Roadless Areas
Home/Species/ Rough Sculpin

Cottus asperrimus

Rutter, 1908

Rough Sculpin

G2Imperiled Found in 2 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G2ImperiledGlobal Rank
Near threatenedIUCN
MediumThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104855
Element CodeAFC4E02030
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNNear threatened
Endemicendemic to a single state or province
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderPerciformes
FamilyCottidae
GenusCottus
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.
Taxonomic Comments
Formerly included in the order Perciformes; the 1991 AFS checklist (Robins et al. 1991) followed Nelson (1984) in recognizing the order Scorpaeniformes as distinct from the Perciformes.
Conservation Status
Rank MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2014-09-22
Change Date2014-09-22
Edition Date2012-06-05
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G., T. Hopkins, and P. Moyle
Threat ImpactMedium
Range Extent250-5000 square km (about 100-2000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences6 - 20
Rank Reasons
Small range in streams in northern California; specialized habitat requirements; in need of continued efforts to maintain adequate flows and high water quality.
Range Extent Comments
This species is largely restricted to spring-fed tributaries of the Pit River in northeastern Shasta County, California; it is most numerous throughout the Fall River and its major tributary, the Tule River; also occurs in Sucker Springs Creek and lower Hat creek (and associated springs) up to and including the major spring system at Crystal Lake; it is currently rare or absent in the interconnecting reaches of the Pit River, except in the reach immediately below the confluence with Hat Creek; it occurs in run-of-the-river reservoirs on the Pit River, including Britton Reservoir and Tunnel Reservoir (Moyle 2002).
Occurrences Comments
This species is represented by several occurrences (subpopulations) in a small range. Sixteen occupied areas were found when the range was thoroughly surveyed by Moyle and Daniels (1982).
Threat Impact Comments
Past management of streams for trout fishing was detrimental due to introduction of predatory brown trout and poisoning to eradicate nongame fish (Moyle 2002). Today, management of Fall River and Hat Creek for wild trout fisheries appears to favor sculpins (Moyle 2002). Hydroelectric development of the Fall and Pit rivers has destroyed or degraded some habitat, whereas a series of reservoirs seems to have been colonized by rough sculpins, extending the range downstream by about 22 km (Moyle 2002). Logging, grazing, and fires have led to increased sedimentation into the Fall River, but these threats are being addressed by private landowners and public agencies. Increase in wild rice cultivation has resulted in warm, polluted water entering the Fall River (Moyle 2002). Future currently seems reasonably secure (Moyle 2002).
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Habitat includes vegetated runs and riffles of (often spring-fed) creeks and small to medium rivers, usually over gravel or sand in cool, clear, fairly deep (up to 1-2 meters) water (Lee et al. 1980, Moyle 2002, Page and Burr 2011).

Ecology

Restricted distribution but appears to be abundant where found.

Reproduction

Based on collections of ripe females spawning appears to occur in the spring.
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN2
ProvinceRankNative
CaliforniaS2Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
7 - Natural system modifications———
7.2 - Dams & water management/use———
9 - Pollution———
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluents———

—

Roadless Areas (2)
California (2)
AreaForestAcres
LavaLassen National Forest5,978
Timbered CraterLassen National Forest4,096
References (20)
  1. Brown, L.R. 1991. Differences in Habitat Choice and Behavior among Three Species of Sculpin (<i>Cottus</i>) in Artificial Stream Channels. Copeia 1991(3): 810-819.
  2. 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.
  3. Cooper, J.J. 1983. Distributional Ecology of Native and Introduced Fishes of the Pit River System, Northeastern California, with notes on the Modoc Sucker. California Fish and Game 69(1): 39-53. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/22280129 (Accessed 16 May 2023).
  4. Daniels, R.R., and L.A. Courtois. 1982. Status and Proposed Management of the Rough Sculpin, <i>Cottus asperrimus</i> Rutter, in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Endangered Species Program, Sacramento, CA. Special Publication 82-1. 21 pp.
  5. 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.
  6. Koster, W. J. 1937. The food of the sculpin (Cottidae) in central New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 66:374-382.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 405 pp.
  10. Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley. xv + 502 pp.
  11. Moyle, P. B., and R. A. Daniels. 1982. Fishes of the Pit River system, and Surprise Valley region. Univ. California Publ. Zool. 115:1-82.
  12. Moyle, P. B., J. D. Kiernan, P. K. Crain, and R. M. Quiñones. 2013. Climate change vulnerability of native and alien freshwater fishes of California: a systematic assessment approach. PLoS ONE 8(5):e63883. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063883
  13. Nelson, J. S. 1984. Fishes of the world. Second edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York. xv + 523 pp.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Page, L. M., K. E. Bemis, T. E. Dowling, H.S. Espinosa-Pérez, L.T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, K. E. Hartel, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, M. A. Neigbors, J. J. Schmitter-Soto, and H. J. Walker, Jr. 2023. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Eighth edition. American Fisheries Society (AFS), Special Publication 37, Bethesda, Maryland, 439 pp.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.