Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Recovery Strategy for the Shortnose Cisco in Canada [Proposed]: References

Previous Table of Contents

Berst A. H., G. R. Spangler. 1973. Lake Huron: The ecology of the fish community and man's effects on it. Technical Report No. 21. Great Lakes Fishery Commission.41pp.

Brown, E.H., R.L. Argyle, N.R. Payne and M.E. Holey. 1987. Yield and dynamics of destabilized chub (Coregonus spp.) populations in Lakes Michigan and Huron, 1950-84. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44: 371-383.

Christie W. J. 1973. A review of the changes in the fish species composition of Lake Ontario. Technical Report No. 23. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 57 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada [COSEWIC]. 2005. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Shortnose Cisco Coregonus reighardi in Canada. Ottawa. vi +14 pp.

Cudmone-Vokey, B. and E.J. Crossman. 2000. Checklists of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes and their connecting channels.Canadian MS Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2250: v+39p.

Dermot, R., and D. Kerec. 1997. Changes to the deepwater biomass of eastern Lake Erie since the invasion of Dreissena: 1979-1993. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 922-930.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans [DFO]. 2010. Guidelines for terms and concepts used in the Species at Risk Program. DFO - Canadian. Science Advisory Secretariat - Scientific Advisory Report 2009/065

Dobiesz, N.E., D.A. McLeish, R.L. Eshenroder, J.R. Bence, L.C. Mohr, M.P. Ebener, T.F. Nalepa, A.P. Woldt, J.E. Johnson, R.L. Argyle and J.C. Makarewicz 2005. Ecology of the Lake Huron fish community, 1970-1999. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 1432-1451

Environment Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.ec.gc.ca/publications/59A8B353-326A-4455-A684-DD1330F438A9/W12.pdf). 2009. State of the Great Lakes 2009.

Gimenez Dixon, M. 1996. Coregonus reighardi. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. Downloaded on 31 March 2011.

Government of Canada. 2009. Species at Risk Act Policies: Overarching Policy Framework (Draft).

Gray, J.E. 1979. Coldwater community rehabilitation: (1) Sea Lamprey, (2) Alewife, (3) Smelt, (4) Sculpins, (5) Deepwater Ciscoes. Lake Ontario Tactical Fisheries Plan. Resource Document #9, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 21pp.

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.J. Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-389.

Jobes, F.W. 1943. The age, growth and bathymetric distribution of Reighard's Chub Leucichthys reighardi Koelz, in Lake Michigan. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 72(1): 108-135

Koelz, W. 1926. Fishing industry of the Great Lakes. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 1001: 558-615

Koelz, W.N. 1929. Coregonid fishes of the Great Lakes. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries Bulletin Vol. 43 (Part ll): 297-643.

Lozano S. J., J.V. Scharold, and T.P. Nalepa. 2001. Recent declines in benthic macroinvertebrate densities in Lake Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 518-529.

Mandrak, N. E., and B. Cudmore. 2010. The fall of native fishes and the rise of non-native fishes in the Great Lakes Basin. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 13(3), 255-268.

Mills, E.L., J.M. Casselman, R. Dermott, J.D. Fitzsimons, G. Gal, K.T. Holeck, J.A. Hoyle, O.E. Johannsson, B.F. Lantry, J.C. Makarewicz, E.S. Millard, I.F. Munawar, M. Munawar, R. O'Gorman, R.W. Owens, L.G.Rudstam, T. Schaner and T.J. Stewart. 2003. Lake Ontario: Food web dynamics in a changing ecosystem (1970-2000). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 471-490.

Nalepa F.T., D.J. Hartson, D. L. Fanslow, G.A. Lang and S.J. Lozano. 1998. Declines in benthic macroinvertebrate populations in southern Lake Michigan, 1980-1993. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 2402-2413.

Nalepa, T.F., D.L. Fanslow, A.J. Foley, III, G. A. Lang, B.J. Eadie, and M.A. Quigley. 2006. Continued disappearance of the benthic amphipod Diporeia spp. In Lake Michigan: Is there evidence for food limitation? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63: 872-890.

NatureServe 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life.

Naumann, B. T. and S. S. Crawford. 2009. Is it possible to identify habitat for a rare species? Shortjaw Cisco (Coregonus zenithicus) in Lake Huron as a case study. Environmental Biological Fishery 86: 341-348.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2006. The impact of Diporeia spp. decline on the Great Lakes fish community. NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory – Ann Arbor MI. June 2006. 2pp.

Parker, B. J. 1988. Status of the Shortnose Cisco, Coregonus reighardi, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(1): 92-96.

Pritchard, A.L. 1931. Taxonomic and life history studies of the cisco of Lake Ontario. University of Toronto Studies - Publications of the Ontario Research Laboratory #41: 5-78.

