A preliminary assessment of the native fish stocks of Jasper National Park, Part 3 of a fish management plan for Jasper National Parks. Prepared for Canadian Parks Service, Jasper, Alberta. 296 pp.

McCart, P. 1965. Growth and morphometry of four British Columbia populations of Pygmy Whitefish (Prosopium coulteri). Journal of Fisheries Research Board Canada 22: 1229-1259.

McCart, P. 1970. Evidence for the existence of sibling species of Pygmy Whitefish (Prosopium coulterii) in three Alaskan lakes. pp. 81-98 In: C.C. Lindsey and C.S. Woods (eds.). Biology of Coregonid Fishes. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 560 pp.

McDonald, T.E., and L. Margolis. 1995. Synopsis of the parasites of fishes of Canada: Supplement (1978-1993). National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, 1995. 265 pp.

McPhail, J.D. 2007. The freshwater fishes of British Columbia. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton. 620 pp.

McPhail, J.D., and C.C. Lindsey. 1970. Freshwater fishes of north-western Canada and Alaska. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bull 173, Ottawa, Ontario. 381 pp.

McPhail, J.D., and R. Carveth. 1992. A foundation for conservation: the nature and origin of the freshwater fish fauna of British Columbia. University of British Columbia, Department of Zoology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 39 pp.

McPhail, J.D., and R. Zemlak. 2001. Pygmy whitefish studies on Dina Lake #1, 2000.Peace/Williston fish and wildlife compensation program report No. 245.

Millar, N., pers. comm. 2014. Email correspondence to Jeff Sereda April 2014. Senior Fisheries Biologist, Environment Yukon, Whitehorse, Yukon.

Minister of Justice, 2010. National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1120). Website: Justice Laws Website [accessed June 2015].

Mitchell, L.G. 1989. Myxobolid parasites (Myxozoa: Myxobolidae) infecting fishes of western Montana, with notes on histopathology, seasonality, and intraspecific variation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67: 1915-1922.

Mudry, D.R., and R.S. Anderson. 1977. Helminth and arthropod parasite of fishes in the mountain national parks of Canada. Journal of Fish Biology 11: 21-33.

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer. [accessed January 2017].

Nelson, J.S., and M.J. Paetz. 1992. The fishes of Alberta, 2nd ed. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton Alberta. 438 pp.

Nordin, R.N. 2005. Water quality objectives for Okanagan Lake – A first update. Limnos Water Associates. North Saanich, British Columbia, Canada. 135 pp.

Northcote, T.G. 1997. Potamodromy in Salmonidae-living and moving in the fast lane. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 1029-1045.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. State of resources reporting. Lake Trout in the upper Great Lakes [PDF; 5.01 Mb]. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment Section 300 Water Street, Peterborough, ON, K9J 8M5. Available at: [accessed March 28, 2016].

Rankin, L. 1999. Phylogenetic and ecological relationships between “giant” Pygmy Whitefish (Prosopium spp.) and Pygmy Whitefish (Prosopium coulterii) in north-central British Columbia. Master of Science Thesis, University of Northern British Columbia, August 1999. 132 pp.

Rasmussen, J.B., L. Brinkmann, and G. Scrimgeour. 2009. Waterton Lakes gill net survey program: towards a plan for a fish monitoring program. Report prepared for Resource Conservation, Western and Northern Service Centre. Parks Canada, Calgary, Alberta. 49 pp.

Reist, J., F. Wrona, T. Prowse, M. Power, J. Dempson, R. Beamish, J. King, T. Carmichael, and C. Sawatzky. 2006. General effects of climate change on Arctic fish populations. Ambio 35: 370-380.

Riseh, H.A. 2006. Optimization of the Kootenay River hydroelectric system with a linear programing model. M.Sc. dissertation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.115 pp.

Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, A. J. Stattersfield, C. Hilton-Taylor, R. Neugarten, S. H. M. Butchart, B. Collen, N. Cox, L. L. Master, S. O’Connor, and D. Wilkie. 2008. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology 22: 897-911.

Selegby, J.H. and M.H Hoff. 1996. Seasonal bathymetric distribution of 16 fishes in Lake Superior 1958-75. United States Department of the Interior National Biological Service, Science Report No. 7.

Schleppe, J. 2011. Foreshore inventory and mapping – Kootenay Lake Main Arm. Ecoscape Environmental Consultants Ltd, Kelowna, British Columbia. 86 pp.

Schwalb, A.N., A.C. Alexander, A.J. Paul, K. Cottenie, and J.B. Rasmussen. 2014. Changes in migratory fish communities and their health, hydrology, and water chemistry in rivers of the Athabasca oil sands region: a review of historical and current data. Environmental Reviews 23: 1-18.

Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bull. 184., Ottawa, Ontario. 966 pp.

St. Louis, V.L., J.W.M. Rudd, C.A. Kelly, and L.A. Barrie. 1995. Wet deposition of methyl mercury in northwestern Ontario compared to other geographic locations. Water Air, and Soil Pollution 80: 405-414.

Sullivan, M. 2011. Status of the Pygmy Whitefish (Prosopium coulterii) in Alberta. Wildlife Status Report No. 27. (Update 2011) Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association. Edmonton, Alberta. 61 pp.

Taylor, E.B. 1991. A review of local adaptation in Salmonidae with particular reference to Pacific and Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 98: 185-207.

Taylor, E.B., J.L Gow, J. Witt, and R. Zemlak. 2011. Connectivity among populations of Pygmy Whitefish (Prosopium coulterii) in northwestern North America inferred from microsatellite DNA analysis. Canadian Journal of Zoology 89: 255-266.

Taylor, E.B. University of British Columbia, Department of Zoology. Personal communication, March 22, 2016.

Thomas, C., A. Cameron, R. Green, M. Bakkenes, L. Beaumont, Y. Collingham, B. Erasmus, M. SIqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A. Jaarsveld, G. Midgley, L. Miles, M. Ortega-Huerta, A. Peterson, O. Phillips, and S. Williams. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145-148.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada. 2013. Statistical Summary - Railway Occurrences 2013. Catalogue No. TU1-2/2013E-PDF

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005a. State of the Great Lakes 2005. Website: http://www.epa.gov/solec/indicator_sheets/superior.pdf [accessed January 2015].

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005b. What are the current stressors impacting Lake Superior? [PDF; 831 Kb] United States Environmental Protection Agency. [accessed March 28, 2016].

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016. Lake Superior Great Lakes Areas of Concern. United States Environmental Protection Agency. [accessed March 28, 2016].

Vecsei, P, and D. Panayi. 2015. Range extension for Pygmy Whitefish (Prosopium coulterii) in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 129: 70–75.

Vinson, M. 2014. Email correspondence to Jeff Sereda April 2014, E. Taylor September and November 2015, and Nick Mandrak, October 2016. Station Chief United States Geological Survey, Lake Superior Biological Station Ashland, Wisconsin USA.

Water Survey of Canada. 2015. Water Office – Environment Canada Archived Hydrometric Data. 2015. [accessed February 2015].

Weir, T., pers. comm. 2014. Email correspondence to Jeff Sereda March 2014. Large Lakes Ecosystems Specialist, Ecosystems Protection and Sustainability Branch, Ministry of Environment, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Weis, J. 2009. Reproductive, development, and neurobehavioral effects of methylmercury in fish. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C: Environmental Carcinogenesis and Ecotoxicology 27: 212-225.

Weisel, G.F., and J.B. Dillon. 1954. Observations of the Pygmy Whitefish, Prosopium coulterii, from Bull Lake, Montana. Copeia 1954: 124-127.

Weisel, G.F., D.A. Hanzel, and R.L. Newell. 1973. The Pygmy Whitefish, Prosopium coulterii, in western Montana. Fisheries Bulletin 71: 587-596.

Witt, J.D.S., R.J. Zemlak, and E.B. Taylor. 2011. Phylogeny and the origins of the range disjunctions in a north temperate fish, the Pygmy Whitefish (Prosopium coulterii), inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequence analysis. Journal of Biogeography 38:1557-1569.

Zemlak, R.J. and J.D. McPhail. 2004. Pygmy Whitefish studies on Dina Lake #1, 2001. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Report No. 279. 35 pp. plus appendices.

Zemlak, R.J., and J.D. McPhail. 2006. The biology of Pygmy Whitefish, Prosopium coulterii, in a closed sub-boreal lake: spatial distribution and diel movements. Environmental Biology of Fishes 76: 317-327.

Biographical summary of report writer(s)

Jeff Sereda is a Senior Fisheries Habitat and Population Ecologist with the Water Security Agency (WSA) of Saskatchewan where he is responsible for mitigating impacts on fish and fish habitat related to WSA’s activities. Jeff completed a Ph.D. in limnology from the University of Saskatchewan and an Aquaculture Technician Diploma from Sir Sandford Fleming College in Ontario. Jeff currently holds an Adjunct Professor position in the School of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Saskatchewan. Jeff has published 13 peer reviewed scientific papers and presented his research at 49 regional, national, and international conferences. Since 2008 he has taught Ichthyology at the University of Saskatchewan expanding the course curriculum into areas of fisheries ecology, conservation, invasive species, and aquaculture.

Collections examined

No collections were examined.

Appendix I. Phylogroups of Pygmy Whitefish

Phylogroups of Pygmy Whitefish. Table generated from Witt et al. (2011) and E.B. Taylor (Dept. of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, unpubl. data*). Phylogroup [southern Alaska (SA), Cascadia/Mackenzie/Yukon (CMAY) and Lake Superior (LS)], lakes sampled, sample sizes (N), and mtDNA sequence haplotype present (H) for 169 Pygmy Whitefish assayed for variation at the ATPase subunit VI mitochondrial gene. Numbers in parentheses beside the haplotypes indicate their abundance in the sample.
Drainage (Phylogroup) Lake N Clade H
Cedar River (CMAY) Chester Morse 2 2 H6(5)
Chignik River (SA) Black 6 1 H23(1), H24(1), H25(4)
Chignik River (SA) Chignik 25 1 H24(10), H25(12), 28 (1), 29 (1), 30 (1)
Ugashik River (SA) Ugashik 6 1 H22(1), H25(3), H26(1)
Nushagak River (SA) Iliamna 1 1 H31 (1)*
Wood River (SA) Aleknagik 1 1 H27 (1)*
Alsek River (SA) Aishihik 2 1 H21(2)
Alsek River (SA) Kathleen 3 1 H32 (3)*
Columbia River (CMAY) Arrow 7 2 H6(5), H10(1), H16(1)
Columbia River (CMAY) Flathead 4 2 H5(1), H6(3)
Columbia River (CMAY) Kootenay 4 2 H16(2), H19(2)
Fraser River (CMAY) Cluculz 2 2 H16(1), H17(1)
Fraser River (CMAY) Jack of Clubs 5 2 H16(5)
Fraser River (CMAY) McCleese 4 2 H16(4)
Peace River (CMAY) Arctic 6 2 H16(6)
Peace River (CMAY) Aiken 5 2 H6(4), H16(1)
Peace River (CMAY) Dina 6 2 H16(6)
Peace River (CMAY) Lower Manson 6 2 H6(3), H16(3)
Peace River (CMAY) Peace Reach 8 2 H14(1), H16(4), H17(1)
Peace River (CMAY) Upper Manson 4 2 H6(2), H16(2)
Peace River (CMAY) Chuchi 6 2 H4(1), H6(4), H9(1)
Peace River (CMAY) Quentin 6 2 H15(5), H16(1)
Peace River (CMAY) Kwadacha River 3 2 H15(2), H16(1)
Peace River (CMAY) Lower Tacheeda 4 2 H1(1), H2(1), H3(1), H7(1)
Peace River (CMAY) Upper Tacheeda 7 2 H6(7)
Peace River (CMAY) Monkman 3 2 H13(1), H6(2)
Peace River (CMAY) Six Mile Bay 6 2 H14(1), H16(4), H18(1)
Peace River (CMAY) Tutizzi 5 2 H6(1), H11(1), H12(1),H16(2)
Peace River (CMAY) Weissener 5 2 H6(4), H8(1)
Skeena River (CMAY) Chapman 5 2 H10(1), H6(2), H16(2)
Skeena River (CMAY) Owen 5 2 H16(5)
Skeena River (CMAY) Tyhee 3 2 H10(2), H16(1)
Great Lakes Basin (LS) Superior 12 3 H20(7)

Appendix II. Threats calculators for Pygmy Whitefish, DU 1-7.

Threats assessment worksheet - DU 1

Species or ecosystem scientific name:
Pygmy Whitefish Prosopium coulterii: DU1 - Southwestern Yukon Beringian populations
Element ID:
-
Elcode:
-
Date:
03/11/2015
Assessor(s):
Jeff Sereda, Bruce Bennett, Tom Jung, Randy Zemlak, Olive Barker, Bill Tonn, Dwayne Lepitzki (moderator), Angele Cyr (recorder)
References:
6-month interim
Overall threat impact calculation help:
Threat impact Threat impact (descriptions) Level 1 threat impact counts:
high range
Level 1 threat impact counts:
low range
A Very high 0 0
B High 0 0
C Medium 0 0
D Low 0 0
- Calculated overall threat impact: - -
Assigned overall threat impact:
U = Unknown
Impact adjustment reasons:
-
Overall threat comments:
-
Threats assessment worksheet table.
# Threat Impact (calculated) Impact (description) Scope (next 10 yrs) Severity (10 yrs or 3 gen.) Timing Comments
1 Residential & commercial development blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
1.1 Housing & urban areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
1.2 Commercial & industrial areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
1.3 Tourism & recreation areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2 Agriculture & aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
2.1 Annual & perennial non-timber crops blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
2.2 Wood & pulp plantations blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.3 Livestock farming & ranching blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
2.4 Marine & freshwater aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
3 Energy production & mining blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
3.1 Oil & gas drilling blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
3.2 Mining & quarrying blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
3.3 Renewable energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
4 Transportation & service corridors blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
4.1 Roads & railroads blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.2 Utility & service lines blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.3 Shipping lanes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
4.4 Flight paths blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
5 Biological resource use blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
5.1 Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
5.3 Logging & wood harvesting blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
5.4 Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
6 Human intrusions & disturbance blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
6.1 Recreational activities blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6.2 War, civil unrest & military exercises blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
6.3 Work & other activities blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
7 Natural system modifications blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
7.1 Fire & fire suppression blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
7.2 Dams & water management/use blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) DU1 Aishihik Lake water drawdown of 1 m during winter; dam has been there for 40 years (operating since 1975); populations of other fish including Lake Whitefish have been impacted, but practices have changed since that time.
7.3 Other ecosystem modifications blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
8 Invasive & other problematic species & genes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
8.2 Problematic native species blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  DU1- Lake Trout predation is not augmented by stocking and is a natural limiting factor.
8.3 Introduced genetic material blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9 Pollution blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
9.1 Household sewage & urban waste water blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.2 Industrial & military effluents blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
9.3 Agricultural & forestry effluents blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.4 Garbage & solid waste blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.5 Air-borne pollutants blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.6 Excess energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10 Geological events blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
10.1 Volcanoes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
10.2 Earthquakes/tsunamis blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
10.3 Avalanches/landslides blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
11 Climate change & severe weather blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
11.1 Habitat shifting & alteration blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable
11.2 Droughts blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.3 Temperature extremes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  There could be benefits to having rising temperature in terms of increased forage productivity.
11.4 Storms & flooding blank  blank  blank  blank  blank   not applicable

Threats assessment worksheet - DU 2

Species or ecosystem scientific name:
Pygmy Whitefish Prosopium coulterii: DU2 - Yukon River populations
Element ID:
-
Elcode:
-
Date:
03/11/2015
Assessor(s):
Jeff Sereda, Bruce Bennett, Tom Jung, Randy Zemlak, Olive Barker, Bill Tonn, Dwayne Lepitzki (moderator), Angele Cyr (recorder)
References:
6-month interim
Overall threat impact calculation help:
Threat impact Threat impact (descriptions) Level 1 threat impact counts:
high range
Level 1 threat impact counts:
low range
A Very high 0 0
B High 0 0
C Medium 0 0
D Low 0 0
- Calculated overall threat impact: - -
Assigned overall threat impact:
U = Unknown
Impact adjustment reasons:
-
Overall threat comments:
Scope difficult to estimate in this DU because PW is being found at additional sites in this DU. Overall impact is unknown.
Threats assessment worksheet table.
# Threat Impact (calculated) Impact (description) Scope (next 10 yrs) Severity (10 yrs or 3 gen.) Timing Comments
1 Residential & commercial development blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
1.1 Housing & urban areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
1.2 Commercial & industrial areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
1.3 Tourism & recreation areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2 Agriculture & aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
2.1 Annual & perennial non-timber crops blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.2 Wood & pulp plantations blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.3 Livestock farming & ranching blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.4 Marine & freshwater aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3 Energy production & mining blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
3.1 Oil & gas drilling blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3.2 Mining & quarrying blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  Hard-rock mining. Additional mining activities for areas not currently mined? Placer mining in Mayo. Effluents from existing mines accounted for under threat 9.2.
3.3 Renewable energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4 Transportation & service corridors blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
4.1 Roads & railroads blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.2 Utility & service lines blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.3 Shipping lanes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.4 Flight paths blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5 Biological resource use blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
5.1 Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.3 Logging & wood harvesting blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.4 Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6 Human intrusions & disturbance blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
6.1 Recreational activities blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6.2 War, civil unrest & military exercises blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6.3 Work & other activities blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
7 Natural system modifications blank  Unknown Small (1-10%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
7.1 Fire & fire suppression blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
7.2 Dams & water management/use blank  Unknown Small (1-10%) Unknown High (Continuing) Reservoir at Mayo, 2.5 m seasonal drawdown, but does not fluctuate otherwise.
7.3 Other ecosystem modifications blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
8 Invasive & other problematic species & genes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
8.2 Problematic native species blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
8.3 Introduced genetic material blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9 Pollution blank  Unknown Small (1-10%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
9.1 Household sewage & urban waste water blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.2 Industrial & military effluents blank  Unknown Small (1-10%) Unknown High (Continuing) Hard-rock effluents leaching into PW habitat. Placer mining on tributaries of Mayo Lake. Placer mining impact would be localized. Unknown impact but potentially sediment impact related. Historical placer mining mostly. Small impact in the next 10 years.
9.3 Agricultural & forestry effluents blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.4 Garbage & solid waste blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.5 Air-borne pollutants blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.6 Excess energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10 Geological events blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
10.1 Volcanoes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10.2 Earthquakes/tsunamis blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10.3 Avalanches/landslides blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11 Climate change & severe weather blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
11.1 Habitat shifting & alteration blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.2 Droughts blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.3 Temperature extremes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.4 Storms & flooding blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable

Threats assessment worksheet - DU 3

Species or ecosystem scientific name:
Pygmy Whitefish Prosopium coulterii: DU3 - Pacific populations
Element ID:
-
Elcode:
-
Date:
03/11/2015
Assessor(s):
Jeff Sereda, Bruce Bennett, Tom Jung, Randy Zemlak, Greg Wilson, Olive Barker, Bill Tonn, Dwayne Lepitzki (moderator), Angele Cyr (recorder)
References:
6-month interim
Overall threat impact calculation help:
Threat impact Threat impact (descriptions) Level 1 threat impact counts:
high range
Level 1 threat impact counts:
low range
A Very high 0 0
B High 0 0
C Medium 0 0
D Low 0 0
- Calculated overall threat impact: - -
Assigned overall threat impact:
U = Unknown
Impact adjustment reasons:
-
Overall threat comments:
Large forms of Pygmy Whitefish in these lakes are in decline for unknown reasons. Don’t know overall impact for this DU.
Threats assessment worksheet table.
# Threat Impact (calculated) Impact (description) Scope (next 10 yrs) Severity (10 yrs or 3 Gen.) Timing Comments
  blank             
1 Residential & commercial development blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Negligible (<1%) High (Continuing) blank 
1.1  Housing & urban areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
1.2  Commercial & industrial areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
1.3  Tourism & recreation areas blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Negligible (<1%) High (Continuing) Potential for docks, marina developments, e.g., Okanagan Lake
2 Agriculture & aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
2.1  Annual & perennial non-timber crops blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.2  Wood & pulp plantations blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.3  Livestock farming & ranching blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.4  Marine & freshwater aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable. Aquaculture is unlikely as is cattle trampoling.
3 Energy production & mining blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
3.1  Oil & gas drilling blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3.2  Mining & quarrying blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  Usually in rivers and coastal. Gravel or quarrying
3.3  Renewable energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4 Transportation & service corridors blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
4.1  Roads & railroads blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.2  Utility & service lines blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.3  Shipping lanes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  Limited dredging. Mostly mechanical removal. Does affect spawning habitat by sediment disruption. Applicable to a lot fewer lakes than dock development. Eurasian milfoil clogging habitat, in some lakes, would be applicable under this threat category. Dredging in PW range for this DU is mainly for recreation use for water skiing. Dredging for milfoil is accounted for under 7.3.
4.4  Flight paths blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5 Biological resource use blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Negligible (<1%) High (Continuing) blank 
5.1  Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.2  Gathering terrestrial plants blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.3  Logging & wood harvesting blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.4  Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Negligible (<1%) High (Continuing) Recreational fishing is applicable, but minor as not a target species. Bycatch in trawls for Kokanee. Four lakes, but very little impact. Negligible.
6 Human intrusions & disturbance blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Slight (1-10%) Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) blank 
6.1  Recreational activities blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6.2  War, civil unrest & military exercises blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  DND exercises in Okanagan but unlikely impact.
6.3  Work & other activities blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Negligible (<1%) Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) Expected in the future? Possible for targeted PW research activities. Low impact. Appears to not be going on currently but possibly in the future.
7 Natural system modifications blank  Unknown Small (1-10%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
7.1  Fire & fire suppression blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
7.2  Dams & water management/use blank  Unknown Small (1-10%) Unknown High (Continuing) Kootenay Lake dam (Corra Linn Dam is a hydroelectric facility located on the Kootenay River west of Nelson); could also include withdrawals for agriculture; rules consider effects on Kokanee fry and Pygmy Whitefish spawn in deeper water. Water drawdown is minimal. Water withdrawal is insignificant. Kootenay River has higher drawdown. Dams and water management use is more significant in this DU but still small. Big lakes in this DU. 1-10%. Not considered large or extreme for draw down
7.3  Other ecosystem modifications blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Negligible (<1%) High (Continuing) Milfoil. Some dredging for swimming and waterskiing that could affect spawning habitat in Okanagan Lake
8 Invasive & other problematic species & genes blank  Unknown Large (31-70%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
8.1  Invasive non-native/alien species blank  Unknown Large (31-70%) Unknown High (Continuing) Non-native Bluegill, Smallmouth and Largemouth Bass have been illegally stocked in Okanagan Lake. Other invasives also occur. Exposure to exotics between large and restricted. Widerange 29% of lakes stocked with Rainbow trout. Impact of Rainbow Trout is unknown. Potential threat.
8.2  Problematic native species blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  Lake Trout predation a natural limiting factor as opposed to threat. Conservation program on lake trout to help recover (populations are declining) but no stocking. Not a growing threat.
8.3  Introduced genetic material blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9 Pollution blank  Unknown Large (31-70%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
9.1  Household sewage & urban waste water blank  Unknown Large (31-70%) Unknown High (Continuing) Leaching septic systems is applicable. Trophic system of Okanagan Lake has changed. Scope is large. Northern range of this DU is not exposed so much to threat of urban waste so overall impact is low. Three lakes: Kootenay, Okanagan, and McLeese Lakes have extensive urban, recreational
9.2  Industrial & military effluents blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) Mining Jack of Clubs Lake basin. Small or negligible.
9.3  Agricultural & forestry effluents blank  Unknown Large (31-70%) Unknown High (Continuing) Wine industry in Okanagan.
9.4  Garbage & solid waste blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.5  Air-borne pollutants blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.6  Excess energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10 Geological events blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
10.1  Volcanoes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10.2  Earthquakes/tsunamis blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10.3  Avalanches/landslides blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11 Climate change & severe weather blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
11.1  Habitat shifting & alteration blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.2  Droughts blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.3  Temperature extremes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.4  Storms & flooding blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable

Threats assessment worksheet - DU 4

Species or ecosystem scientific name:
Pygmy Whitefish Prosopium coulterii: DU4 - Western Arctic populations
Element ID:
-
Elcode:
-
Date:
03/11/2015
Assessor(s):
Jeff Sereda, Bruce Bennett, Tom Jung, Randy Zemlak, Olive Barker, Bill Tonn, Dwayne Lepitzki (moderator), Angele Cyr (recorder)
References:
6-month interim
Overall threat impact calculation help:
Threat impact Threat impact (descriptions) Level 1 threat impact counts:
high range
Level 1 threat impact counts:
low range
A Very high 0 0
B High 0 0
C Medium 0 0
D Low 0 0
- Calculated overall threat impact: - -
Assigned overall threat impact:
U = Unknown
Impact adjustment reasons:
-
Overall threat comments:
-
Threats assessment worksheet table.
# Threat Impact (calculated) Impact (description) Scope (next 10 yrs) Severity (10 yrs or 3 Gen.) Timing Comments
1 Residential & commercial development blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
1.1 Housing & urban areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
1.2 Commercial & industrial areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
1.3 Tourism & recreation areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2 Agriculture & aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
2.1 Annual & perennial non-timber crops blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.2 Wood & pulp plantations blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.3 Livestock farming & ranching blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.4 Marine & freshwater aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3 Energy production & mining blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
3.1 Oil & gas drilling blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3.2 Mining & quarrying blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  No new mine construction.
3.3 Renewable energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4 Transportation & service corridors blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
4.1 Roads & railroads blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  Some building of roads but won’t affect PWF habitat. Not many bridges being built over lakes. One road exists over the Parsnip Reach of Williston Reservoir. Road/bridge is complete now.
4.2 Utility & service lines blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  Pacific Trail pipeline starts at Summit Lake. Proposed 480 km natural gas pipeline to Kitimat.
4.3 Shipping lanes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.4 Flight paths blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5 Biological resource use blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Negligible (<1%) High (Continuing) blank 
5.1 Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  Bycatch is likely a threat but most trawling is done in the pelagic zone so negligible.
5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.3 Logging & wood harvesting blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.4 Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Negligible (<1%) High (Continuing) not applicable
6 Human intrusions & disturbance blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
6.1 Recreational activities blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6.2 War, civil unrest & military exercises blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6.3 Work & other activities blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  Past research but nothing expected in the next 10 years for this DU. Alberta might do some monitoring since the species is provincially listed as Special Concern.
7 Natural system modifications blank  Unknown Small (1-10%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
7.1 Fire & fire suppression blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
7.2 Dams & water management/use blank  Unknown Small (1-10%) Unknown High (Continuing) Dam and construction. Gold mine pollution from current mines. Future Site C (Peace River) for construction of dam. Huge part of the total population in this DU. 15m draw in this DU. Peace River may have egg loss but unknown impact. Connectivity is important in these lakes and rivers systems.
7.3 Other ecosystem modifications blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
8 Invasive & other problematic species & genes blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) Stocking Brook Trout (sterile) in the past but only in closed systems if at all in the future. Stocking of Rainbow Trout as well.
8.2 Problematic native species blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  Lake Trout have difficulty with overharvesting. So unlikely that this is a limiting factor to PW in this DU.
8.3 Introduced genetic material blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9 Pollution blank  Unknown Small (1-10%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
9.1 Household sewage & urban waste water blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) Some threat from urban waste water but negligible.
9.2 Industrial & military effluents blank  Unknown Small (1-10%) Unknown High (Continuing) Rail-car accidents, uranium mining, toxic substances. Pulp mill draws water from Williston Reservoir in Mackenzie but use has been variable over the past 15 years. This is accounted for under 7.2. Upper Athabasca is major corridor for effluent pathway.
9.3 Agricultural & forestry effluents blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.4 Garbage & solid waste blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.5 Air-borne pollutants blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.6 Excess energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10 Geological events blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
10.1 Volcanoes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10.2 Earthquakes/tsunamis blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10.3 Avalanches/landslides blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11 Climate change & severe weather blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
11.1 Habitat shifting & alteration blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
11.2 Droughts blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.3 Temperature extremes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.4 Storms & flooding blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable

Threats assessment worksheet - DU 5

Species or ecosystem scientific name:
Pygmy Whitefish Prosopium coulterii: DU5 - Great Lakes - Upper St. Lawrence populations (Lake Superior)
Element ID:
-
Elcode:
-
Date:
04/11/2015
Assessor(s):
Bill Tonn, Dwayne Lepitzki (moderator) and Angele Cyr (recorder)
References:
6-month interim
Overall threat impact calculation help:
Threat impact Threat impact (descriptions) Level 1 threat impact counts:
high range
Level 1 threat impact counts:
low range
A Very high 0 0
B High 0 0
C Medium 0 0
D Low 0 0
- Calculated overall threat impact: - -
Assigned overall threat impact:
U = Unknown
Impact adjustment reasons:
-
Overall threat comments:
Overall 48% decline over all the threats but unknown impact from specific threats.
Threats assessment worksheet table.
# Threat Impact (calculated) Impact (description) Scope (next 10 yrs) Severity (10 yrs or 3 Gen.) Timing Comments
1 Residential & commercial development blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
1.1 Housing & urban areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
1.2 Commercial & industrial areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
1.3 Tourism & recreation areas blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) back country camping
2 Agriculture & aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
2.1 Annual & perennial non-timber crops blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.2 Wood & pulp plantations blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.3 Livestock farming & ranching blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.4 Marine & freshwater aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3 Energy production & mining blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
3.1 Oil & gas drilling blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3.2 Mining & quarrying blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3.3 Renewable energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4 Transportation & service corridors blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
4.1 Roads & railroads blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.2 Utility & service lines blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.3 Shipping lanes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.4 Flight paths blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5 Biological resource use blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
5.1 Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.3 Logging & wood harvesting blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.4 Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) Bycatch. Some commercial harvest of Lake Trout and whitefish fisheries using gillnet but possibly not applicable due to mesh size too large.
6 Human intrusions & disturbance blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
6.1 Recreational activities blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6.2 War, civil unrest & military exercises blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6.3 Work & other activities blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) General surveys by USGS for research in Lake Superior capture Pygmy Whitefish and includes sampling in Canadian waters.
7 Natural system modifications blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
7.1 Fire & fire suppression blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
7.2 Dams & water management/use blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
7.3 Other ecosystem modifications blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) Some shoreline development in Lake Superior. Scope would not be extensive.
8 Invasive & other problematic species & genes blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) Round Goby around Duluth. Sea Lamprey and Pacific salmonids (Pink, Chinook, Coho salmons & Rainbow Trout) predation.
8.2 Problematic native species blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  Stocking of Lake Trout (eggs) possibly? Unlikely problematic since stocking is restoration of the species.
8.3 Introduced genetic material blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9 Pollution blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
9.1 Household sewage & urban waste water blank  Unknown Restricted - Small (1-30%) Unknown High (Continuing) Thunder Bay area most impacted in this DU. Duluth would also be considered under this threat. Restricted to waste water in some areas
9.2 Industrial & military effluents blank  Unknown Small (1-10%) Unknown High (Continuing) Likely from Thunder Bay area.
9.3 Agricultural & forestry effluents blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) Forestry around Lake Superior. Erosion caused by forestry? Likely negligible.
9.4 Garbage & solid waste blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.5 Air-borne pollutants blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) airborne mercury
9.6 Excess energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10 Geological events blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
10.1 Volcanoes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10.2 Earthquakes/tsunamis blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10.3 Avalanches/landslides blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11 Climate change & severe weather blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
11.1 Habitat shifting & alteration blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  Surface-water temperatures have increased. Any positive effects of warmer temperatures? Some increased spawning temperatures over the fall positive? Less ice may be a benefit?
11.2 Droughts blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.3 Temperature extremes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.4 Storms & flooding blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable

Threats assessment worksheet - DU 6

Species or ecosystem scientific name:
Pygmy Whitefish Prosopium coulterii: DU6 - Waterton Lake population
Element ID:
-
Elcode:
-
Date:
03/11/2015
Assessor(s):
Jeff Sereda, Bruce Bennett, Tom Jung, Randy Zemlak, Olive Barker, Bill Tonn, Dwayne Lepitzki (moderator), Angele Cyr (recorder)
References:
6-month interim
Overall threat impact calculation help:
Threat impact Threat impact (descriptions) Level 1 threat impact counts:
high range
Level 1 threat impact counts:
low range
A Very high 0 0
B High 0 0
C Medium 0 0
D Low 0 0
- Calculated overall threat impact: - -
Assigned overall threat impact:
U = Unknown
Impact adjustment reasons:
-
Overall threat comments:
-
Threats assessment worksheet table.
# Threat Impact (calculated) Impact (description) Scope (next 10 yrs) Severity (10 yrs or 3 Gen.) Timing Comments
1 Residential & commercial development blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
1.1 Housing & urban areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
1.2 Commercial & industrial areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
1.3 Tourism & recreation areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2 Agriculture & aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
2.1 Annual & perennial non-timber crops blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.2 Wood & pulp plantations blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.3 Livestock farming & ranching blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.4 Marine & freshwater aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3 Energy production & mining blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
3.1 Oil & gas drilling blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3.2 Mining & quarrying blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3.3 Renewable energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4 Transportation & service corridors blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
4.1 Roads & railroads blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.2 Utility & service lines blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.3 Shipping lanes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.4 Flight paths blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5 Biological resource use blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
5.1 Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.3 Logging & wood harvesting blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.4 Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6 Human intrusions & disturbance blank  Unknown Large (31-70%) Unknown Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) blank 
6.1 Recreational activities blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6.2 War, civil unrest & military exercises blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6.3 Work & other activities blank  Unknown Large (31-70%) Unknown Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) Possibility of regular surveys in this area in the next ten years. Parks Canada possibly.
7 Natural system modifications blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
7.1 Fire & fire suppression blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
7.2 Dams & water management/use blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
7.3 Other ecosystem modifications blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
8 Invasive & other problematic species & genes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
8.2 Problematic native species blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
8.3 Introduced genetic material blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9 Pollution blank  Unknown Large (31-70%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
9.1 Household sewage & urban waste water blank  Unknown Large (31-70%) Unknown High (Continuing) Large proportion of population in range of Waterton is in upper Waterton Lake and water flow is northward. This threat is applicable. Unknown impact.
9.2 Industrial & military effluents blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.3 Agricultural & forestry effluents blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.4 Garbage & solid waste blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.5 Air-borne pollutants blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.6 Excess energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10 Geological events blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
10.1 Volcanoes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10.2 Earthquakes/tsunamis blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10.3 Avalanches/landslides blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11 Climate change & severe weather blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
11.1 Habitat shifting & alteration blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
11.2 Droughts blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.3 Temperature extremes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.4 Storms & flooding blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable

Threats assessment worksheet - DU 7

Species or ecosystem scientific name:
Pygmy Whitefish Prosopium coulterii: DU7 – Saskatchewan - Nelson Rivers populations
Element ID:
-
Elcode:
-
Date:
04/11/2015
Assessor(s):
Bill Tonn, Dwayne Lepitzki (moderator) and Angele Cyr (recorder)
References:
6-month interim
Overall threat impact calculation help:
Threat impact Threat impact (descriptions) Level 1 threat impact counts:
high range
Level 1 threat impact counts:
low range
A Very high 0 0
B High 0 0
C Medium 0 0
D Low 0 0
- Calculated overall threat impact: - -
Assigned overall threat impact:
U = Unknown
Impact adjustment reasons:
-
Overall threat comments:
-
Threats assessment worksheet table.
# Threat Impact (calculated) Impact (description) Scope (next 10 yrs) Severity (10 yrs or 3 Gen.) Timing Comments
1 Residential & commercial development blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
1.1 Housing & urban areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
1.2 Commercial & industrial areas blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
1.3 Tourism & recreation areas blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) Back-country camplng
2 Agriculture & aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
2.1 Annual & perennial non-timber crops blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.2 Wood & pulp plantations blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.3 Livestock farming & ranching blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
2.4 Marine & freshwater aquaculture blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3 Energy production & mining blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
3.1 Oil & gas drilling blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3.2 Mining & quarrying blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
3.3 Renewable energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4 Transportation & service corridors blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
4.1 Roads & railroads blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.2 Utility & service lines blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.3 Shipping lanes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
4.4 Flight paths blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5 Biological resource use blank   Negligible  Negligible (<1%)  Unknown  High (Continuing) blank 
5.1 Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.3 Logging & wood harvesting blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
5.4 Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) Back country fishing; may be some baitfish introductions in Mameigwess Lake, which has road access. Unlikely that Pygmy Whitefish are exploited directly given their small size.
6 Human intrusions & disturbance blank   Negligible  Negligible (<1%)  Unknown  High (Continuing) blank 
6.1 Recreational activities blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6.2 War, civil unrest & military exercises blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
6.3 Work & other activities blank  Negligible Negligible (<1%) Unknown High (Continuing) Scientific sampling
7 Natural system modifications blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
7.1 Fire & fire suppression blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
7.2 Dams & water management/use blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
7.3 Other ecosystem modifications blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
8 Invasive & other problematic species & genes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
8.2 Problematic native species blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
8.3 Introduced genetic material blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9 Pollution blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
9.1 Household sewage & urban waste water blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.2 Industrial & military effluents blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.3 Agricultural & forestry effluents blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.4 Garbage & solid waste blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
9.5 Air-borne pollutants blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) Methyl mercury airborne from direct deposit (mining).
9.6 Excess energy blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10 Geological events blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  blank 
10.1 Volcanoes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10.2 Earthquakes/tsunamis blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
10.3 Avalanches/landslides blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11 Climate change & severe weather blank  Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High (Continuing) blank 
11.1 Habitat shifting & alteration blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  Undeveloped regions of Ontario privately owned land. Altering water regimes and temperature changes???
11.2 Droughts blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.3 Temperature extremes blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable
11.4 Storms & flooding blank  blank  blank  blank  blank  not applicable

Page details

Date modified: