Roadless Areas
Home/Species/ Umatilla Dace

Rhinichthys umatilla

(Gilbert and Evermann, 1894)

Umatilla Dace

G3Vulnerable (G3G4) Found in 2 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G3VulnerableGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
Medium - lowThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100872
Element CodeAFCJB37120
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassActinopterygii
OrderCypriniformes
FamilyLeuciscidae
GenusRhinichthys
Other Common Names
Naseux d'Umatilla (FR)
Concept Reference
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.
Taxonomic Comments
This species was previously regarded as a stable hybrid between R. falcatus and R. osculus. However, as a result of multiple hybridizations, populations are self-perpetuating and reproductively independent of the parental species and so have been recently recognized as a distinct species (Haas 2001). Some upstream populations such as those in the Kettle River of British Columbia and Washington State are isolated from lower Columbia River populations and may represent different species (Hughes and Peden 1988; McPhail, pers. comm., 1991).
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2025-01-29
Change Date2025-01-29
Edition Date2025-01-29
Edition AuthorsGundy, R. L. (2025)
Threat ImpactMedium - low
Range Extent200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences6 - 80
Rank Reasons
This species is endemic to the Columbia River drainage of the western United States and adjacent British Columbia, Canada. There were historical declines associated with dam construction in the 20th century. The population continue to be threatened by dams and invasive predatory fishes.
Range Extent Comments
This species is endemic to the upper and middle Columbia River basin from below the Arrow Lakes, Slocan Lake, and Kootenay Lake in British Columbia, Canada south into the United States in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho (Page and Burr 1991, COSEWIC 2010). Using Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (2025) records, range extent is estimated to be 249,867 km².
Occurrences Comments
Applying a 10 km separation distance to GBIF (2025) records, 21 occurrences are estimated.
Threat Impact Comments
Dams are the primary threat to this species. Dam construction has altered habitat through construction and changes in flow rate (Hughes and Peden 1988, COSEWIC 2010). Intentional reductions in flow rate through dams cause water levels to drop and strand fish (mostly juveniles) on exposed shorelines (COSEWIC 2010, Irvine et al. 2015). Increased water usage by humans also lowers river levels and flow rates (COSEWIC 2010). Conversely, flooding caused by dams can also degrade habitat quality (COSEWIC 2010). Dams also limit connectivity and genetic diversity between populations (COSEWIC 2010). Several non-native predatory fish species are present in the range and may be causing undetected declines (COSEWIC 2010).
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

A riverine species that seems to prefer the cover provided by cobbles and larger stones where the current is fast enough to prevent siltation. Most often captured along river banks at depths less than 1 m (Hughes and Peden 1988). Occurs in rivers that are relatively warm and productive; the species is absent from cold tributaries in the mountains. Has been also found in reservoirs where there is a rocky bottom and a noticeable current (Hughes and Peden 1988).

Reproduction

Fecundity ranges from 300-2,000 eggs per female (COSEWIC 2010). Breeding probably occurs in late spring and summer if similar to that of congeners R. falcatus, R. cataractae, and R. osculus (Scott and Crossman 1973, Peden and Hughes 1981, COSEWIC 2010).
Other Nations (2)
United StatesN4
ProvinceRankNative
WashingtonS2Yes
OregonS2Yes
IdahoS4Yes
CanadaN2
ProvinceRankNative
British ColumbiaS2Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
7 - Natural system modificationsPervasive (71-100%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/usePervasive (71-100%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesPervasive (71-100%)UnknownHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesPervasive (71-100%)UnknownHigh (continuing)

—

Roadless Areas (2)
Oregon (2)
AreaForestAcres
Grande RondeUmatilla National Forest12,296
Grande RondeWallowa-Whitman National Forest5,650
References (21)
  1. COSEWIC. 2010. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Umatilla Dace Rhinichthys umatilla in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 37 pp.
  2. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). 2025. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) data portal. Online. Available: https://www.gbif.org/ (accessed 2025).
  3. Haas, G. Personal communication. Dep. of Zool., Univ. of B.C.
  4. Haas, G. R. 2001. The evolution through natural hybridizations of the Umatilla dace (Pisces: <i>Rhinichthys umatilla</i>), and their associated ecology and systematics. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
  5. Hughes, G.W., and A.E. Peden. 1988. Report on the Canadian status of the Umatilla dace <i>Rhinichthys umatilla</i>. Unpubl. rep., B.C. Prov. Mus., Victoria.
  6. Irvine, R. L., J. L. Thorley, R. Westcott, D. Schmidt, and D. Derosa. 2015. Why do fish strand? An analysis of ten years of flow reduction monitoring data from the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers, Canada. River Research and Applications 31: 1242–1250. doi: 10.1002/rra.2823
  7. 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.
  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. McPhail, D. 1991. Personal communication.
  10. Mettler, A. J., B. T. Witte, and A. T. Scholz. 2015. Biological characteristic of Umatilla dace (<i>Rhinichthys umatilla</i>) in the Colville River, Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 96: 230-233.
  11. Mongillo, Paul E. (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management Program). 2000. Review and annotation of fish watershed distribution maps. Review requested by Anthony E. Zammit, ABI. March 2000.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Peden, A.E., and G.W. Hughes. 1981. Life history notes relevant to the Canadian status of the speckled dace (<i>Rhinichthys osculus</i>). Syesis 14:21-31.
  18. Peden, A.E., and G.W. Hughes. 1988. Sympatry in four species of <i>Rhinichthys</i> (Pisces), including the first documented occurrences of <i>Rhinichthys umatilla </i>in the Canadian drainages of the Columbia River. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66(8):1846-1856.
  19. Peden, A. Personal communication.
  20. Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 184. 966 pp.
  21. Wydoski, R. S., and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. The University of Washington Press, Seattle. 220 pp.