Riley, S.C., E. F. Roseman, S. J. Nichols, T. P. O'Brien, C. S. Kiley, and J. S. Schaefffer. 2008. Deepwater demersal fish community collapse in Lake Huron. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 1879-1890

Schmidt, S.N., M.J. Vander Zanden, and J.F. Kitchell. 2009. Long-term food web change in Lake Superior. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66: 2118-2129.

Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman. 1998. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 184. 966pp + xvii.

Smith, S.H. 1964. Status of the deepwater cisco population of Lake Michigan. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 93: 155-163.

Smith, S. H. 1968. Species succession and fishery exploitation in the Great Lakes. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 25(4): 667-693.

Smith, G.R. and T. N. Todd. 1984. Evolution of species flocks of fishes in north temperate lakes. Pp 45-68 In: Echelle, A.A. and I. Kornfield (Editors). Evolution of fish species flock. University of Maine at Orono Press, Orono.

Todd, T.N. 1980. Coregonus reighardi. P. 89. In: Lee, D.S., C.R.Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister and J.R.Stauffer Jr. Editors. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina Biological Survey Publication No. 1980-12.

Todd, T. N. and G. R. Smith. 1980. Differentiation in Coregonus zenithicus in Lake Superior. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 2228-2235.

Todd, T. N. and R. M. Stedman. 1989. Hybridization of ciscoes (Coregonus spp.) in Lake Huron. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67: 1679-1685.

Webb, S.A. and T.N. Todd. 1995. Biology and status of the Shortnose Cisco Coregonus reighardi (Koelz) in the Laurentian Great Lakes. In: M. Luczynski, et al. (eds.) Biology and Management of Coregonid Fisheries Archive Hydrobiology Special Issue of Advanced Limnology 46: 71-77.

Wells, L. and A. L. McLain. 1972. Lake Michigan: effects of exploitation, introductions, and eutrophication on the salmonid community. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29: 889-898.

Mohr, Lloyd., pers. comm. 2011. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Owen Sound ON

A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is conducted on all Species at Risk Act (SARA) recovery planning documents, in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals. The purpose of a SEA is to incorporate environmental considerations into the development of public policies, plans, and program proposals to support environmentally sound decision-making.

Recovery planning is intended to benefit species at risk and biodiversity in general. However, it is recognized that strategies may also inadvertently lead to environmental effects beyond the intended benefits. The planning process based on national guidelines directly incorporates consideration of all environmental effects, with a particular focus on possible impacts upon non-target species or habitats. The results of the SEA are incorporated directly into the strategy itself, but are also summarized below in this statement.

As recovery is not feasible for the Shortnose Cisco, this recovery strategy does not propose any specific recovery actions or activities that would adversely affect the environment or other species. General conservation approaches detailed in Section 4 of this report including education, management, and research strategies are directed at improving our fundamental knowledge of the deepwater cisco species and ultimately improving the ability to manage them as a whole. Other deepwater cisco species under consideration by COSEWIC (i.e. Shortjaw Cisco) or currently listed under SARA (i.e. Kiyi) can only benefit from an improved understanding of the species complex.

During consultations on the proposed listing of the Shortnose Cisco, DFO published notices in 12 local newspapers inviting comment and an expression of interest in the species. These Newspapers included:

In addition, 38 Aboriginal communities and organizations were directly contacted and provided with information packages on the Shortnose Cisco inviting comment and an expression of interest. These communities/organizations included:

Similarly, information packages were sent to 28 non-aboriginal organizations including:

A total of nine replies were received in response to the general and direct notifications; three from First Nation Communities, two from environmental organizations, one from industry, and three from private individuals. Comments received ranged from supporting the listing (4) to being neutral (neither supporting nor opposing the listing). A draft recovery strategy was forwarded to all nine respondents identified.

The Shortnose Cisco Recovery Strategy was prepared by DFO in consultation with various researchers, biologists and managers knowledgeable of the deepwater cisco in the Great Lakes. A formal recovery team was not convened for the species given the lack of knowledge on the species, its presumed extinction and the fact that recovery was deemed non-feasible. Individuals consulted or participating during the development of the recovery strategy included:

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources participated throughout the development and review of this recovery strategy and once completed it will contribute to meeting their requirements for a recovery strategy under Ontario's Endangered Species Act 2007. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Division of Endangered Species also provided comments indicating general concurrence with the approach proposed in this recovery strategy.

Important Notice and Disclaimer: DFO does not assume any responsibility for the quality of information, products or services listed in the Web sites provided above. Users should also be aware that information from external sources is available only in the language in which it was provided.


Previous Table of Contents

Page details

Date modified: