Deltistes luxatus - (Cope, 1879)
Lost River Sucker
Synonym(s): Catostomus luxatus
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Deltistes luxatus (Cope, 1879) (TSN 163970)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102932
Element Code: AFCJC12010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Fishes - Bony Fishes - Suckers
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Actinopterygii Cypriniformes Catostomidae Deltistes
Genus Size: A - Monotypic genus
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B91ROB01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Deltistes luxatus
Taxonomic Comments: This species previously was included in the genera Chasmistes and Catostomus. Chasmistes and Deltistes are closely related to the older, more diverse, widespread genus Catostomus; Deltistes has unique triangular gill rakers and a ventral mouth with papillose lips and a terminal mouth (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991).

Deltistes luxatus has hybridized with Chasmistes brevirostris and Catostomus snyderi (Lee et al. 1980).

Harris and Mayden (2001) used molecular data to examine phylogenetic relationships of major clades of Catostomidae. In all trees, Scartomyzon was paraphyletic and embedded in Moxostoma, and Catostomus was never recovered as monophyletic (Xyrauchen was embedded within Catostomus). They concluded that the phylogenetic relationships and taxonomic composition of taxa presently included in Moxostoma and Scartomyzon are in need of further study, as are the relationships and composition of the genera Catostomus, Chasmistes, Deltistes, and Xyrauchen, and the phylogenetic affinites of Erimyzon and Minytrema.

See also Smith (1992) for a study of the phylogeny and biogeography of the Catostomidae.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G1
Global Status Last Reviewed: 23Nov2011
Global Status Last Changed: 19Sep1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: Occurs in lakes and streams in northern California and southern Oregon; area of occupancy and population size are much reduced; currently represented by two self-sustaining populations; recently relatively stable, but periodic die-offs are still likely; threatened primarily by habitat degradation (quality and quantity of water); recent conservation measures have improved habitat conditons, but further improvements are needed.
Nation: United States
National Status: N1 (05Dec1996)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States California (S1), Oregon (S1)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LE: Listed endangered (18Jul1988)
Comments on USESA: On May 14, 2002, FWS determined that a petition to remove this species from the U.S. list of threatened and endangered species (U.S. Endangered Species Act) did not include substantial information indicating that delisting was warranted. On June 29, 2009, FWS announced a 90-day finding on a petition to remove the Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and the shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife. They found that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that removing the Lost River sucker or shortnose sucker from the List was warranted.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R8 - California-Nevada
IUCN Red List Category: EN - Endangered
American Fisheries Society Status: Endangered (01Aug2008)

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species is native to northern California and southern Oregon. Historical range included the Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries; the Lost River watershed, including Clear Lake Reservoir and upstream into Willow and Boles creeks; Tule Lake; Lower Klamath Lake; and Sheepy Lake. Present distribution includes Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries, Clear Lake Reservoir and its tributaries, Tule Lake sumps (a small nonreproducing population; Moyle 2002, Scoppettone et al. 1995, USFWS 2007), the Lost River up to Anderson-Rose Dam, and (as a result of recent colonization) the Klamath River downstream to Copco Reservoir and probably Iron Gate Reservoir (USFWS 1994, Moyle 2002). The species is extirpated in Lower Klamath Lake and Sheepy Lake (Moyle 2002), and the populations other than those in Upper Klamath Lake and Clear Lake are not believed to be self-sustaining (NRC 2004).

Area of Occupancy: 101-500 1-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: The total area of occupied lake habitat is about 324 square kilometers, of which about 80% or more is in Upper Klamath Lake and the remainder of occupied habitat occurs primarily in Clear Lake (USFWS 2007).

Number of Occurrences: 1 - 5
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by only two populations that are sustaining themselves without the input of larvae or older suckers from other areas (USFWS 2007).

Population Size: 2500 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown. Moyle (2002) informally suggested that population size may be a few thousand, and others have suggested that the adult populations of Upper Klamath Lake and Clear Lake number in the tens of thousands (see USFWS 2007). However, at the present time, it is not feasible to produce a reliable estimate of population size for the Lost River sucker (USFWS 2007). An apparently nonreproducing population in the Tule Lake sumps includes a few hundred adults (Scoppettone et al. 1995).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very few (1-3)

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Current status is due primarily to: sucker mortality and habitat changes that resulted from the draining of the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath "basins" in the 1920s; adverse water quality, deriving in part from excessive nutrient inputs from agricultural sources, and causing algal blooms that in turn have resulted in massive sucker mortality; low water levels in Upper Klamath Lake caused by water removal for irrigation, hydroelectric generation, wildlife refuges, and instream flows for downstream fish populations (Kann and Walker 1999); diking and draining of wetlands bordering lakes (wetlands served as fish nursery habitat and probably buffered lakes from agricultural pollutants); and loss of spawning habitat due to damming of rivers (e.g., Chiloquin Dam constructed in 1928 on the Sprague River, Oregon, cut off access to 95% of historical spawning habitat for the Upper Klamath Lake population and precluded accumulation of suitable spawning gravels below the dam) (USFWS 1988, 1993, 2007; Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991; Perkins et al. 2000; Moyle 2002). Exotic fishes such as fathead minnow are abundant in some areas, but their effects on Lost River suckers are poorly known. The sport fishery in the 1960s and 1970s may have contributed to the decline (fishing for this species is now prohibited).

USFWS (2007) assessed current threats as follows (abbreviated):

The rate of habitat change has slowed markedly, but only a small fraction of the original habitat remains, and much of the remaining habitat is in a degraded condition. Restoration efforts are beginning to reverse the trend, but will probably require many years to produce a substantially increased and stable habitat base for the Lost River sucker.

Averse water quality is the most critical threat, and substantial improvement is not expected in the near future. Within the foreseeable future, there is a high probability of multiple mortality events that would greatly reduce population sizes. It is possible that infrequent recruitment would be unable to offset declines from such die-offs. However, though previous mortality events in Upper Klamath Lake resulted in substantial population losses, the sucker population was not extirpated and now again shows evidence of improvement. Thus, recruitment, although low, has enabled the Upper Klamath Lake population to survive, despite the impact of multiple mortality events.

Drought is a threat because of its potential to cut off spawning habitat, reduce rearing habitat, and increase disease, parasitism, and predation. However, historically the species has endured periods of prolonged drought and persisted, indicating that drought is not a major threat.

Fish entrainment in water diversions and restricted passage are threats. Entrainment at Link River Dam and associated hydropower diversions likely poses a risk to the sucker. The threat there could be reduced if the hydropower diversions were screened or eliminated, and if discharges at the dam could be modified to reduce entrainment. Passage to spawning habitat in the Sprague River is still impeded by Chiloquin Dam, but that structure is planned for removal in the near future. Elsewhere in the upper basin, some entrainment of suckers is occurring, but mostly larvae are entrained, and USFWS does do not consider this a substantial threat at the population level.

Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not now regarded as a threat.

Disease, parasites, and predation/competition by exotic fishes pose some risk, although the degree to which they affect the species is not quantified. Disease and parasites alone may not pose a significant risk, but paired with the impacts of adverse water quality, they can substantially affect sucker survival.

Application of existing Endangered Species Act authorities, especially section 7, is probably maintaining existing sucker habitats and leading to reductions in mortality and improvements in habitat. However, given the continued vulnerability of the species to existing seasonal habitat conditions, these regulations have not been sufficient to substantially reduce the primary threat to the species.

Hybridization occurs among sucker species in the Klamath Basin, but it is not now regarded as a significant threat.

Short-term Trend Comments: By the late 1990s, as a result of die-offs in the mid-1990s, the number of adult fish in Upper Klamath Lake was 80 to 90 percent lower than observed prior to the mid-1990s; some increase in the spawning population was observed in the late 1990s, but the population is still at a relatively low level (about 40% of the 1995 level) (USFWS 2007). Presently, based on catch-per-unit-effort data, it appears that while the number of fish in the spawning population is still much lower than in the early 1990s, the breeding population numbers have at least been relatively stable since the late 1990s (USFWS 2007). Recruitment could increase in 5-10 years if survival is good among the large number of juveniles observed in 2006 (USFWS 2007).

Population growth in the lakeshore spawning population in Upper Klamath Lake occurred the late 1990s and 2000, and the lakeshore spawning population has been stable since then (Janney and Shively 2007). However, if recent survival rates persist, the current group of lakeshore spawners may be substantially reduced within the next few years, and unless there is improved recruitment during that period, the population will be at increased risk of extirpation (USFWS 2007).

Limited available data for Clear Lake suggest that there have been declines in the numbers of large adult suckers since 2000 (Barry et al. 2007).

While now apparently relatively stable, the overall population has declined substantially over the past three generations (generation length is probably 10 years or more).

Long-term Trend: Decline of >50%
Long-term Trend Comments: Historically, Lost River suckers were abundant enough to provide an important food resource for indigenous people and later settlers and their livestock (hogs). Now the species is extirpated in Lower Klamath Lake and Sheepy Lake, uncommon in Upper Klamath Lake and Tule Lake, and common only in Clear Lake Reservoir (Moyle 2002).

In 1984, the spawning run out of Upper Klamath Lake was about 23,000 suckers; it declined to around 12,000 in 1985 (Matthews and Moseley 1990, Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991). In 1986, 95% of the individuals in Upper Klamath Lake were 19-30 years old; there had been little successful recruitment over the past 15 years (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991).

Angler catch in the Williamson and Sprague rivers fell from more than 10,000 in 1968 to only 630 in 1985 (see Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991, Martin and Saiki 1999). USFWS (1990) categorized the status as "declining."

The population in Upper Klamath Lake declined substantially in a series of die-offs after the species was federally listed in 1988 (USFWS 2007).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)) This species is native to northern California and southern Oregon. Historical range included the Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries; the Lost River watershed, including Clear Lake Reservoir and upstream into Willow and Boles creeks; Tule Lake; Lower Klamath Lake; and Sheepy Lake. Present distribution includes Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries, Clear Lake Reservoir and its tributaries, Tule Lake sumps (a small nonreproducing population; Moyle 2002, Scoppettone et al. 1995, USFWS 2007), the Lost River up to Anderson-Rose Dam, and (as a result of recent colonization) the Klamath River downstream to Copco Reservoir and probably Iron Gate Reservoir (USFWS 1994, Moyle 2002). The species is extirpated in Lower Klamath Lake and Sheepy Lake (Moyle 2002), and the populations other than those in Upper Klamath Lake and Clear Lake are not believed to be self-sustaining (NRC 2004).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CA, OR

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CA Modoc (06049), Siskiyou (06093)
OR Klamath (41035)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
18 Williamson (18010201)+, Sprague (18010202)+, Upper Klamath Lake (18010203)+, Lost (18010204)+, Butte (18010205), Upper Klamath (18010206)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed (based on multiple information sources) Help
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A sucker (fish) with a distinct hump on the snout; to 86 cm long.
Reproduction Comments: Spawning occurs in March, April, and May (Moyle 1976). Larvae peak in numbers about 3 weeks after peak spawning (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991). Sexual maturity in Upper Klamath Lake occurs between the ages of 6 to 14 years, with most maturing at age 9 (Buettner and Scoppettone 1990).
Long-lived; may attain 45 years.

Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Migrates up tributary streams in spring to spawn; spawning migrations in the Sprague River begin in March and April (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991).
Riverine Habitat(s): High gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Moderate gradient, Pool, Riffle
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Deep water, Shallow water
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic
Habitat Comments: Habitat includes deep-water lakes and impoundments, and swift water and deep pools of small to medium rivers. Suckers can be found throughout the reservoirs they inhabit, but they appear to prefer shorelines with emergent vegetation that can provide cover from predators and invertebrate food (Moyle 2002). Suckers move from lakes into tributary streams to spawn in riffles or runs with gravel or cobble substrate, moderate flows, and depths of 21-128 cm (USFWS 2007). Spawning also occurs along shore of Upper Klamath Lake (e.g., at spring inflows). Juveniles move downstream into lakes soon after hatching. Larval suckers prefer shallow, nearshore, and emergent vegetated habitat in both the lakes and rivers (NRC 2004). See USFWS (1988, 1993).
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Limited data suggest that adults consume primarily bottom-oriented macroinvertebrates and zooplankton (Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991); also ingests detritus and algae.
Length: 70 centimeters
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: Formerly supported a commercial fishery. Formerly an important food resource for Klamath and Modoc Indians.
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Major habitat restoration projects have been completed, as follows (summarized by USFWS 2007): (1) screening of the main irrigation diversion on the Klamath Project (A-Canal); (2) screening of the outlet at Clear Lake Dam; (3) construction of a new fish ladder at Link River Dam; (4) restoration of over 25,000 acres of wetlands adjacent to Upper Klamath Lake and in the watershed above the lake; (5) 13 fish passage improvement projects, including screening and fish ladders; (6) restoration of the lower three miles of the Wood River; and (7) fencing along hundreds of miles of streams. Additionally, Chiloquin Dam, a major impediment to upstream migration, is planned for removal in 2008. Reconnection of the Williamson River Delta (over 4,000 acres) by 2010 will likely provide significant habitat.

USFWS (2007) noted that high rates of participation in federal and state conservation programs by ranchers and farmers in the Sprague and Wood river valleys suggests that essential elements of habitat recovery on private land (i.e., voluntary participation and funding) are now in place. This should make it more efficient to conduct restoration in the future. Furthermore, the USFWS and its partners are committed to developing and implementing a rigorous monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of recovery actions and to providing a feedback loop for adaptive-management. These efforts, if successful and sustained, should help recover the Lost River Sucker. See USFWS (2007) for additional information on conservation activities that should benefit the Lost River sucker.

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Large Suckers

Use Class: Not applicable
Subtype(s): Spawning Area
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including eggs and larvae) in appropriate habitat.
Mapping Guidance: Occupied locations that are separated by a gap of 20 km or more of any aquatic habitat that is not known to be occupied represent different occurrences. However, it is important to evaluate migrations and seasonal changes in habitat to ensure that spawning areas and nonspawning areas for a single population are not artificially segregated as different occurrences simply because there have been no collections/observations in an intervening area that may exceed the separation distance. For example, individual blue suckers may move more than 160 km between spawning and nonspawning habitats; these widely separated locations are part of the same occurrence.
Separation Barriers: Dam lacking a suitable fishway; high waterfall; upland habitat.
Alternate Separation Procedure: Occurrences are separated at major confluences. "Major confluences" may be subjectively defined, but separations should result in occurrences that represent population units whose viability potentially may be ranked as good or excellent (in other words, occurrences should not be so small that the best of them would never be expected to persist over the long term on their own).
Separation Justification: Data on dispersal and other movements generally are not available. In some species, individuals may migrate variable distances between spawning areas and nonspawning habitats.

Separation distances (in aquatic kilometers) for catostomids are arbitrary but reflect the presumption that movements and appropriate separation distances generally should increase with fish size. Hence small, medium, and large catostomids, respectively, have increasingly large separation distances. Separation distance reflects the likely low probability that two occupied locations separated by less than several kilometers of aquatic habitat would represent truly independent populations over the long term.

Because of the difficulty in defining suitable versus unsuitable habitat, especially with respect to dispersal, and to simplify the delineation of occurrences, a single separation distance is used regardless of habitat quality.

Occupied locations that are separated by a gap of 20 km or more of any aquatic habitat that is not known to be occupied represent different occurrences. However, it is important to evaluate seasonal changes in habitat to ensure that an occupied habitat occurrence for a particular population does not artificially separate spawning areas and nonspawning areas as different occurrences simply because there have been no collections/observations in an intervening area that may exceed the separation distance.

Date: 11Apr2005
Author: Hammerson, G.
Notes: This Specs Group includes catostomids that typically are larger than 40 cm in adult standard length.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 23Nov2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 08Nov2007
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Barry, P. M., B. S. Hayes, E. C. Janney, R. S. Shively, A. C. Scott, and C. D. Luton. 2007a. Monitoring of Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) suckers in Gerber and Clear Lake reservoirs, 2005-2006. U.S. Geological Survey Annual Report. Klamath Falls, OR. 26 pp.

  • Buettner, M., and G. Scoppettone. 1990. Life history and status of catostomids in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Completion report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries Research Center, Reno Field Station, NV. 119 pp.

  • California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G). 1990. 1989 annual report on the status of California's state listed threatened and endangered plants and animals. 188 pp.

  • Harris, P. M., and R. L. Mayden. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of major clades of Catostomidae (Teleostei: Cypriniformes) as inferred from mitchondrial SSU and LSU rDNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 20:225-237.

  • Janney, E. C. and R. S. Shively. 2007. An updated analysis on the population dynamics of Lost River suckers and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and its tributaries, Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Report. Klamath Falls, OR.

  • Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-407.

  • Kann, J., and W. W. Walker. 1999. Nutrient and hydrologic loading to Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon, 1991-1998. Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon.

  • Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.

  • Martin, B. A., and M. K. Saiki. 1999. Effects of ambient water quality on the endangered Lost River Sucker in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:953-961.

  • Matthews, J.R. and C.J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, Mammals. xxiii + pp 1-560 + 33 pp. appendix + 6 pp. glossary + 16 pp. index. Volume 2. Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fishes, Mussels, Crustaceans, Snails, Insects, and Arachnids. xiii + pp. 561-1180. Beacham Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C.

  • Meyer, J. S., and J. A. Hansen. 2002. Subchronic toxicity of low dissolved oxygen concentrations, elevated pH, and elevated ammonia concentrations to Lost River suckers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:656-666.

  • Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 405 pp.

  • Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley. xv + 502 pp.

  • NRC (National Research Council). 2004. Endangered and threatened fishes in the Klamath River basin: cause of decline and strategies for recovery. Summary. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 43 pp.

  • Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

  • Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Seventh edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

  • Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp.

  • Perkins, D. L., J. Kann, and G. G. Scoppettone. 2000. The role of poor water quality and fish kills in the decline of endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers in Upper Klamath Lake. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls, Oregon.

  • Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 20. 183 pp.

  • Scoppettone, G. G., S. Shea, and M. E. Buettner. 1995. Information on population dynamics and life history of shortnose suckers (Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River suckers (Deltistes luxatus) in Tule and Clear Lakes. National Biological Service, Reno Field Station. 91 pp.

  • Scoppettone, G. G., and G. Vinyard. 1991. Life history and management of four endangered lacustrine suckers. Pages 359-377 in W. L. Minckley and J. E. Deacon (editors). Battle Against Extinction: Native Fish Management in the American West. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

  • Smith, G. R. 1992. Phylogeny and biogeography of the Catostomidae, freshwater fishes of North America and Asia. Pages 778-826 in R.L. Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Determination of endangered status for the shortnose sucker and Lost River shortnose sucker. Federal Register 53:27130-4.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Proposed determination of critical habitat for Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker. Federal Register 59(230):61744-61759. 1 December 1994.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) 5-year review summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, Klamath Falls, Oregon.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS. 1993. Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) and Shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) Sucker Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. 108 pp.

  • Williams, J.E, J.E. Johnson, D.A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D.E. McAllister, and J.E. Deacon. 1989b. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14(6):2-20.

References for Watershed Distribution Map
  • Master, L. L. 1996. Synoptic national assessment of comparative risks to biological diversity and landscape types: species distributions. Summary Progress Report submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 60 pp.

  • Master, L. L. and A. L. Stock. 1998. Synoptic national assessment of comparative risks to biological diversity and landscape types: species distributions. Summary Report submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 36 pp.

  • State Natural Heritage Data Centers. 1996a. Aggregated element occurrence data from all U.S. state natural heritage programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Navajo Nation and the District of Columbia. Science Division, The Nature Conservancy.

  • State Natural Heritage Data Centers. 1996b. Aggregated element occurrence data from all U.S. state natural heritage programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Navajo Nation and the District of Columbia: Export of freshwater fish and mussel records west of the Mississippi River in 1997. Science Division, The Nature Conservancy.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.