316(b) Supporting Documentation for NPDES Nutrien Ltd. Permit Renewal
Kennewick Fertilizer Operations
NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
30 June 2020 Project No.: 0549532
The business of sustainability
Signature Page
30 June 2020
316(b) Supporting Documentation for NPDES Permit Renewal
Kennewick Fertilizer Operations NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Kennewick, Washington
David P. Edwards, L.G. Mich ael F. Mendes, L. G. Partner Project Manager
Kurtis Schlicht Suzanne Dolberg, P.E. Technical Lead Deputy Project Manager
Environmental Resources Management 1218 3rd Avenue, Suite 1412 Seattle, Washington 98101
T: +1 425 462 8591 F: +1 425 455 3573
© Copyright 2020 by ERM Worldwide Group Ltd and / or its affiliates (“ERM”). All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of ERM.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page iii Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT CONTENTS RENEWAL
CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA ...... 3 3. §122.21(R)(3) COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE DATA ...... 15 4. §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA ...... 18 5. §122.21(R)(5) COOLING WATER SYSTEM DATA ...... 37 6. §122.21(R)(6) CHOSEN METHOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY STANDARD ...... 40 7. §122.21(R)(7) ENTRAINMENT PERFORMANCE STUDIES ...... 41 8. §122.21(R)(8) OPERATIONAL STATUS ...... 42 9. REFERENCES ...... 44
ATTACHMENT 1 FLOW DIAGRAM AND WATER BALANCE ATTACHMENT 2 ENGINEERING DRAWINGS ATTACHMENT 3 SITE PHOTOS ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIES LIFE HISTORIES
List of Tables Table 1: List of Fish Species Occurring in the Columbia River Table 2: Abundant and Common Fish Species Occurring Near the Kennewick and Finley CWIS Table 3: Summary of Impingement Studies on the Middle Columbia River Table 4: Summary of Species Impinged in the Columbia River Table 5: Mean Length of Fish Impinged on Large and Small Rivers Table 6: Fish and Shellfish Species Susceptible to Impingement at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS Table 7: Fish and Shellfish Species Susceptible to Entrainment at Kennewick and Finley Table 8: Summary of the Risks to Chinook Salmon Related to Intake Structures By Entrainment (Energy Northwest 2019) Table 9: Typical Spawning Periods of Species Susceptible to Impingement at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS Table 10: Species Life Stages and Periods of Occurrence Most Susceptible to Entrainment at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS Table 11: USFWS and NOAA Threatened, Endangered and Protected Aquatic Species Table 12: Major Upgrades within the last 15 years at the Finley Facility
List of Figures Figure 1: General Location of the Kennewick and Finley CWIS on the Columbia River Figure 2: Location of the Kennewick CWIS on the Columbia River Figure 3: River Cross Section at the Kennewick CWIS Figure 4: Location of the Finley CWIS on the Columbia River Figure 5: River Cross Section at the Finley CWIS Figure 6: Bathymetry at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 1 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT CONTENTS RENEWAL
Figure 7: Average monthly stream temperature at USGS Gage 14105700 Columbia River near Dalles, Oregon 2006 through 2020 Figure 8: Average daily river temperature at USGS Gage 14105700 Columbia River near Dalles, Oregon 2006 through 2020 Figure 9: Specific conductance at Washington Department of Ecology Location ID 31A070 1990 through 2020 Figure 10: Dissolved Oxygen at Washington Department of Ecology Location ID 31A070 1990 through 2020 Figure 11: Columbia River Basin Map (U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation) Figure 12: Discharge (cfs) at USGS 12472800 Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam 1917 through 2020 Figure 13: Expected Hydraulic Zone of Influence at the Kennewick CWIS High Water Conditions with Two Pumps Figure 14: Expected Hydraulic Zone of Influence at the Kennewick CWIS Low Water Conditions with Two Pumps Figure 15: Expected Hydraulic Zone of Influence at the Finley CWIS High Water Conditions with One Pump Figure 16: Expected Hydraulic Zone of Influence at the Finley CWIS Low Water Conditions with One Pump
Acronyms and Abbreviations AIF Actual intake flow BTA Best technology available C Celsius CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CWA Clean Water Act CWIS Cooling water intake structures DIF Design intake flow DOE Department of Energy DVM Diel vertical migration E entrainment Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ERM Environmental Resources Management FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FWEE Foundation for Water and Energy Education gpm gallons per minute HGP Hanford Generating Project HZOI Hydraulic zone of influence IM Impingement mortality KFO Kennewick Fertilizer Operations MGD Million gallons per day NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory RM river mile USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey YOY Young of the year
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 2 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT INTRODUCTION RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
1. INTRODUCTION
ERM-West, Inc. (ERM), on behalf of Nutrien Ltd. (Nutrien), formerly Agrium Inc. (Agrium), completed a detailed compilation and review of available data and other resources related to meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) 316(b) rule issued on 14 October 2014. Nutrien, a manufacturer and wholesaler of nitrogen fertilizers, owns and operates the Kennewick Fertilizer Operations (KFO) facilities. The KFO facilities consist of three non-contiguous facilities located southeast of Kennewick, Washington in rural Benton County. The three facilities are known as the Hedges area, the Kennewick area, and the Finley area. The KFO facilities addressed in this report are the Kennewick and Finley areas (Figure 1). The Hedges facility is not subject to the 316(b) rule requirements and is therefore not addressed in this report. The Kennewick facility is located at 227515 East Bowles Road in Kennewick, Washington. The Kennewick facility is approximately 73 acres and manufactures nitric acid and liquid nitrogen fertilizer solutions. The Kennewick facility includes plant processing units, storage tanks, warehouses, shops, railroad spurs, administrative offices, and parking. The Finley facility is located at 231610 East Game Farm Road in Finley, Washington. The Finley facility receives anhydrous ammonia and stores it in two aboveground spherical pressure tanks and in one atmospheric pressure tank. Pipelines deliver ammonia from the Finley facility to the Kennewick facility, where the ammonia is used to manufacture nitric acid and solution fertilizer. The Finley facility is approximately 27 acres and has storage tanks, warehouses, shops, railroad spurs, administrative offices, and parking. Products are manufactured year-round at both facilities and do not follow seasonal trends. The Kennewick facility has a design intake flow (DIF) of approximately 37 million gallons per day (MGD) based on three circulating pumps, and the Finley facility has a DIF of 64.8 MGD based on five pumps. Both facilities withdraw water from water of the U.S., and use at least 25 percent of the water they withdraw exclusively for cooling purposes. Therefore, the both Kennewick and Finley are subject to requirements under section 316(b) of the CWA for existing regulated facilities that include production processes and product lines. This report was developed pursuant to the CWA 316(b) Rule promulgated on October 14, 2014 and covers those requirements defined and outlined in 40 CFR Section 125.92, 125.94(d), 125.95(a), and 122.21 (r). Focus in this report will be on the application requirements found in 122.21(r)(ii), which covers existing facilities and includes the information listed under (r)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8). Nutrien believes the information submitted in this document supports the application requirements under 122.21 and demonstrates the Kennewick and Finley Facilities both operate a best technology available (BTA) that meets the standards for impingement mortality (IM) under 40 CFR §125.94(c)(1). Based on the Kennewick and Finley facility’s actual intake flow (AIF) of less than 125 MGD, Nutrien believes (r)(9)-(13) (application requirements pertaining to entrainment BTA) are not applicable to either facility. However, the rule does allow, at the director’s discretion, evaluation of entrainment BTA on a case-by-case/site-specific basis for those facilities with AIF less than 125 MGD. Nutrien believes the BTA technologies identified in this document not only supports the IM BTA evaluation, but also supports the evaluation of BTA for entrainment (E) under §125.94(d), should the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) decide to evaluate the Kennewick and Finley cooling water intake structures (CWIS) under the rules for entrainment standards. The points of compliance for 316(b) at the Kennewick and Finley facilities are the CWIS’ located on the Columbia River. As such, the focus of information for (r)(2) and (4) in this report will be on the Columbia River system, which is considered the source water for the CWIS.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 1 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT INTRODUCTION RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Nutrien understands the permit application requirements pursuant to the CWA 316(b) Rule and those listed in the NPDES permits under WA0003671 Section SB 13 and WA0003727 SB 14. This document contains the required (r) information pieces as outlined below:
(r)(2)- Source Water Physical Data;
(r)(3)- Cooling Water Intake Structure Data;
(r)(4)- Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data;
(r)(5)- Cooling Water System Data;
(r)(6)- Chosen Method of Compliance with the Impingement Mortality Standard;
(r)(7)- Entrainment Performance Studies; and
(r)(8)- Operational Status.
The following sections provide the details for each of the application requirements.
Figure 1: General Location of the Kennewick and Finley CWIS on the Columbia River
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 2 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
2. §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA
The source water physical data is required to characterize the facility and evaluate the type of water body potentially affected by the CWIS. The following provides the Source Water Physical Data for the Kennewick and Finley facilities: (i) A narrative description and scaled drawings showing the physical configuration of all source water bodies used by the facility, including areal dimensions, depths, salinity and temperature regimes, and other documentation that supports the determination of the waterbody type where each cooling water intake structure is located; The Kennewick facility withdraws water from the Columbia River through a CWIS located near river mile (RM) 323 (Figure 2). The CWIS components for the Kennewick Plant are located on the right descending bank of the River in the City of Kennewick (46° 9’55.13” N; 119° 0’48.72”’W), approximately 5.7 miles downstream of the Ed Hendler Bridge. The width of the Columbia River at the Kennewick CWIS is approximately 6,400 feet (Figure 3) and the depth ranges between 5 and 35 feet (Figure 6). The Finley facility, withdraws water from the Columbia River through a CWIS located near river mile (RM) 322 (Figure 4). The CWIS components for the Finley Plant are located on the right descending bank of the River in southern Kennewick (46° 9'21.01"N; 119° 0'23.38"W), approximately 3,800 feet downstream of the Kennewick Plant. The width of the Columbia River at the Finley CWIS is approximately 8,200 feet, (Figure 4) and the depth ranges between 5 to 30 feet (Figures 6). Cross-sectional locations are also illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 2: Location of the Kennewick CWIS on the Columbia River
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 3 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Figure 3: River Cross Section at the Kennewick CWIS
Figure 4: Location of the Finley CWIS on the Columbia River
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 4 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Figure 5: River Cross Section at the Finley CWIS
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 5 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Figure 6: Bathymetry at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) collects representative water quality data at USGS gauge station 14105700 Columbia River near The Dalles, Oregon. This gauge station provides the most relevant and consistent temperature data for the Kennewick and Finley facilities. Discharge data is based on gauge data at USGS 12472800 Columbia River below the Priest Rapids Dam at RM 391, which has the greatest influence on the Hanford Reach. Dissolved oxygen and specific conductance data were obtained from the Ecology Freshwater Information Network, Site A1A070 near Umatilla, Oregon. Water temperature data collected from 2006 to 2020 shows the temperature ranges from 1.1ºC to 23.3ºC, with highest temperatures typically in July and August and the lowest temperatures typically in January and February (Figures 7 and 8). Long-term specific conductivity ranges from 98 to 249 micromhos/ centermeter (umhos/cm) with a median of roughly 150 umhos/cm (Figure 9). Long term dissolved oxygen levels range from 8.0 to 16.1 milligrams per liter (mg/l) with a median of 12 mg/l (Figure 10).
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 6 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00 Temperature (Celsius) 5.00
0.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month
Figure 7: Average monthly stream temperature at USGS Gage 14105700 Columbia River near Dalles, Oregon 2006 through 2020
25
20
15
10 Temperature (Celsius) 5
0
Figure 8: Average daily river temperature at USGS Gage 14105700 Columbia River near Dalles, Oregon 2006 through 2020
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 7 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
300
250
200
150
100 Specific Conductivity (umhos/cm )
50
Figure 9: Specific conductance at Washington Department of Ecology Location ID 31A070 1990 through 2020
18
16
14
12
10 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
8
6
Figure 10: Dissolved Oxygen at Washington Department of Ecology Location ID 31A070 1990 through 2020
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 8 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
The following provides an overview of the source waterbody hydrological and geomorphological features: (ii) Identification and characterization of the source waterbody’s hydrological and geomorphological features, and the methods used to conduct any physical studies to determine the intake’s area of influence in the waterbody and the results of such studies; and
Source Waterbody Hydrological and Geomorphological Characterization The Columbia River is the largest river in the Pacific Northwest and fourth largest in the United States (FWEE 2020). The river rises in the Rocky Mountains of British Columbia, flowing northwest and then south into the US state of Washington, where it then turns west to form most of the border between Washington and the state of Oregon before emptying into the Pacific Ocean (Figure 11) (U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation 2016). The river is 1,210 miles long, with a 259,000 square miles drainage basin (Stobers 1979). Major tributaries include the Kootenay, Snake, Pend Oreille, Bitterroot, Clarkfork, Spokane, and Salmon Rivers (Marts 2020). The basin is generally broken down in four sub-basins: the Upper, Mid, Lower, and Snake. The cities of Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland, Washington are located on the river between the Hanford Reach and the confluence with the Snake River, which is in the Mid-Basin. Below the confluence with the Snake River, the eastern and southeastern portion of the Columbia River is influenced by the Snake River, whereas the western and northwestern portion is influenced by the Yakima River.
Figure 11: Columbia River Basin Map (U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation)
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 9 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
The watershed is geologically complex and forms the setting for the Mid-Columbia Region’s complex hydrologic and biologic features. The northern part of the watershed is comprised of metamorphic rock, while the southern and central areas are underlain by ancient sedimentary bedrock overlain by lava deposits. Soils range from very thin eolian deposits in the Scablands region of the mid- to upper- (northern) watershed, to deeper alluvial deposits in the prairie lands found in the central and southern parts of the watershed. Soils in the river valleys are often unconsolidated mixes of clay, silt, and decomposed basalt, whereas soils in the plateau areas are generally wind-blown loess deposits of varying thickness. Unconsolidated, well-sorted, medium- to coarse-grained sand and gravel (50 to 60 feet thick) overlie weathered basalt bedrock at the Kennewick and Finley facilities. Two groundwater aquifers are present: a surficial water-table aquifer in the unconsolidated sediments and a lower aquifer in the weathered bedrock. Sediment accumulation has not been identified as a problem in this region, other than at a few specific areas where deltas are forming at the mouths of tributaries and altering access as well as habitat characteristics. Most of the Columbia River is impounded by dams; 11 within the United States, with seven upstream and four downstream of the Hanford Site (Duncan 2007). Priest Rapids is the nearest upstream dam, and McNary is the nearest downstream dam. The Kennewick and Finley facilities lie is a stretch of the River referred to as the Hanford Reach. The Hanford Reach extends from the upper end of the McNary Dam Reservoir to Priest Rapids Dam (USFWS 2008). Lake Wallula is the impoundment created by the McNary Dam and extends upstream past Richland Washington. The Pasco sub-basin extends almost 60 miles east of the Hanford Reach and includes irrigated farmland within the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project, a large area of dryland farming (primarily wheat), and a large area of shrub-steppe used primarily for cattle production. Riparian areas in the Hanford Reach include cobble shorelines, islands that have persisted for thousands of years, floodplain lakes, and wetlands. Upland habitats adjacent to the Hanford Reach include large tracts of relatively undisturbed shrub-steppe, and the White Bluffs, a unique geologic feature that contains ancient fossils and provides unique habitat for several avian species. The hydrology of the Columbia River is strongly dominated by winter snow accumulation and spring melt, and shows a characteristic low flow period in the fall and winter months, and a large spring peak flow from snow melt. Most of the hydrologically significant precipitation falls in the winter months from about October to March. The mountain ranges within the Columbia River Basin typically receive from 100 to 200 inches of snow annually (Federal Caucus 2020). Naturally occurring maximum flows on the river occur in May, June and July as a result of snowmelt in the headwater regions. Minimum flows occur from September to March with periodic peaks due to heavy winter rains. River flow through the Hanford Reach is controlled primarily by operations at upstream dams, which over the course of the year cause water levels to fluctuate significantly. Flows through the Hanford Reach fluctuate significantly and are controlled primarily by releases from three upstream storage dams: Grand Coulee in the United States, and Mica and Keenleyside in Canada (USFWS 2008). Flows in the Hanford Reach are directly affected by releases from Priest Rapids Dam. The river stage may change in some stretches of the Hanford Reach by up to 10 feet within a few hours. However, the river stage at Kennewick and Finley are not subject to these changes due to manage water discharges downstream that maintain more constant levels in this part of the River. Discharge below Priest Rapids dam from 1917 to 2020 averaged about 117,000 cfs, with lowest flows occurring in September and the highest flows in June (Figure 12) (Duncan 2007). The Columbia River above the McNary Dam is considered a run-of-river reservoir since it is managed to discharge water downstream at rates that generally match upstream inflows (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al. 2020). The effect on river discharge from dam operations is generally smaller for run-of- river reservoirs then storage reservoirs.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 10 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000 Monthly Mean Discharge (cfs) Discharge Monthly Mean 50,000
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 12: Discharge (cfs) at USGS 12472800 Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam 1917 through 2020
Zone of Influence The hydraulic zone of influence (HZOI) for the Kennewick CWIS was calculated based on a desktop analysis using information provided by Nutrien. While three pumps are in place at the intake pump station, only two pumps are used at any one time during facility production and operation. Therefore, the intake flow and HZOI are based upon two pumps that withdrawal water from the Columbia River through the nine offshore intake screens. The diameter of each intake screen is 2.5 feet (30 inches). The CWIS intakes water at a total rate of 17,130 gallons per minute (gpm) or 38.17 cubic feet per second (cfs). The CWIS pipeline extends a total of 260 feet from the shoreline where the HZOI is influenced by the intake velocity of 0.29 feet per second (ft/s). A HZOI was calculated for both the high water depth (17 feet) and low water depth (10 feet). Overall, a circular HZOI was calculated for each of the nine intake screens as shown in Figures 13 and 14. Each HZOI extends outward approximately 1.36 feet (high water) and 2.32 feet (low water) around the circumference of each intake screen, respectively.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 11 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Figure 13: Expected Hydraulic Zone of Influence at the Kennewick CWIS High Water Conditions with Two Pumps
Figure 14: Expected Hydraulic Zone of Influence at the Kennewick CWIS Low Water Conditions with Two Pumps
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 12 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
The HZOI for the Finley CWIS was calculated based on a desktop analysis using information provided by Nutrien. While five pumps exist at the CWIS only three pumps are in service, of which, only one is typically operated during normal production. Therefore, the intake flow and HZOI are based on the one pump that withdrawals water from the Columbia River. The width of each intake screen is 6 feet. The CWIS intakes water at a total rate of 9,000 gallons per minute (gpm) or 12.96 cfs. The CWIS is located along the shoreline where the HZOI is influenced by the intake velocity of 0.30 ft/s. A HZOI was calculated for both the high water depth (20.5 feet) and low water depth (8.5 feet). Overall, a semi-circular HZOI is calculated for the two intake screens illustrated in Figures 15 and 16. The HZOI is a semi-circular area in front of each bay with a radius of 5.19 feet (high water depth) and 12.51 feet (low water depth), respectively.
Figure 15: Expected Hydraulic Zone of Influence at the Finley CWIS High Water Conditions with One Pump
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 13 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Figure 16: Expected Hydraulic Zone of Influence at the Finley CWIS Low Water Conditions with One Pump The following provides a reference to the locational maps for the Kennewick and Finley CWIS: (iii) Locational maps See Figures 1, 2, 4 and 6 above.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 14 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(3) COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
3. §122.21(R)(3) COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE DATA
The CWIS data is required to characterize the configuration and operation of the CWIS. The following provides the CWIS Data for the Kennewick and Finley facilities: (i) A narrative description of the configuration of each of cooling water intake structure and where it is in the waterbody and in the water column;
Kennewick The CWIS for the Kennewick facility exists with both an onshore and an offshore component. The onshore component consist of pump vault (pumping station) located adjacent to and approximately 90 feet from the shoreline of the Columbia River. The pumping station has a relatively small footprint (20-foot X 24-foot), (see Attachment 2 - Kennewick Plan View). Three vertical turbine-type circulating pumps (Johnston 16-in.) numbered (#1201, #1202, and #1203) are located at the pumping station and discharge to a 24-inch common header to the facility (see Attachment 3). The three pumps extend vertically into the pump vault beneath the pumping station to a depth of 14.5 feet (El. 325) where water is withdrawn from the river through a pipe. Each of the three pumps have a rated 9,000-gpm pump capacity. Two of the three pumps withdraw water from the river and provide it to the facility for cooling while the third pump operates as a standby. The offshore component of the CWIS is oriented perpendicular to the river flow and consists of a single 30-inch diameter intake pipe extending from the pumping station approximately 200 feet into the river, (see Attachment 2 - Kennewick Plan View). Extending another 60 feet is a pile-supported section (260- feet total) with nine 30-inch diameter X 5.0 feet long Johnson slotted (0.140-inch) diffuse intake screens attached longitudinally at 90° angles at an approximate depth of 14.5 feet (325.5 feet elevation at a normal river elevation of 340 feet) and 3-feet above the river bottom elevation (322.5 feet). The strategically placed Johnson screens are from 8.0 to 18.0 feet apart in a staggered arrangement (five on one side and four on the other) and horizontal to the river bottom for maximum intake volume efficiency without overlap (see Attachment 2 – Kennewick Profile View and Plan Detail 2).
Finley The CWIS for the Finley facility exists as a shoreline facility sitting on a 130-foot wide embayment along the right descending bank of the Columbia River (see Attachment 2 – Finley Plan View). Water enters the CWIS from the river through submerged windows fitted with debris screens (trash racks) in the intake face. The concrete and steel surface structure consists of rotating (traveling) screens and pumps sitting behind the open-faced structure parallel to the River. Five vertical turbine-type circulating pumps (Johnston16-in.) numbered (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) are located on top of pump pads at CWIS. Three of the five pumps contribute to the current facility operations with each rated to deliver 9,000 gallons per minute (gpm) into a 48-inch common header to the facility (see Attachment 3). The three pumps extend into the suction well area approximately 26 feet below the surface of the pumping station located behind a pair of rotating screens and provide cooling water to the facility. The original design and operation of the Finley CWIS included four-rotating water screen design, two screens and three pumps on the west side and two screens and two pumps on the east side. The current configuration and facility operation includes two rotating screens supported by three circulating pumps (#1, #2 and #3) on the west side (see Attachment 2 – Finley Profile View). The screens on the east side have been removed and the two pumps (#4 and #5) remain in place but are not operational. Cooling water from the Columbia River is pumped through two Link Belt rotating screen assemblies. The screen assemblies measure approximately 27 feet in height with a screen width of 6 feet, 6 inches sitting inside an 8-foot, 2½-inch wide channel well. Each screen assembly is constructed of multiple 1-inch x ⅛-
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 15 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(3) COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility inch stainless steel course mesh panels (each panel measures 6 feet, 6 inches X 2 feet) extending below the surface of the pumping station. A variable pressure (40 – 80 pound per square inch (lb/psi) spray wash system is in place and functions depending on debris loading with a 12-inch piped sluiceway return to the river. The front face of the CWIS has four intake windows that open to the river 26 feet below the surface of the CWIS (326 feet, 6-inch elevation). Two windows are associated with the two screens and three pumps on the west side of the CWIS and two windows are associated with the non-operational east side of the CWIS. Current facility operations utilize two of four designed intake windows fitted with debris screens (bar rack) measuring 6 feet wide X 7 ½ feet high constructed of 2-inch X ½-inch stainless steel flat bar on 2-inch centers and provide a screened bar rack intake face opened to the river for the three circulating pumps and two rotating screens. The inflow cross-sectional area of the screens is 67.6 square feet (sf) and the through screen velocities for Finley are calculated to be 0.30 fps based on one pump in operation. The following provides the latitudes and longitudes for Kennewick and Finley facilities CWIS: (ii) Latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes, and seconds for each cooling water intake structure;
Kennewick Onshore location: 46° 9’55.13” N; 119° 0’48.72”’W Offshore location: 46° 9' 55.77" N; 119° 0' 38.96"W
Finley Shoreline Location: 46° 9'21.01"N; 119° 0'23.38"W The following provides a narrative description for Kennewick and Finley facilities CWIS: (iii) A narrative description of the operation of each of cooling water intake structure, including design intake flows, daily hours of operation, number of days of the year in operation and seasonal changes, if applicable;
Kennewick The onshore CWIS at Kennewick consists of three circulating pumps with a DIF of approximately 37 MGD. Current operating conditions require an AIF of 23 MGD based on two pumps operating continuously with the third as a “standby”. The annual average for AIF (2017 – 2019) ranges from 16.5 to 18.4 MGD. The Offshore CWIS is considered a passive system and does not have any operational components. The Kennewick facility performs inspections once every five years in accordance with their NPDES permit. The Kennewick facility is in production 24-hours a day, 365 days a year, and therefore, uses water through the CWIS accordingly. Kennewick does not change operation based on seasons nor are there any scheduled outages or annual shutdowns. There are a few days out of the year the facility could shutdown to perform maintenance operations; however, these events are not scheduled and can vary from year to year.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 16 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(3) COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Finley The Finley CWIS was originally designed to operate with five circulating pumps at a DIF of 64.8 MGD. Current operation now consists of three circulating pumps with a combined operational capacity of approximately 38.9 MGD. Operation of the pumps is determined by production at the facility and flow levels in the River that can vary daily. Finley operates one pump as a standard practice; however, they have the ability to run all three pumps if needed and can fluctuate flow capacity in the plant through the operation of valves within the cooling water system. The annual average for AIF (2017 – 2019) ranges from 10.4 to 11.8 MGD. The Finley facility is in production 24-hours a day, 365 days a year and therefore, uses water through the CWIS, accordingly. Finley does not change operation based on seasons nor are there any scheduled outages or shutdowns annually. There are a few days out of the year the facility could shutdown to perform maintenance operations; however, these events are not scheduled and can vary from year to year. The following sections represents the Kennewick and Finley facilities operational information related to flow distribution, water balances and engineering drawings: (iv) A flow distribution and water balance diagram that includes all sources of water to the facility, recirculating flows, and discharges; and Flow distribution and water balance diagrams are provided as Attachment 1. (v) Engineering drawings of the cooling water intake structure. Engineering drawings of the CWIS are provided as Attachment 2.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 17 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
4. §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA
Source water baseline biological characterization data is required to characterize the biological community and evaluate how that community may potentially be affected by the CWIS. The following provides the Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data for the Kennewick and Finley facilities: (i) Identification of data that are not available and efforts made to identify sources of the data; Source water baseline biological data for the Columbia River is abundant. An extensive collection of existing data was reviewed and compiled for the CWIS evaluation. This data was developed from peer- reviewed literature presented in established scientific journals, various Columbia River aquatic surveys, general information detailing life histories and habitat preferences of organisms documented in those aquatic surveys, historic impingement and entrainment studies performed at other facilities located on the Columbia River, and historic environmental studies performed on the Columbia River. The data provides a characterization of species, life histories, seasonal and daily abundances, potential spawning and recruitment patterns, feeding habitats, and identifies important species that are considered recreational, commercial or threatened and endangered species. Major sampling studies implemented for the middle Columbia River have primarily focused on salmonid species and accompanying species lists and relative abundances are limited. A number of studies were identified on the Columbia River providing data sufficient for characterizing the biological communities at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS’. Collectively, these studies provide a list of species common to the River, provide an understanding of fish movement in the River, provide a basis for evaluating relative abundances, and provide long term information regarding effects of impingement and entrainment on the River, all of which support the baseline characterization for the both CWIS’. The following key studies were used in developing this report:
The Pacific Northwest Laboratory (Becker 1990) compiled a series of aquatic bioenvironmental studies associated with the Hanford Site located in southcentral Washington. The site was administered by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for research and development activities in the areas of defense, energy, and environmental studies. The Hanford site used water resources from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. From the 1970s to the early 1980s, three energy- producing facilities on the Hanford Reach used cooling water from the Columbia River. Potential impacts on aquatic biota were evaluated related to the intake and discharge of cooling water.
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Duncan 2007) identified 46 species representing 14 species at the U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site through which the Columbia River flows.
A study conducted by the U.S Department of the Interior (2008) for the Priest Rapid Lake of the Columbia River (River Mile 397) provides a list of fish species (44 species) evaluated for potential impingement as part of the operation of a pumping intake. The fish list included both resident and transient species known to occur in Priest Rapids and identified 23 species as being susceptible to impingement and entrainment.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2008) identified 45 species representing 13 families in the Hanford Reach National Monument. The Hanford Reach contains nationally and internationally important fisheries resources including chinook salmon, American shad, and white sturgeon. Other important recreational fisheries include mountain whitefish, smallmouth bass, crappie, catfish, walleye, and yellow perch.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 18 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Dauble (2009) developed a list of Fishes of the Columbia River that provides details on more than 48 species of fish, both native and introduced, found in the River. He references 31 species as being native and another 26 species as being introduced.
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL 2010) compiled a list of both native (descending from ancestral fish living in the region thousands of years ago) and introduced (within the past 200 years) fish species in the Columbia River based on Fishes of the Columbia Basin by Dennis D. Dauble. PNNL identified 37 native species representing nine families and 27 introduced species representing nine families.
The Columbia Generating Station conducted a 2-year entrainment fish study to satisfy the requirements of their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The one-year summary report was submitted with the NPDES permit renewal application (Anchor 2019). The study identified 44 species representing 13 families and their relative abundance in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Two fish were entrained during the thirteen fish entrainment sampling events, a fall run chinook salmon fry and a Pacific lamprey ammocoete. The following section provides a summary of the species in the vicinity of the CWIS at Kennewick and Finley: (ii) A list of species (or relevant taxa) for all life stages and their relative abundance in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure. All species should be evaluated, including the forage base and those species most important in terms of significance to commercial and recreational fisheries; Data from the aforementioned studies were used to develop the list of species known to occur on the Columbia River. Analysis of the species and relative abundance studies conducted upstream and downstream of the Kennewick and Finley facilities resulted in a relative combined total of 116 taxa most likely to occur in Columbia River (Table 1). Although 116 species are listed as occurring in the Columbia River most studies indicate that between 40 to 60 species are considered to be representative of normal fish communities in the middle Columbia River. Of these species 37 are considered native species while 27 are considered introduced species. Utilizing the species list in Table 1 and assessing the information from the literature and the life histories for each species, a list was developed of those species considered abundant or common to the middle Columbia River near the Kennewick and Finley CWIS’s. A total of 27 species were identified and considered to make up the calculation baseline for each CWIS (Table 2).
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 19 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Table 1: List of Fish Species Occurring in the Columbia River
Recreationally important USFWS (ODFW 2016- Duncan Hanford EIS PNNL Anchor 2020, WDFW Family and Species 2007 USDOI 2008 2008 2010 2019 LCEP 2020 2020)
Acipenseridae White sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus X N C X N P X X
Green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris X X
Agonidae
Warty poacher, Ocella verrucosa X
Tubenose poacher, Pallasina barbata X
Pricklebreast poacher, Stellerina xyosterna X
Ammodytidae
Pacific sand lance, Ammodytes hexapterus X
Catostomidae Largescale sucker, Catostomus macrocheilus X N A X N C X Bridgelip sucker, Catostomus columbianus X N A X N C Longnose sucker, Catostomus N C N U Mountain sucker, Catostomus platyrhynchus X N R X N P
Centrarchidae Smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieu X I C X I P X X Largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides X I C X I U X X Bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus X I C X I P X X Pumpkinseed, Lepomis gibbosus X I U X I P X X
Warmouth, Lepomis gulosus X X Black crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus X I C X I P X X White crappie, Pomoxis annularis X I C X I P X X
Clupeidae American shad, Alosa sapidissima X I U X I A X X
Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasi X X
Cottidae Prickly sculpin, Cottus asper X N C X N P X Torrent sculpin, Cottus rhotheus X N C X N P Paiute sculpin, Cottus beldingi X N U X N U
Margined sculpin, Cottus marginatus N Mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi complex X N U X N P
Padded sculpin, Artedius fenestralis X
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 20 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Recreationally important USFWS (ODFW 2016- Duncan Hanford EIS PNNL Anchor 2020, WDFW Family and Species 2007 USDOI 2008 2008 2010 2019 LCEP 2020 2020)
Coastrange sculpin, Cottus aleuticus N X
Buffalo sculpin, Enophyrs bison X
Pacific staghorn sculpin, Leptocottus armatus X
Cabezon, Scorpaenichthys marmoratus X X
Reticulate sculpin, Cottus perplexus X X N U Shorthead sculpin, Cottus confusus N U N Slimy sculpin, Cottus cognatus N U N
Cyprinidae Chiselmouth, Acrocheilus alutaceus X N A X N C X Northern pikeminnow, Ptychocheillus oregonensis X N A X N A X X Redside shiner, Richardsonius balteatus X N A X N A X Peamouth, Mylocheilus caurinus X N A X N A X X Longnose dace, Rhinichthys cataractae X N C X N C Speckled dace, Rhinichthys osculus complex X N C X N P Carp, Cyprinus carpio X I C X I P X X Goldfish, Carassius auratus I Tench, Tinca I U X I U Leopard dace, Rhinichthys falcatus X N R X N P
Umatilla dace, Rhinichthys umatilla N U Tui chub, Gila bicolor N R N
Oregon chub, Oregonichthus crameri N
Cyprinodontidae
Banded killifish, Fundulus diaphanous I
Embiotocidae
Redtail surfperch, Amphistichus rhodoterus X X
Shiner perch, Cymatogaster aggregata X
Striped seaperch, Embiotoca lateralis X
Spotfin surfperch, Hyperprosopon anale X
Walleye surfperch, Hyperprosopon argenteum X
Silver surfperch, Hyperprosopon ellipticum X
White seaperch, Phanerodon furcatus X
Pile perch, Rhacochilus vacca X
Engraulidae
Northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax X X
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 21 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Recreationally important USFWS (ODFW 2016- Duncan Hanford EIS PNNL Anchor 2020, WDFW Family and Species 2007 USDOI 2008 2008 2010 2019 LCEP 2020 2020)
Esocidae
Northern pike, Esox lucius I
Grass pickerel, Esox americanus I
Gadidae Burbot, Lota X N R X N U
Pacific tomcod, Microgadus proximus X X
Walleye pollock, Theragra chalcogramma X
Gasterosteidae Three-spine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus X N A X N U X X
Ninespine stickleback, Pungitius X
Gobiidae
Bay goby, Lepidogobius lepidus X
Hexagrammidae
Kelp greenling, Hexogrammus decagrammus X X Lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus X X Ictaluridae Channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus X I C X I U X X
Blue catfish, Ictalurus furcatus X Brown bullhead, Ameiurus nebulosus X I U X I U X X Yellow bullhead, Ameiurus natalis X I U X I U X X Black bullhead, Ameiurus melas X I U X I U X
Tadpole madtom, Noturus gyrinus I
Liparidae
Slipskin snailfish, Liparis fucencis X
Showy snailfish, Liparis pulchellus X
Ringtail snailfish, Liparis rutteri X
Merlucciidae
Pacific hake, Merluccius productus X
Osmeridae
Whitebait smelt, Allosmerus elongates X
Surf smelt, Hypomesus pretiosus X
Night smelt, Spirinchus starksi X
Longfin smelt, Spirinchus thaleichthys X
Eulachon, Thaleichthys pacificus X X
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 22 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Recreationally important USFWS (ODFW 2016- Duncan Hanford EIS PNNL Anchor 2020, WDFW Family and Species 2007 USDOI 2008 2008 2010 2019 LCEP 2020 2020)
Paralichthyidae
Pacific sanddab, Citharichthys sordidus X
Speckled sanddab, Citharichthys stigmaeus X
Percidae Yellow perch, Perca flavescens X I C X I P X X Walleye, Sander vitreus X I C X I P X X
Fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas I
Grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon idella I
Percopsidae Sandroller, Percopsis transmontana X N R X N U
Petromyzontidae
Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata X X N C X
Western brook lamprey, Lampetra richardsoni N
River lamprey, Lampetra ayresi X X U X Pholidae Saddleback gunnel, Pholis ornata X
Pleuronectidae
Butter sole, Isopsetta isolepis X X
English sole, Parophrys vetulus X X
Starry flounder, Platichthys stellatus X X
C-O sole, Pleuronichthys coenosus X X
Sand sole, Psettichthys melanostictus X X
Poeciliidae
Western mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis X I U
Rajidae
Big skate, Raja binoculata X
Salmonidae Mountain whitefish, Prosopium williamsoni X N C X N C X X Bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus X N R N X Cutthroat trout, Onchorhynchus clarki X N U X N X X
Steelhead, Onchorhynchus mykiss N P X X Rainbow trout, Onchorhynchus mykiss X N C X N X
Chinook salmon, Onchorhynchus tshawytscha X X N A X X
Chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta X X
Coho salmon, Onchorhynchus kisutch X X N C X X
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 23 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Recreationally important USFWS (ODFW 2016- Duncan Hanford EIS PNNL Anchor 2020, WDFW Family and Species 2007 USDOI 2008 2008 2010 2019 LCEP 2020 2020)
Sockeye salmon, Onchorhynchus nerka X X N C X X Lake whitefish, Coregonus clupeaformis X N R X I Brown trout, Salmo trutta I U I X Brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis I R I X
Lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush I X
Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma X X
Squalidae
Spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias X X
Stichaeidae
Snake prickleback, Lumpenus sagitta X
Syngnathidae
Bay pipefish, Syngnathus leptorhynchus X
Trichodontidae
Pacific sandfish, Trichodon trichodon X Total: 116 species A = Abundant = >10% C = Common = > 1% P = Present = < 1% R = Rare U = Uncommon (suspected presence but rarely observed) G - Game fish N = Native I = Introduced
Sources: PNNL 2010: https://ecology.pnnl.gov/Fishes_Columbia_River.asp
WDFW 2020: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/locations/lowland-lakes/lake-wallula
ODFW 2016-2020: https://myodfw.com/fishing/species
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 24 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Table 2: Abundant and Common Fish Species Occurring Near the Kennewick and Finley CWIS
Family and Species (ODFW 2016-2020, WDFW 2020)
White sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus X Smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieu X Largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides X Bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus X Pumpkinseed, Lepomis gibbosus X Warmouth, Lepomis gulosus X Black crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus X White crappie, Pomoxis annularis X American shad, Alosa sapidissima X Chiselmouth, Acrocheilus alutaceus X Northern pikeminnow, Ptychocheillus oregonensis X
Redside shiner, Richardsonius balteatus X Peamouth, Mylocheilus caurinus X Carp, Cyprinus carpio X Three-spine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus X Channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus X Brown bullhead, Ameiurus nebulosus X Yellow bullhead, Ameiurus natalis X Black bullhead, Ameiurus melas X Yellow perch, Perca flavescens X Walleye, Sander vitreus X Mountain whitefish, Prosopium williamsoni X Bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus X Cutthroat trout, Onchorhynchus clarki X Steelhead, Onchorhynchus mykiss X Rainbow trout, Onchorhynchus mykiss X Chinook salmon, Onchorhynchus tshawytscha X Chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta X Coho salmon, Onchorhynchus kisutch X Sockeye salmon, Onchorhynchus nerka X Brown trout, Salmo trutta X Brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis X Source: ODWF 2016-2020; WDWF 2020 Table 1 also provides a list of recreationally important species identified, of which, a total of 34 species are considered having recreational importance. The primary recreational species include the salmon species, steelhead and other trout species, mountain whitefish, and white sturgeon. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) use the River as a migration route to and from
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 25 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility upstream spawning areas (Duncan 2007). Introduced species such as walleye, smallmouth bass, American shad, and yellow perch have become important sportfish. Commercial harvest of fish is conducted in five zones below the Bonneville dam by non-Indian commercial gillnetters and in Zone 6 between Bonneville and McNary dams by Indian fishers (Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2020). Commercial fishing is no longer permitted on the middle Columbia River near the Kennewick and Finley facilities. Commercial fish species on the lower Columbia River and is restricted to salmon, steelhead trout, and anchovy. The Columbia River has a diversity of riverine habitats supporting aquatic organisms. Phytoplankton are abundant in the River and provide food for herbivores including insects and small fish. Plankton populations are influenced by communities that develop in the reservoirs behind dams and then feed the River during water releases (Duncan 2007). Macrophytes (rooted plants) are sparse in the River due to the strong currents and rocky substrate. Zooplankton abundances are highly variable with summer- autumn seasonal peaks (Emerson et. al. 2014) and are correlated to retention times in reservoirs (Stober et. al. 1979). The summer-autumn peaks align with the larval recruitment of most species and provide an essential food source for early life stages of fish. Dominant genera are Bosmina, Cyclops, and Diaptomus. Overall fish production and abundance on the middle Columbia River is heavily influenced by fish migration and spawning that occurs above the Priest Rapids, in the Hanford Reach and up the Snake River. The Hanford Reach supports the only major spawning habitat for the upriver bright race of fall chinook salmon within the main stem of the Columbia River and American shad and steelhead trout may also spawn in this portion of the River (Becker et. al. 1996). This section provides a review and summary of those species of fish most susceptible to impingement and entrainment at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS: (iii) Identification of the species and life stages that would be most susceptible to impingement and entrainment Susceptibility to impingement and entrainment is dependent upon a variety of interrelated factors including size, life stage, swimming speed, intake flow velocity, rheotaxis, seasonal variation, habitat preference, etc. Studies have shown that smaller, juvenile individuals are more susceptible to impingement than their larger, adult counterparts (Bodensteiner and Lewis 1992, Saalfeld 2006). Impingent and entrainment for salmonids have been predicted based on fish body size. Salmonids smaller than 75 mm in body length are considered for entrainment and those larger than 75 mm are considered for impingement (Bell 1990). Other impingement studies across the U.S. have found that the sizes of fish impinged range between 40 to 450 mm, with the average size being around 60 mm. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI 2011) completed a detailed summary of fish and shellfish impinged and entrained based on an industry survey of completed 316(b) characterization studies. EPRI found the most common species impinged in large and small rivers were gizzard shad, freshwater drum, threadfin shad, bluegill and channel catfish. Entrainment data were not available for large river systems and information for small rivers indicated species belonging to the Cyprinidae, Clupeidae and Catastomidae were the most common entrained eggs and larvae. Additionally, the study found that on average facilities located on large rivers had an average estimate of impingement of 321,052 fish and facilities on small rivers had an average of 265,540 fish annually. Impingement For fish species on the Columbia River, impingement will be most impactful on young poor-swimming fish unable to avoid the HZOI of the CWIS (DOI 2008). Studies on impingement and entrainment on the Columbia River have indicated that species susceptible to impingement are those that have a high likelihood of being present near the intake during pump operation and have a susceptible life history stage such as eggs or young fish (DOI 2008). On the Columbia River, it is anticipated that River flow
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 26 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility conditions and outmigration for some species result in highly variable impingement estimates. Of specific concern for impingement is the impacts associated with chinook salmon fry as they migrate downstream from the area above Priest Rapids Dam during the months of March and April each year. Page et. al. (1977) found that chinook salmon fry made up less than 0.001% of the fry emergence and had a percent survival rate ranging between 77 to 100% at the Hanford Generating Project (HGP) facility and 0% survival at the 100-N Reactor on the Hanford Reach. The study did not identify possible reasons for the difference in impingement mortality. The dominant species with the potential to be impinged at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS’ were determined from the overall list of abundant species (116), the list of species in the middle Columbia River (29), and those species previously documented in impingement studies on the Columbia River. These species were then evaluated according to species life histories, habitat preference, and overall abundance to determine the calculation baseline for those species most susceptible to impingement and entrainment. Impingement and entrainment studies conducted relative to supporting current and previous 316(b) requirements and addressing fish protection on the Columbia River are summarized below. Table 3 provides a summary of the sampling studies, and Table 4 provides a summary of the species impinged.
Page et. al. 1977 Impingement Studies at the 100-N Reactor Water Intake. This study provided a comparison of impingement at two facilities (100-N Reactor and HGP) with CWIS adjacent to each other on the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Impingement at the 100-N Reactor facility resulted in eight species fish and a total of 2,790 were impinged, while at the HGP facility, ten species of fish and a total of 1,760 were impinged. Yellow perch (90%) and chinook salmon fry (9%) made up the majority of fish impinged at 100-N Reactor. At HGP, yellow perch (43%), chinook salmon (43%) followed by squawfish (6%) and sculpin (4%). The remaining six species combined for 4%.
The Columbia Generating Station conducted a 2-year entrainment fish study to satisfy the requirements of their NPDES permit. The one-year summary report was submitted with the NPDES permit renewal application (Anchor 2019). The study identified 44 species representing 13 families and their relative abundance in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. No fish were impinged during the study and only two fish were entrained.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 27 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Table 3: Summary of Impingement Studies on the Middle Columbia River
Impingement/ River Period of Sampling Sampling Sampling Plant Entrainment Location Mile Sampling Frequency Duration Location Capacity Total Survival 100-N 380 May 1977 - Daily 12 min Sluiceway 315,000 2,790 total 0% Reactor August 1977 samples, wash; gpm fish; 68 fish/day Hanford 380 May 1977 - Daily 12 min Sluiceway 423,000 1,786 total 77 to Generating August 1977 samples, wash; gpm fish; 100% Project 105 fish/day Columbia 352 2016- 2018 Video In-situ Cylindrical 25,000 No fish Generating surveillance screen gpm impinged Station surface Columbia 352 2016- 2018 Cage 24-hr Intake 25,000 2 fish Generating suction gpm entrained Station well
Table 4: Summary of Species Impinged in the Columbia River Impinged Hanford Generating Common Name 100-N Reactor Organisms Project
Fish Chinook Fry 241 781
Pacific Lamprey 2 2
Stickleback 1 18
Dace 0 3
Redsided shiner 4 32
Squawfish 17 99
Whitefish 3 5
Sculpin 5 66
Sucker 0 3
Yellow Perch 2515 774
Shellfish Crayfish 2 3
Totals 2.790 1,786
Length data from the HGP and 100-N Reactor study indicated mean lengths for chinook salmon ranged from 4.1 to 7.4 cm (41 to 74 millimeter) fork length over the study period. A previous study at HGP (Page 1977) indicated 90% of the fish impinged were zero-age chinook salmon less than 50 mm fork length. Impingement data from other studies on large and small rivers demonstrate that young of the year (YOY) or juveniles typically dominate impingement (Table 5). Lengths for all of these species, except the common carp, are more typical of younger individuals than for adults.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 28 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Table 5: Mean Length of Fish Impinged on Large and Small Rivers
Species Reported mean lengths gizzard shad 115 mm threadfin shad 63 mm freshwater drum 86 mm blue catfish 87 mm channel catfish 72 mm bluegill 46 mm skipjack herring 119 mm common carp 399 mm river shrimp 56 mm
Characterization of Impingement at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS The 29 species listed in the calculation baseline for facilities on the Columbia River (Table 2) and the 10 species identified in previous impingement studies (Table 4) were evaluated to determine those fish and shellfish species susceptible to impingement at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS. Species life histories for related to habitat preferences, abundances, and potential sizes were identified for species with the greatest potential for occurring at each CWIS. Life histories for fish and shellfish species evaluated for impingement are included in Attachment 4. The habitat associated with the Kennewick CWIS (offshore intake component) is considered a main channel to border channel habitat. The water in this area is deep and maintains considerable flow conditions year around. The only habitat structure in the main channel is large rock and sediment. The main channel areas are used by a number of species, including the salmonids. Adults will utilize the main channel during migration and during low flow periods. Once larval fish grow into fingerlings and early juvenile stages, they will move from the shallow shoreline habitat into the deeper habitats where food sources are more abundant. For those species that outmigrate, the main channel provides swift flow for moving downstream. The location of the Kennewick CWIS offshore and in deeper water is associated with a lower fish abundances and larger sizes of fish resulting in less impingement. The habitat associated with the Finley CWIS is considered a shoreline habitat. While the intake is positioned in an embayment (forebay), the habitats are similar to those along the shoreline areas with exception of water depth, where the forebay area is dredged and maintained at a certain depth to provide sufficient water withdrawals into the CWIS. The channel border typically has a slower current with variable depths of shallower water and can exist with a natural steep bank. Channel borders have greater habitat heterogeneity than the main channel habitat with medium biological diversity. The location of the Finley CWIS along the shoreline is associated with areas with greater fish abundances and smaller sizes of fish resulting in more fish potentially being impinged. Based on the life histories, those species associated with channel borders or littoral areas (shoreline areas) of the Columbia River and those species having a juvenile life stage near the CWIS were considered as potential species susceptible for impingement at the Kennewick and Finley. Table 6 provides a summary of the species identified from the calculation baseline as being susceptible to impingement at the CWIS.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 29 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Table 6: Fish and Shellfish Species Susceptible to Impingement at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS
Species Kennewick Facility Finley Facility Chinook salmon X X Pacific Lamprey X X Stickleback X X Dace X Redsided shiner X Squawfish X Whitefish X X Sculpin X X Sucker X X Yellow Perch X X Bluegill X Smallmouth bass X X Largemouth bass X Carp X X Walleye X X Rainbow trout X X American Shad X X Black crappie X White crappie X White sturgeon X X Largescale sucker X Bridgelip sucker X Prickly sculpin X Torrent sculpin X Chiselmouth X Northern pikeminnow X X Peamouth X Three-spine stickleback X Channel catfish X X Chum salmon X X Coho salmon X X Sockeye salmon X X Brown trout X X Brook trout X X Bull trout X X
Key factors considered in evaluating the species susceptible to impingement and determining their potential for impingement at Kennewick and Finley facilities are the types of CWIS and the location in the source water as it relate to fish habitats. The Kennewick CWIS (offshore component) is located 262 feet offshore at a depth of 14 feet and elevated roughly 3 feet from the riverbed. The location of the CWIS offshore puts the intake out of primary habitats of most common fish on the River for most of the year thus
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 30 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility reducing the potential impingement. For those species with outmigration patterns, the intake location could be in the pathway during the some of those migrations; however, the fact the offshore CWIS is positioned up off the bottom where a large number of fish will be swimming and feeding along the substrate will reduce potential impingement. The HZOI and intake velocities are low enough at the Kennewick CWIS that fish moving from upstream releases or from shoreline areas will be larger in size and have a strong swimming ability to avoid the intakes. The last thing to consider is the amount of flow coming down the River will create a sweeping effect and potentially a bow wave at the upstream end of the cylindrical intake screens creating pressure and velocity changes that divert fish away from the screens and also serve as stimuli for screen avoidance behavior (Energy Northwest 2019).
Characterization of Entrainment at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS There are a few 316(b) Studies conducted on the Columbia River providing entrainment data relevant to numbers and types of organisms entrained on the River. However, a number of studies have been completed evaluating potential impacts with focus specifically on salmonids that provide a frame of reference. Entrainment studies include:
Columbia Generating Station (2019) conducted an entrainment study as part of the facilities NPDES permit conditions and to address WDFW’s and NMFS’ concerns regarding fish entrainment.
Gray et. al. (1985) conducted a study to determine the effects from entrainment of juvenile chinook salmon at steam electric generating stations on the Columbia River. The species listed in the calculation baseline and those identified in previous impingement studies were evaluated to determine those fish and shellfish species susceptible to entrainment at Kennewick and Finley CWIS. Species life histories were reviewed to determine spawning habitats and life-cycle stages within the Columbia River to identify those species occurring near the CWIS. Table 7 provides a list of fish and shellfish susceptible to entrainment at Kennewick and Finley.
Table 7: Fish and Shellfish Species Susceptible to Entrainment at Kennewick and Finley
Species Kennewick Facility Finley Facility American Shad X X Pacific Lamprey X X Chiselmouth X X Northern Pikeminnow X X Peamouth X X Chinook Salmon, Fall and Spring X X Coho Salmon X X Sockeye Salmon X X Steelhead X X Bridgelip Sucker X X Largescale Sucker X X White Sturgeon X X
Particular interest for entrainment in the Columba River is focused on the chinook salmon and steelhead trout. Energy Northwest (2019) identified a number of risk factors to entrainment of chinook salmon and steelhead trout by intake structures based on the month of the year that the species are present in the River. Table 8 provides a summary for the risks to chinook salmon related to intake structures by entrainment.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 31 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Table 8: Summary of the Risks to Chinook Salmon Related to Intake Structures By Entrainment (Energy Northwest 2019) Risk Level Created by Each Determining Factor of Entrainment by Month Entrainment Factor Review of Literature Summary Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Presence in Fry emerge from mid-March through mid-May, redistribute to shallow Hanford Reach nearshore areas through early summer, and migrate downstream from early M H H H H M L June through mid-August. Habitat Preference Emergent fry use shallow, shoreline habitats with mean water velocities less than 1.5 fps. Older subyearlings are found in water depths of 4.9 to 19.4 feet L L H H H H H and velocities between 0.6 to 2.6 fps, mainly in nearshore areas, but can be found across the entire river channel and water column. Fish Size 37 to 44 mm at emergence, 70 to 110 mm by early June, and 105 to 125 mm H H H M M L L by mid-August Hydraulic Bypass Mean sweeping velocity ranges from 4 to 5 fps during the months that emerging fry and subyearlings are present and exceeds the typical bulk flow L L L L L L L approach velocity of 0.07 fps by at least a factor of 50. Behavioral Burst swimming capacity of 3.5 fps exceeds the typical approach velocity of L L L L L L L Avoidance 0.07 fps by a factor of 50. Exclusion Salmon larger than approximately 75 mm excluded from outer screen pores H H H M L L L that are 9.5 mm in diameter. Most subyearlings reach 75 mm by June. Sweep-Off or Sweeping velocities that exceed approach velocities contribute to sweep-off. Impingement Blocked screen pores may contribute to higher and uneven approach velocities L L L L M M M and increase the potential for impingement; river debris is likely to be swept off; however, biofouling of screen pores may increase across the summer. Combination of All Environmental Low risk for one factor negates the risk posed by subsequent factors L L L L L L L Factors
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 32 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
The following provides and overview of the primary periods of reproduction and peak abundances of fish and shellfish in the Columbia River: (iv) Identify and evaluate the primary period of reproduction, larval recruitment, and period of peak abundance for relevant taxa; Spawning in the Columbia River is influenced by multiple variables including water temperature, river stage, and photoperiod. It is highly dependent on the species’ environmental preferences, reproductive strategy, and the environmental conditions during spawning. General consistency of these variables in the Columbia River indicate peak spawning typically occurs in early spring and summer with smaller spawning events in the fall and winter. The spawning periods and life stages of each species identified as susceptible to impingement and entrainment are detailed below in Tables 9 and 10, respectively.
Table 9: Typical Spawning Periods of Species Susceptible to Impingement at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS Common Name Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec White sturgeon Largescale sucker Bridgelip sucker Longnose sucker Smallmouth bass Largemouth bass Bluegill Black crappie White crappie Prickly sculpin Torrent sculpin Chiselmouth Northern pikeminnow Redside shiner Peamouth Longnose dace Speckled dace Carp Three-spine stickleback Channel catfish Yellow perch Walleye Mountain whitefish Rainbow trout Chinook salmon Pacific lamprey Coho salmon Sockeye salmon Brown trout Bull trout American Shad
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 33 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Table 10: Species Life Stages and Periods of Occurrence Most Susceptible to Entrainment at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS Common Name Life Stage Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec American Shad Juvenile (Age 0) Pacific Lamprey Ammocoetes Pacific Lamprey Macrophthalmia Chiselmouth Juvenile Northern Pikeminnow Juvenile Peamouth Juvenile Chinook Salmon, Fall Juvenile (Age 0) Chinook Salmon, Spring Smolt Coho Salmon Smolt Sockeye Salmon Smolt Steelhead Smolt Steelhead Juvenile (Age 0) Bridgelip Sucker Juvenile (Age 0) Largescale Sucker Juvenile (Age 0) White Sturgeon Larval Abundances of mature adults will likely peak from April to June based upon the known spawning periods of species commonly found in the Columbia River (Table 9). Following the abundance of adults during spawning season, a temporal lag of approximately one month associated with egg and larvae development will occur in which there will then be a peak abundance of larvae and juvenile stages. In the fall and early winter, YOY individuals will be seen in greater abundance as individuals attain YOY size and will be seeking overwinter habitats. For the salmonids, this will include outmigration downstream. As such, impingement and entrainment potential may exhibit seasonal variability due to periods of peak abundance. The seasonal and daily activities of fish in the vicinity of the Kennewick and Finley CWIS are described in this section: (v) Data representative of the seasonal and daily activities (e.g., feeding and water column migration) of biological organisms in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure; Downstream movement of individuals in lotic systems (flowing), known as drift, is a phenomenon that has been heavily studied (Hay et al. 2008, Reeves & Galat 2010). Individuals drifting are predominantly early life stages of fish, with peak drift occurring after hatching, due to limited swimming abilities and the need to reach nursery habitats (Brown & Armstrong 1985). Diel patterns (daytime and night time) of drift have been documented with greater drift at night for some species (Reichard et al. 2004). Abiotic factors such as temperature have also been found to influence the occurrence and density of larval catostomids and freshwater drum drifting (Hay et al. 2008). A positive correlation between body size and distance from the shore has been witnessed for drifting cyprinids (Reichard et al. 2004). This highlights that bank habitats are prime drift areas for younger larvae and that these individuals are susceptible to entrainment in CWIS located along shorelines. Changes in water temperature are one cause of seasonal movements. For example, many species common to the Columbia River will begin migration patterns and pre-spawing activities as water temperatures begin to rise. As mentioned previously, spawning events are seasonal which in turn causes migrations of adults inshore and upstream to reach spawning habitats (Pflieger 1975). These seasonal variations in temperature may potentially alter the ambient fish assemblage in the vicinity of the Kennewick and Finley CWIS, which would subsequently affect impingement and entrainment potential.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 34 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
A major factor for fish on the Columbia River are related to the movement of juvenile fish, such as salmon and steelhead, downstream to waters where they will spend their adult life, or to a lake or river for species such as trout, bull trout and sturgeon. Daily fish movements occur within the Columbia River, such as diel vertical migration (DVM). Individuals have been found to vertically migrate in response to changes in turbidity (Netsch 1971), water temperature (Miller 1960), and to escape visually oriented predators (Campbell & MacCrimmon 1970). White sturgeon move to shallower water at night and show greater activity than during the daytime. Chinook salmon and steelhead trout are known to remain within a confined area of the River during the daytime and become active at night and migrate downstream. Sample collections of Pacific lamprey indicate the ammocoetes are caught at night. The federally-listed threatened and endangered species are provided in this section: (vi) Identify all Federally-listed threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat that are or may be present in the vicinity of impingement and entrainment at the cooling water intake structure; Review of United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Threatened and Endangered List for Benton County within the Project boundaries of the Columbia River (RM 322-323) identified one mammal, one fish, and one bird species. Review of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA) protected species indicates two fish species are protected in the vicinity of the Kennewick and Finley CWIS. Listed species are shown in Table 11. Critical habitat was identified for the bull trout on the Columbia River near the facilities.
Table 11: USFWS and NOAA Threatened, Endangered and Protected Aquatic Species Critical Type Common name Scientific name Status Habitat Gray Wolf Canis lupus Endangered Mammals Gray Wolf (Western Distinct Population Canis lupus Proposed Endangered Segment) Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened X Fishes Chinook Salmon Onchorhynchus tshawytscha Protected Steelhead trout Onchorhynchus mykiss Protected Birds Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened
The following section documents any public participation or coordination with Federal and State agencies regarding Kennewick and Finley 316(b) compliance:
(vi) Documentation of any public participation or coordination with Federal or State agencies undertaken; and No public participation or agency coordination has been undertaken at this time for Kennewick or Finley facilities. The follow describes any species considered fragile species at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS: (vii) Identification of fragile species, as defined at § 125.92, found at the facility.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 35 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(4) SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL RENEWAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
According to the 316(b) Rule, fragile species are defined as those with an impingement survival rate of less than 30 percent, including but not limited to alewife, American shad, Atlantic herring, Atlantic long- finned squid, Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, blueback herring, bluefish, butterfish, gizzard shad, grey snapper, hickory shad, menhaden, rainbow smelt, round herring, and silver anchovy. Based on the life history information, the fragile species anticipated in the impingement at the Kennewick and Finley CWIS would be limited to the shad/herring species in the Clupeidae family, including American shad.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 36 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(5) COOLING WATER SYSTEM DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
5. §122.21(R)(5) COOLING WATER SYSTEM DATA
The following provides details on the Cooling Water System Data for the Kennewick and Finley facilities: (i) A narrative description of the operation of the cooling water system and its relationship to cooling water intake structures (including the use of helper towers); the proportion of the design intake flow that is used in the system including a distribution of water used for contact cooling, non- contact cooling, and process uses; a distribution of water reuse (to include cooling water reused as process water, process water reused for cooling, and the use of gray water for cooling); description of reductions in total water withdrawals including cooling water intake flow reductions already achieved through minimized process water withdrawals; description of any cooling water that is used in a manufacturing process either before or after it is used for cooling, including other recycled process water flows; the proportion of the source waterbody withdrawn (monthly); the number of days of the year the cooling water system is in operation and seasonal changes in the operation of the system, if applicable.
Kennewick The Kennewick facility manufactures nitric acid and liquid nitrogen fertilizer solutions, with the capacity to produce granulated ammonium nitrate. Kennewick operates 365 days a year and utilizes cooling water to support plant operation. Under current operations and conditions, screened River water is pumped from the Columbia River at the Kennewick facility with 100% used exclusively for once-through, non-contact cooling. While Kennewick has no wastewater treatment system, it generates contact refrigeration condensate and process water discharges for each of the separate plants at the facility. The non-contact and contact water are mixed and subsequently discharged into the Columbia River. Approximately 96% of the final effluent is once though non-contact cooling water and the remaining 4% of the effluent is derived from contact return flow originating from on-site extraction wells. The Kennewick facility 3-pump design DIF is 37 MGD and accounts for a 0.0185% usage of the mean flow from the Columbia River based on 307,930 cfs measured rate of river flow (199,006 MGD). Reported maximum usage, measured as AIF and based on two pumps, is 23 MGD and equates to 0.0115% of the measured River flow.
Finley The Finley facility is an industrial manufacturing facility storing and transferring ammonia and nitrogen fertilizer products to another KFO facility and has the capability of manufacturing aqua ammonia. Finley operates 365 days a year and utilizes cooling water to support plant operation. Under current operations and conditions, screened river water is pumped from the Columbia River at the Finley facility solely for the purposes of once-through, non-contact cooling water for anhydrous ammonia and aqua ammonia refrigeration. The facility does not generate process wastewater. This accounts for a total of 10.4 MGD water usage by the facility directly from River water with 100% of the water used exclusively for cooling. The Finley facility DIF of 64.8 MGD from the original 5-pump design accounts for a 0.0325% usage of the mean flow from the Columbia River based on 307,930 cfs rate of measured River flow (199,006 MGD). Potential maximum usage based on the current 3-pump operation of 38.9 MGD equates to 0.0195% of the measured River flow and an actual usage of 10.4 MGD (2019 average) for 0.0052% of the Columbia River flow. (ii) A description of existing impingement and entrainment technologies or operational measures and a summary of their performance, including for example reductions in entrainment due to intake location and reductions in total water withdrawals and usage, and efficiencies in energy production for each producing unit that result in the use of less cooling water, including for
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 37 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(5) COOLING WATER SYSTEM DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
example combined cycle and cogeneration. For example, the applicant may provide comparative density data for the intake to demonstrate the extent to which location of the intake has reduced adverse environmental impact.
Kennewick The Kennewick CWIS is comprised of both an on-shore and off-shore system along the Columbia River. The on-shore component consists of three stationary pumps designed to pull water from the River and send it to the facility for once-through cooling. The off-shore component consists of Johnson Well Screens designed with 0.5 fps intake velocity and No. 140 (0.140 inch) slots. The off-shore intake is situated 262 feet offshore and approximately 3 feet off of the River in bottom in 14.5 feet of water (normal elevation) away from the primary production zones in the River. The HZOI for each of the intake screens is less than 2.5 feet indicating the intakes have a very low influence on the surrounding area of the intake. With Kennewick operating its CWIS Johnson screens, a type of cylindrical wedgewire screen capable of achieving less than 0.5 fps, its technology status is pre-approved for impingement BTA compliance under CFR 125.94(c)(2). Kennewick has a DIF of 37 MGD based on a three-pump design. However, the facility currently operates only two pumps at any one time resulting in an AIF of 23 MGD. The lower AIF results in a reduction of 37.8% of the design capacity for water use at the facility that also reduces the amount of aquatic organisms with potential for impingement and entrainment at the Kennewick CWIS. Furthermore, Kennewick withdraws only 0.0115% of the mean River flow indicating a low use of water compared to the volumes available.
Finley The Finley CWIS is situated along the shoreline parallel to the flow of the Columbia River. The CWIS has a set of stationary screens located below water level that prevent debris and aquatic organisms from entering the intake suctions wells. The screens are stationary, designed with a small cross-sectional area of 67.6 sf, an intake velocity of 0.30 fps, and a HZOI with a radius of 5.19 feet (high water depth) and 12.52 feet (low water depth) indicating the intakes have a very low influence on the surrounding area of the intake. Behind the stationary screens are two rotating screens, with small mesh openings, and low- pressure spray wash system designed to remove debris and fish and wash them back to the River via a sluiceway system. Finley utilizes a once-through cooling system and three circulating cooling water pumps each with a rated capacity of 9,000 gpm for a potential usage of 38.9 MGD. Since Finley’s current operations is limited to transfer and storage with the capability to manufacture aqua ammonia, the water usage is greatly reduced to an AIF of 10.4 MGD. Based on the CWIS and cooling water use, the following represent reduction measures for impingment and entrain at Finley: 1. Removal of two of four rotating screens and the associated two pumps from service. 2. Use of only one pump to support current water needs and operations at the facility. 3. Stationary screens in place on the CWIS with an intake velocity of less than 0.5 fps. 4. Rotating screens run continually when pump is running reducing impingement time on screen. 5. An 83.3% water volume reduction by the facility based on DIF comparison of 64.8 MGD to 10.4 MGD AIF.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 38 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(5) COOLING WATER SYSTEM DATA RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
6. Current operation has a max flow of 38.9 MGD with an AIF of 10.4 MGD resulting in a daily reduction of 72.2% of the water usage. 7. The facility withdraws 0.0052% of the mean River flow. 8. Trash debris sluiceway returning fish from rotating screens back into the River.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 39 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(6) CHOSEN METHOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH RENEWAL IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY STANDARD NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
6. §122.21(R)(6) CHOSEN METHOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY STANDARD
The Kennewick and Finley facilities are compliant with the Impingement Mortality standard based on the CWIS design at both facilities meeting the IM BTA 125.94(c) Alternative (2) for 0.5 fps through-screen design velocity. (i) Identify the compliance method for the entire facility or, alternatively, the compliance method for each cooling water intake structure at the facility
Kennewick Kennewick operates a CWIS with Johnson Well Screens designed with less than 0.5 fps intake velocity and No. 140 (0.140 inch) slots which meets the standard for IM BTA 125.94(c)(2). Each of the screens is submerged to a depth of at least one screen radius below minimum water surface, with a minimum of one screen radius clearance between the screen surfaces and natural or constructed features.
Finley Finley operates a CWIS with stationary screens designed with less than 0.5 fps intake velocity that meets the standard for IM BTA 125.94(c)(2). Additionally, as mentioned in (r)(5)(ii) above, Finley has other operational and design components that provides further reductions in impingement and entrainment at the CWIS, including reductions in water use by greater than 72% and rotating screens with low pressure wash water returning aquatic organisms back to the River.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 40 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(7) ENTRAINMENT PERFORMANCE STUDIES RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
7. §122.21(R)(7) ENTRAINMENT PERFORMANCE STUDIES
While entrainment studies have not been performed at the Kennewick and Finley facilities, other entrainment studies have been performed on the Columbia River. (i) Submit a description of any biological survival studies conducted at the facility and a summary of any conclusions or results, including the following: site-specific studies addressing technology efficacy, through facility entrainment survival (distinguished for eggs and larvae), entrainment analyses, or studies conducted at other locations including a justification as to why the data are relevant and representative of conditions at the facility. 1. No site-specific entrainment studies have been conducted at the Kennewick and Finley facilities since operations began in 1959 and 1954, respectively. 2. A review of the available literature/resources was performed for other biological studies where entrainment has been evaluated on the Columbia River near the Kennewick and Finley facilities. The information in these studies provide a characterization of entrainment associated with certain types of CWIS’ and habitats on the Columbia River, thus providing a baseline for what species may be entrained at Kennewick and Finley.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 41 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(8) OPERATIONAL STATUS RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
8. §122.21(R)(8) OPERATIONAL STATUS
The operational status information is required to describe the individual units and their operations. The following provides the Operational Status for the Kennewick and Finley facilities. (i) For power production or steam generation, descriptions of individual unit operating status including age of each unit, capacity utilization rate (or equivalent) for the previous 5 years, including any extended or unusual outages that significantly affect current data for flow, impingement, entrainment, or other factors, including identification of any operating unit with a capacity utilization rate of less than 8 percent averaged over a 24-month block contiguous period, and any major upgrades completed within the last 15 years, including but not limited to boiler replacement, condenser replacement, turbine replacement, or changes to fuel type; Not applicable. The Kennewick and Finley facilities do not perform power production or steam generation. (ii) Descriptions of completed, approved, or scheduled uprates and Nuclear Regulatory Commission relicensing status of each unit at nuclear facilities; Not applicable. The Kennewick and Facilities are not nuclear facilities. (iii) For process units at your facility that use cooling water other than for power production or steam generation, if you intend to use reductions in flow or changes in operations to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 125.94(c), descriptions of individual production processes and product lines, operating status including age of each line, seasonal operation, including any extended or unusual outages that significantly affect current data for flow, impingement, entrainment, or other factors, any major upgrades completed within the last 15 years, and plans or schedules for decommissioning or replacement of process units or production processes and product lines;
Kennewick Kennewick uses cooling water for purposes other than for power or steam generation. However, Kennewick does not intend to use reductions in flow or changes in operations to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 125.94(c).
Finley Finley uses cooling water for purposes other than for power or steam generation and intends to use reductions in flow or changes in operations to support its current IM BTA requirements under 40 CFR 125.94(c). The Finley facility was constructed in 1954 to manufacture anhydrous and aqua ammonia and has gone through a number of changes and changed ownership numerous times over the years. In 2005, the facility shut down the ammonia plant and removed most of the processing units and equipment. The facility now operates as a storage and transfer facility for ammonia and nitrogen fertilizer. Finley still has the capability to manufacture aqua ammonia. The Finley facility receives anhydrous ammonia and stores it in two above-ground spherical pressure tanks and an atmospheric pressure tank. The storage capacity for anhydrous ammonia is over 20,000 tons. Pipelines deliver ammonia from the Finley facility to the Kennewick facility, where ammonia is used for fertilizer manufacturing. The Finley facility has two 630,000-gallon storage tanks for mixing ammonia with water to form aqua ammonia. The facility also has two tanks storing 32% urea and ammonium nitrate solutions (UAN-32) and two tanks storing 17% calcium and ammonium nitrate solutions (CAN-17). The total storage capacity for UAN-32 and CAN-17 is over 18 million gallons. The tanks have partial secondary containment and are covered under a Washington State Department of Agriculture “critical area” containment permit.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 42 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT §122.21(R)(8) OPERATIONAL STATUS RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
The Finley facility is approximately 27 acres and has storage tanks, warehouses, shops, railroad spurs, administrative offices, and parking. Agrium operates the Finley facility 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and typically has one operator on site. No extended or unusual outages that significantly affect current data for flow, impingement, entrainment, or other factors have occurred in the previous 5 years. Major upgrades at Finley are described in Table 11. Finley maintains a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for annual maintenance of the CWIS that includes removal of accumulated sediment in the fore-bay to prevent clogging of the pump intakes.
Table 12: Major Upgrades within the last 15 years at the Finley Facility
Component Description NH3 Plant In 2005, Finley took the two NH3 plants out of service and the facility became strictly a storage terminal. All cooling water was then used for operating the NH3 refrigeration loop. This modification resulted in the shutting down of two pumps and two rotating screens at the CWIS and reduced the DIF from 64.8 MGD to 38.9 MGD. CWIS Finley plans to install new Evoqua traveling screens to replace the two that are currently in operation.
(iv) For all manufacturing facilities, descriptions of current and future production schedules; and
As stated previously, Kennewick and Finley operate 365 days of the year to meet current production schedules. Future production increases are anticipated for Kennewick and Finley; however, planned schedules have not been established at this time. All production changes will align with existing pumping capacities at Kennewick and Finley facilities.
(v) Descriptions of plans or schedules for any new units planned within the next 5 years.
There are no plans for any new units at Kennewick or Finley within the next 5 years.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page 43 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT REFERENCES RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
9. REFERENCES
Becker, C.D. 1985. Anadromous Salmonids of the Hanford Reach, Columbia River: 1984 Status. U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Becker, C.D. 1990. Aquatic Bioenvironmental Studies: The Hanford Experience 1944-84. Studies in Environmental Science 39 Geosciences Department, Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Becker, C.D., D.H. Fickeisen, and J.C. Montgomery. 1981. Assessment of Impacts from Water Level Fluctuations on Fish in the Handford Reach, Columbia River. U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL0 1830. Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Becker, J.M., C.A. Brandt, D.D. Dauble, A.D. Maughan, and T.K. O’Neil. 1996. Species for the Screening Assessment. Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Energy. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. DOE/RL-96-16-b. Bell, Milo C. 1990. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria. Prepared for the North Pacific Division of the Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon. Dauble, D.D. 1986. Life History and Ecology of the Largescale Sucker (Castostomus macrocheilus) in the Columbia River. The American Midland Naturalist. Vol. 116. No. 2 (Oct., 1986), pp. 356-367. Dauble, Dennis D., T.L. Page, and R.W. Hanf Jr. 1989. Spatial Distribution of Juvenile Salmonids in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 87:771-790, Environmental Sciences Department, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA Dauble, Dennis D. 2009. Fishes of the Columbia Basin. A Guide to Their Natural History and Identification. Keokee Books; First Edition (July 1, 2009). Dauble, D.D. 2011. Life History of the Bridgelip Sucker in the Central Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 109(1):92-98 Duncan, J.P., ed. 2007. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization. PNL- 6415, Rev. 18. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2011. National and Regional Summary of Impingement and Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish Based on an Industry Survey of Clean Water Act §316(b) Characterization Studies. 2011 Technical Report. Emerson, J.E., S. M. Bollens, and T.D. Counihan. 2014. Seasonal dynamics of zooplankton in Columbia– Snake River reservoirs, with special emphasis on the invasive copepod Pseudodiaptomus forbesi. Aquatic Invasions (2015) Volume 10, Issue 1: 25–40. Entergy Northwest. 2019. Columbia Generating Station Fish Entrainment Study. Interim Report. Anchor QEA, LLC. PN171376-01.01. Federal Caucus. 2020. The Columbia River Basin. https://www.salmonrecovery.gov/AboutUs/ColumbiaRiverBasin.aspx Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2006. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project, Washington (FERC Project No. 2114-116). Final Environmental Impact Statement 0190F. Washington DC. Foundation for Water and Energy Education (FWEE). 2020. What Makes the Columbia River Basin Unique and How We Benefit. https:// .org/environment/what-makes-the-columbia-river-basin- unique-and-how-we-benefit/.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT REFERENCES RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
Giorgi, A.E., T.W. Hillman, and J.R. Stevenson. 1997. ‘Factors that influence the downstream migration rates of juvenile salmon and steelhead through the hydroelectric system in the mid-Columbia River basin.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:268-282. Gray, R.H., and D.D. Dauble. 1977. “Checklist and Relative Abundance of Fish Species from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River.” Northwest Science 51:208-215. Gray, R.H. and D.D. Dauble. 2001. Some Life History Characteristics of Cyprinids in the Hanford Reach, Mid-Columbia River. Northwest Science, Vol 75, No. 2. Gray, R.H., D.A. Neitzal, and T.L. Page. 1979. Water Intake Structures: Engineering Solutions to Biological Problems North Eng. 10:21-33. Gray, R.H., T.L. Page, D.A. Neitzel, and D. D. Dauble. 2008. Assessing population effects from entrainment of fish at a large volume water intake. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part A: Environmental Science and Engineering. 21:2, 191-209, DOI: 10.1080/10934528609375284 Hay C.H.; Franti T.G.; Marx D.B.; Peters E.J.; Hesse L.W. 2008. Macroinvertebrate drift density in relation to abiotic factors in the Missouri River. Hydrobiologia 598: 175–189. J.T.A. Baxter, J.L. Thorley and Robyn L. Irvine (2016). WLR Monitoring Study No. CLBMON-46 (Year 8) Lower Columbia River Rainbow Trout Spawning Assessment. Columbia River Water Use Plan. BC Hydro, Castlegar. A Mountain Water Research and Poisson Consulting Ltd. Final Report. Marts, M.E. (2020) Columbia River, River North America. https://www.britannica.com/place/Columbia- River#info-article-history McCabe, G.T. Jr and C.A. Tracy. 1994. Spawning and Early Life History of White Sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus, in the Columbia River. Fishery Bulletin 92:760-772. Miller, R.R. 1960. Systematics and biology of the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and related fishes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Bulletin. Volume 60, pp. 371-392. Page, T. L., D. A. Neitzel, and R. H. Gray. 1977a. Comparative Fish Impingement at Two Adjacent Water Intakes on the Mid-Columbia River. November 1977. Ecosystems Department Battelle Northwest Laboratories Richland, Washington 99352 S. Energy Research and Development Administration (now U.S. DOE) under Contract EY -7 6-C-06-1 83 0, Richland, W A. Page, T. L., D. A. Neitzel, and R. H. Gray. 1977b. Impingement Studies at the 100-N Reactor Water Intake. September 1977. Ecosystems Department Battelle Northwest Laboratories Richland, Washington 99352 S. Energy Research and Development Administration (now U.S. DOE) under Contract EY -7 6-C-06-1 83 0, Richland, W A Petersen, J.H., R.A. Hinrichsen, D.M. Gasomski, D.H. Feil, and D.W. Rondorf. 2003. American Shad in the Columbia River. American Fisheries Society. Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, pp. 343 Reeves, K. S. and Galat, D. L. (2010), Do larval fishes exhibit diel drift patterns in a large, turbid river?. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 26: 571–577. Reichard, M.; Jurajda, P.; Smith, C. 2004. Spatial distribution of drifting cyprinid fishes in a shallow lowland river. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie, Volume 159, Number 3, pages 395-407. Stober, Q.J., Stober, N. R. Griben, R. V. Walker, A. L. Setter, I. Nelson, J. C. Gislason, R. W. Tyler, and E. 0. Salo. 1979. Columbia River Irrigation Withdrawal Environmental Review: Columbia River Fishery Study. Final Report. Fisheries Research Institute. FRI-UW-7919.
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT REFERENCES RENEWAL NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bonneville Power Administration. 2020. Columbia River System Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center. 2008. Assessment of the Effects of the Yakima Basin Storage Study on Columbia River Fish Proximate to the Proposed Intake Locations. A component of the Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study, Washington. Technical Series No. TS-YSS-13 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. 2016. Chapter 4: Columbia River Basin. SECURE Water Act Section 9503(c) Report to Congress U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Hanford Reach National Monument • Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan & EIS. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. Website. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=07374000
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx
ATTACHMENT 1 FLOW DIAGRAM AND WATER BALANCE
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx
KENNEWICK LINE DRAWING
FINLEY LINE DRAWING DRAWN: RLM HTX: T:\Business Support\DWG\AutoCAD\dwg\0549532\0549532A01.dwg, 6/23/2020 1:36:00 PM
NUTRIEN - KFO Finley Facility Line Drawing
Columbia River OUTFALL 001 INTAKE BASIN
INTAKE SCREENS
AVG. 10.8 MAX 38.9 CONTACT RETURN AVG. 10.8 MAX 38.9
AMMONIA REFRIGERATION
ONCE-THROUGH NON-CONTACT COOLING
Nutrien KFO Kennewick Area Kennewick, Washington
ERM Environmental Resources Management
ATTACHMENT 2 ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx
KENNEWICK ENGINEERING DRAWINGS Environmental Resources Management Environmental Resources Management
6/8/2020 8. 2015 0609 ‐ WMM ‐ Intake Screen Flow Velocity calculations (1).xlsx 1
Intake KENNEWICK AREA Velocity Criteria ‐ Intake velocity (< 0.5 fps) Design flow of 37 mgd is under the threshold of 0.5 Design Intake flow ‐ mgd 37 0.44 fps. Maximum observed flow of 23 mgd calculates to 0.27 Actual Max Inflow ‐ mgd 23 0.27 fps. Inflow cross‐sectional area ‐ sq ft 131.22
Design intake flow MG gallons day min cu ft 4E+07 cu ft Max flow readings with 1 pump 37 1,000,000 1 1 1 = 57.3 running is 12 mgd 1 1 1440 60 7.48 = 1 day mg minutes sec gallons 646272 sec
Actual Max Inflow mgd MG gallons day min cu ft 2E+07 cu ft Max flow readings with 1 pump 23 1,000,000 1 1 1 = 35.6 running is 12 mgd 1 1 1440 60 7.48 = 1 day mg minutes sec gallons 646272 sec
Cross‐sectional area of Johnson ft ft screens 131.22 sq ft screens Screen drum diameter = 30 inches 5.00 2.92 9 1 1 = 131.2 Screen drum length = 60 inches 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 Open area per linear ft of screen = screen Opening per intake 1 intake 2.916 sq ft length ft of length
FINLEY ENGINEERING DRAWINGS DRAWN: RLM HTX: T:\Business Support\DWG\AutoCAD\dwg\0549532\0549532A01.dwg, 6/3/2020 4:13:08 PM
COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE PLAN VIEW
Shoreline
ROTATING SCREEN
PUMP 1 Columbia River
PUMP 3 PUMP 2 INTAKE BAY PUMP 4
PUMP 5
COOLING WATER EMPTY INTAKE PIPE SCREEN FINLEY COOLING WELLS WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE
Shoreline
Nutrien KFO Finley Area Kennewick, Washington
ERM Environmental Resources Management DRAWN: RLM HTX: T:\Business Support\DWG\AutoCAD\dwg\0549532\0549532A01.dwg, 6/3/2020 4:13:09 PM
COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE PUMPS 1, 2, 3 and SCREENS 1 & 2 PROFILE VIEW
SCREEN 1 PUMP 2 SCREEN 2 PUMP 3
PUMP 1
FISH and DEBRIS SCREENS 27 FT.
6 FT
.
Nutrien KFO Finley Area Kennewick, Washington
ERM Environmental Resources Management DRAWN: RLM HTX: T:\Business Support\DWG\AutoCAD\dwg\0549532\0549532A01.dwg, 6/3/2020 4:13:10 PM
COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE PLAN VIEW - INSET
INTAKE INTAKE SUCTION SCREEN BAYS WELLS PUMP WELLS
Nutrien KFO Finley Area Kennewick, Washington
ERM Environmental Resources Management
6/24/2020 8. 2020 0609 ‐ WMM ‐ Intake Screen Flow Velocity calculations (1).xlsx 1
Intake FINLEY AREA Velocity Criteria ‐ Intake velocity (< 0.5 fps)
Design Intake flow ‐ mgd 38.9 Design flow of 70 mgd exceeds the threshold of 0.5 fps. 0.89
Actual Max Inflow ‐ mgd 13 Typical flow is < 13 mgd (0.15 fps) 0.30
Inflow cross‐sectional area ‐ sq ft 67.625Allowable flow for 0.5 fps ‐ mgd 22
Design intake flow MG gallons day min cu ft 39000000 cu ft Max flow readings with 1 pump 39 1,000,000 1 1 1 = 60.3 running is 12 mgd 1 1 1440 60 7.48 = 1 day mg minutes sec gallons 646272 sec
Actual Max Inflow mgd MG gallons day min cu ft 13000000 cu ft Max flow readings with 1 pump 13 1,000,000 1 1 1 = 20.1 running is 12 mgd 1 1 1440 60 7.48 = 1 day mg minutes sec gallons 646272 sec
Cross‐sectional area of pump sq ft sq ft screens 67.625 sq ft station screens Screen width = 6 ft 45.00 11.19 2 1 1 = 67.6 Screen height = 7.5 ft 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 screen Actual open area/sreen = 33.812 screen material intake 1 intake sq ft size area
ATTACHMENT 3 SITE PHOTOS
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx
KENNEWICK PHOTOS Kennewick Facility Cooling Water Intake Structure
Photo 1 – Kennewick Pump Station (Onshore Intake)
Pump Pump #1202 #1201
Pump #1203
(temporarily removed)
Photo 2 – Kennewick Pump Station (Onshore Component)
Columbia River
Intake Pumps
FINLEY PHOTOS Finley Facility Cooling Water Intake Structure
Photo 1 – Operational Side of Finley CWIS.
Pump 1 Pump 3 Pump 2
Intake Screens
Photo 2 – Non-operational side of the Finley CWIS, Pumps 4 and 5 (out of service).
Pump 4 Pump 5
Finley Facility Cooling Water Intake Structure
Photo 3 – CWIS Rotating Screens
Intake Screen Housing Intake Screen
Photo 4- Cooling water header pipe to the Finley facility.
Finley Facility Cooling Water Intake Structure
Photo 5 – Non-operational side of CWIS with rotating screens removed.
Empty Screen Bays
ATTACHMENT 4 SPECIES LIFE HISTORIES
www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx
Acipenseridae
White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) - Species Profile Page 1 of 3
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Acipenser transmontanus (White Sturgeon) Fishes Native Transplant
< Image 1 of 3 >
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Acipenser transmontanus Richardson, 1836
Common name: White Sturgeon
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Moyle (2002); Wydoski and Whitney (1979); Page and Burr (1991).
Size: 6.1 m and nearly one ton.
Native Range: Pacific Coast from Alaska Bay, Alaska, to central California and extreme northwestern Montana (Page and Burr 1991).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=300 6/7/2020 White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) - Species Profile Page 2 of 3
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Acipenser transmontanus are found here.
State Year of earliest Year of last Total HUCs with HUCs with observations† observation observation observations†
Arizona 1967 1967 2 Havasu-Mohave Lakes; Lower Colorado Region
California 1967 2007 2 Havasu-Mohave Lakes; Santa Ana
Georgia 1992 1992 1Upper Coosa
American Falls; Big Wood; Blackfoot; Brownlee Reservoir; C.J. Idaho 1989 2010 9 Strike Reservoir; Lake Walcott; Lower Boise; Upper Snake; Upper Snake-Rock
Oregon 1991 1997 3 Brownlee Reservoir; Upper Klamath Lake; Upper Rogue
Table last updated 9/30/2019
† Populations may not be currently present.
Means of Introduction: Intentionally stocked in the Colorado River, on the Arizona-California border, in Oregon, and presumably in Idaho. The possibility of introduction for the Coosa River collection is not clear. We have some reports that several hundred White Sturgeon were intentionally released from a fish farm on Cohulla Creek in the Conasauga system, in the Coosa River drainage in Georgia (J. D. Williams, personal communication; B. Freeman, personal communicaton in Walters 1997). However, G. Beisser (personal communication) says they were confiscated and does not believe any were intentionally released. Game and Fish biologists searched the area and no sturgeon were found downstream of the fish farm that had them. Walters (1997) reported a second fish that was captured from the Coosa but does not say if it was in Alabama or Georgia.
Status: Status of Lake Havasu population is not known; there is no evidence of reproduction (Minckley 1973; Lee et al. 1980 et seq.; Swift et al. 1993; Rinne 1994). The last specimen from the Colorado River was caught in 1976 (Swift et al. 1993). Reported from California, Idaho, and Oregon. No sturgeon have been reported since release in Georgia, so presumably they failed.
Impact of Introduction: The impacts of this species are currently unknown, as no studies have been done to determine how it has affected ecosystems in the invaded range. The absence of data does not equate to lack of effects. It does, however, mean that research is required to evaluate effects before conclusions can be made.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=300 6/7/2020 White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) - Species Profile Page 3 of 3
Remarks: A single subadult individual taken in 1992 in the Coosa River, Talladega County, Alabama, (Anonymous 1992b, c; D. Catchins, personal communication) was previously identified as this species. It was later identified as a lake sturgeon A. fulvescens, a species native to the Coosa River. The specimen is deposited at the Florida Museum of Natural History (UF 93520).
References:
Anonymous. 1992b. Hooked. Atlanta Journal, 28 November 1992. p. A3.
Anonymous. 1992c. Angler lands in hot water over a question of identity. The Philadelphia Inquirer, 29 November 1992. p. A3.
Bond, C.E. 1994. Keys to Oregon freshwater fishes. Oregon State University Bookstores, Corvallis, OR.
Catchins, D. - Alabama Fish and Game, Montgomery, AL.
Idaho Fish and Game. 1990. Fisheries Management Plan 1991-1995. Appendix I - A list of Idaho fishes and their distribution by drainage. Idaho Fish and Game.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980 et seq. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC.
Li, H. - Professor, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Fish and Game Department. Sims Printing Company, Inc., Phoenix, AZ.
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. 2nd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. The Peterson Field Guide Series, volume 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Rinne, J.N. 1994. The effects of introduced fishes on native fishes: Arizona, southwestern United States. World fisheries congress, May 1992, Athens, Greece.
Swift, C.C., T.R. Haglund, M. Ruiz, and R.N. Fisher. 1993. The status and distribution of the freshwater fishes of southern California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Science 92(3):101-167.
Walters, D.M. 1997. The distribution, status, and ecology of the fishes of the Conasauga River system. Master's thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Wydoski, R.S., and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Other Resources: White sturgeon - Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Marine Species with Aquaculture Potential - Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State University
California Fish Species - University of California Davis
US Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Risk Screening Summary for Acipenser transmontanus
Author: Fuller, P.
Revision Date: 7/2/2019
Peer Review Date: 2/2/2012
Citation Information: Fuller, P., 2020, Acipenser transmontanus Richardson, 1836: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=300, Revision Date: 7/2/2019, Peer Review Date: 2/2/2012, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=300 6/7/2020
Catostomidae
Largescale Sucker – Pearson Ecological Page 1 of 4
MENU
SPECIES ID / Freshwater Fish of the Fraser Valley Sucker Family (Catostomidae) LARGESCALE SUCKER Q’Ó:XEL
Catostomus macrocheilus Identification Tips:
• Adults bronze in colour with whitish belly • Juveniles brown to olive green with dark patches and whitish belly • Large scales; usually has fewer than 75 along the lateral line • Dorsal fin: 12-17 (usually 13-16) rays. • Short snout when viewed from below, scarcely projects beyond the upper lip. • The only sucker in the Fraser Valley that exceeds 30 cm in size
Conservation Status:
Canada British Columbia Natureserve COSEWIC Species at Risk Act
Not at Risk (Yellow Not Assessed None G5, S5 List)
Information Source: BC Conservation Data Centre: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/
Life History:
https://pearsonecological.com/fish-l2-single/largescale-sucker/ 6/7/2020 Largescale Sucker – Pearson Ecological Page 2 of 4
• Mature in 4th or 5th year and may live more than 11 years. • May exceed 60 cm in length • Young feed on zooplankton and small invertebrates • Adults feed on algae, mollusks and other invertebrates. • Spawn in late spring. • Preyed upon by fish eating birds and by eagles, and bears during spawning.
Habitat:
•Occurs in lakes and in slow moving pools and runs of medium to large rivers. •Spawn in gravel riffles of streams or gravel shoals of lakes •Juveniles rear in shallow areas of lakes, in pools and ponds of smaller creeks and in side channels of larger rivers
Range:
British Columbia •Widespread in southern two-thirds of Province •Absent from smaller coastal drainages including Nicomekl, Serpentine and Little Campbell Rivers in the Fraser Valley
Global •From BC and Alberta south to Idaho, Nevada and Oregon •Isolated population in Mackenzie River, Northwest Territories
Comments:
•The most common sucker in southern half of BC
–––––– Primary Information Source: McPhail, J.D. 2007. The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. University of Alberta Press. Edmonton, Alberta.
https://pearsonecological.com/fish-l2-single/largescale-sucker/ 6/7/2020 Largescale Sucker – Pearson Ecological Page 3 of 4
https://pearsonecological.com/fish-l2-single/largescale-sucker/ 6/7/2020 Largescale Sucker – Pearson Ecological Page 4 of 4
Photography: Fernando Lessa • Website: Ayton Novak
© 2020 • Pearson Ecological • [email protected]
https://pearsonecological.com/fish-l2-single/largescale-sucker/ 6/7/2020 Catostomus columbianus, Bridgelip sucker Page 1 of 3
About this page Languages User feedbacks Citation
Uploads Related species
You can sponsor this page
Catostomus columbianus (Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1893) Bridgelip sucker
Upload your photos and videos Google image
Catostomus columbianus No image available for this species; drawing shows typical fish in this Family.
Classification / Names Common names | Synonyms | Catalog of Fishes (gen., sp.) | ITIS | CoL | WoRMS | Cloffa Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes) > Cypriniformes (Carps) > Catostomidae (Suckers) > Catostominae Etymology: Catostomus: Greek, kata = down + Greek, stoma = mouth (Ref. 45335); columbianus: columbianus meaning of the Columbia River (Ref. 1998). More on authors: Eigenmann & Eigenmann.
Environment: milieu / climate zone / depth range / distribution range Ecology Freshwater; demersal. Temperate; 55°N - 43°N
Distribution Countries | FAO areas | Ecosystems | Occurrences | Point map | Introductions | Faunafri North America: Pacific Slope from Fraser River drainage in British Columbia, Canada south through Columbia River drainage in British Columbia and in Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Nevada, USA and Harney River basin in eastern Oregon, USA.
Size / Weight / Age
Maturity: Lm ? range ? - ? cm Max length : 30.0 cm TL male/unsexed; (Ref. 5723); common length : 16.0 cm TL male/unsexed; (Ref. 12193)
Biology Glossary Search (e.g. epibenthic) Inhabits lake margins; backwaters, rocky riffles and sand or silt runs of creeks and small to medium rivers. Probably feeds on algae and bottom invertebrates (Ref. 1998). Preyed upon by birds and mammals; young may be preyed upon by some salmonids (Ref. 1998). Spawning in British Columbia probably occurs late spring (Ref. 1998). Edible but not currently eaten (Ref. 1998).
Life cycle and mating behavior Maturity | Reproduction | Spawning | Eggs | Fecundity | Larvae
Main reference Upload your references | References | Coordinator | Collaborators Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr, 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 432 p. (Ref. 5723)
https://www.fishbase.de/summary/Catostomus-columbianus.html 6/7/2020 Catostomus columbianus, Bridgelip sucker Page 2 of 3
IUCN Red List Status (Ref. 120744) Least Concern (LC) ; Date assessed: 26 October 2011
CITES (Ref. 118484) Not Evaluated
CMS (Ref. 116361) Not Evaluated
Threat to humans Harmless
Human uses Fisheries: of no interest FAO(Publication : search) | FishSource |
More information Countries Common names Age/Size References Collaborators FAO areas Synonyms Growth Aquaculture Pictures Ecosystems Metabolism Length-weight Aquaculture profile Stamps, Coins Misc. Occurrences Predators Length-length Strains Sounds Introductions Ecotoxicology Length-frequencies Genetics Ciguatera Stocks Reproduction Morphometrics Allele frequencies Speed Ecology Maturity Morphology Heritability Swim. type Diet Spawning Larvae Diseases Gill area Food items Spawning aggregation Larval dynamics Processing Otoliths Food consumption Fecundity Recruitment Mass conversion Brains Ration Eggs Abundance Vision Egg development Tools E-book | Field guide | Identification keys | Length-frequency wizard | Life-history tool | Point map | Classification Tree | Catch-MSY |
Special reports Check for Aquarium maintenance | Check for Species Fact Sheets | Check for Aquaculture Fact Sheets
Download XML Summary page | Point data | Common names | Photos
Internet sources Aquatic Commons | BHL | Cloffa | Websites from users | Check FishWatcher | CISTI | Catalog of Fishes (gen., sp.) | DiscoverLife | ECOTOX | Faunafri | Fishtrace | GenBank(genome, nucleotide) | GloBI | Google Books | Google Scholar | Google | IGFA World Record | MitoFish | Otolith Atlas of Taiwan Fishes | PubMed | Reef Life Survey | Tree of Life | Wikipedia(Go, Search) | World Records Freshwater Fishing | Zoological Record
Estimates based on models
Phylogenetic diversity index (Ref. 82805): PD50 = 0.5000 [Uniqueness, from 0.5 = low to 2.0 = high]. Bayesian length-weight: a=0.01000 (0.00244 - 0.04107), b=3.04 (2.81 - 3.27), in cm Total Length, based on all LWR estimates for this body shape (Ref. 93245).
https://www.fishbase.de/summary/Catostomus-columbianus.html 6/7/2020 Catostomus columbianus, Bridgelip sucker Page 3 of 3
Trophic Level (Ref. 69278): 2.8 ±0.29 se; Based on food items. Resilience (Ref. 120179): Medium, minimum population doubling time 1.4 - 4.4 years (Preliminary K or Fecundity.). Vulnerability (Ref. 59153): Moderate vulnerability (40 of 100) .
Entered by Froese, Rainer Modified by Bailly, Nicolas
Fish Forum Comments & Corrections Sign our Guest Book Back to Search Random Species Back to Top
https://www.fishbase.de/summary/Catostomus-columbianus.html 6/7/2020 Longnose Sucker - Montana Field Guide Page 1 of 4
Montana Field Guides
Home - Other Field Guides Kingdom - Animals - Animalia Phylum - Vertebrates - Craniata Class - Fish - Actinopterygii Order - Minnows / Suckers - Cypriniformes Family - Suckers - Catostomidae Species - Longnose Sucker - Catostomus catostomus
Longnose Sucker - Catostomus catostomus
Native Species
Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S5
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: BLM:
General Description The sucker with the greatest statewide distribution is the longnose sucker. It is found in all three of our major drainages and from mountainous streams to plains reservoir habitats. In Montana, the largest weigh about 5 pounds. Longnose suckers are most abundant in clear, cold streams. In the springtime, spawning migrations into small tributaries are common and males develop bright red colors on their bodies. Longnose suckers are one of the most frequently caught fish by Montana anglers.
Diagnostic Characteristics
http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFCJC02030 6/7/2020 Longnose Sucker - Montana Field Guide Page 2 of 4
Back, upper sides, and head to below the eye dark olive to slate; underparts white or yellow. Breeding males are nearly jet black on upper half of head and body and may have red midside band. Has 9 to 12 rays in dorsal fin and more than 15 scales above lateral line.
Species Range Montana Range
Year-round
http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFCJC02030 6/7/2020 Longnose Sucker - Montana Field Guide Page 3 of 4
Western Hemisphere Range
Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database Number of Observations: 4567
(Click on the following maps and charts to see full sized version) Map Help and Descriptions
Relative Density Recency
http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFCJC02030 6/7/2020 Longnose Sucker - Montana Field Guide Page 4 of 4
(Observations spanning multiple months or years are excluded from time charts)
Migration Spawning fish usually move upstream or from lakes into tributary stream. Fish also move into tributary streams.
Habitat Cold, clear streams and lakes; sometimes moderately warm waters and turbid waters. Spawns over loose gravel beds in riffle areas.
Food Habits Diet includes considerable algae, midge larvae, and most aquatic invertebrates.
Ecology Formation of Lake Koocanusa by Libby dam has been very favorable to longnose sucker populations. Longnose suckers x white sucker hybrids reported in Montana.
Reproductive Characteristics Sexually mature males in 4 years, females in 5 years. Spawns April - early July at 54-59 degrees F. Incubation: 10-20 days. Middle Missouri River populations spawn mid April - mid June with peak in May.
References
Additional References Additional Sources of Information Related to "Fish"
Citation for data on this website: Longnose Sucker — Catostomus catostomus. Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Retrieved on June 7, 2020, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFCJC02030
http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFCJC02030 6/7/2020
Centrarchidae
Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) - Species Profile Page 1 of 12
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Micropterus dolomieu (Smallmouth Bass) Fishes Native Transplant
< Image 1 of 3 >
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Micropterus dolomieu Lacepède, 1802
Common name: Smallmouth Bass
Synonyms and Other Names: Micropterus dolomieui is a common misspelling.
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Becker (1983); Page and Burr (1991); Etnier and Starnes (1993); Jenkins and Burkhead (1994); Moyle (2002).
Size: 69 cm.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=396 6/7/2020 Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) - Species Profile Page 2 of 12
Native Range: St. Lawrence and Great Lakes, Hudson Bay (Red River), and Mississippi River basins from southern Quebec to North Dakota and south to northern Alabama and eastern Oklahoma; Atlantic and Gulf slope drainages from Virginia to central Texas (Page and Burr 1991).
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Micropterus dolomieu are found here.
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations†
Black Warrior-Tombigbee; Cahaba; Coosa- Tallapoosa; Middle Coosa; Middle Tombigbee- Alabama 1971 2008 8 Chickasaw; Mobile-Tombigbee; Sipsey Fork; Upper Tallapoosa
Arizona 1942 2012 18 Aqua Fria; Bill Williams; Havasu-Mohave Lakes; Imperial Reservoir; Lower Colorado Region; Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon; Lower Lake Powell; Lower Salt; Lower Verde; Middle Gila;
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=396 6/7/2020 Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) - Species Profile Page 3 of 12
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Salt; Santa Maria; Silver; Tonto; Upper Gila-San Carlos Reservoir; Upper Salt; Upper Verde; Verde
Arkansas 1980 1988 2 Lower White; Lower White
Butte Creek; California Region; Central California Coastal; Central Coastal; Clear Creek-Sacramento River; Honcut Headwaters-Lower Feather; Lake Tahoe; Los Angeles; Lower Colorado; Lower Sacramento; Mad-Redwood; Middle San Joaquin- Lower Chowchilla; Monterey Bay; North Fork American; Owens Lake; Pajaro; Russian; Sacramento Headwaters; Sacramento-Stone Corral; Salinas; Salton Sea; San Diego; San California 1874 2014 50 Francisco Bay; San Francisco Bay; San Francisco Coastal South; San Joaquin; San Joaquin Delta; San Pablo Bay; San Pedro Channel Islands; Santa Ana; Santa Clara; Santa Margarita; Santa Maria; Santa Ynez; South Fork American; Suisun Bay; Truckee; Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes; Upper Cache; Upper Coon-Upper Auburn; Upper Kaweah; Upper King; Upper Merced; Upper Mokelumne; Upper Putah; Upper Sacramento; Upper San Joaquin; Upper Stanislaus; Upper Tule; Upper Yuba
Big Thompson; Cache La Poudre; Clear; Colorado Headwaters; Colorado Headwaters-Plateau; Huerfano; Lower Gunnison; Lower Yampa; Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek; Middle South Platte- Sterling; North Fork Republican; Piedra; Colorado 1951 2009 24 Republican; Rush; San Luis; South Platte; St. Vrain; Upper Arkansas; Upper Arkansas-John Martin Reservoir; Upper Dolores; Upper Green- Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper San Juan; Upper South Platte; Upper Yampa
Housatonic; Lower Connecticut; New England Connecticut 1844 2007 6 Region; Pawcatuck-Wood; Shetucket; Thames
Brandywine-Christina; Delaware Bay; Upper Delaware 1888 1991 3 Chesapeake
District of 1999 2010 1 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan Columbia
Apalachicola Basin; Broad; Coosawattee; Little; Middle Chattahoochee-Lake Harding; Middle Georgia 1970 2019 10 Savannah; Savannah; Tugaloo; Upper Chattahoochee; Upper Coosa
Hawaii 1897 2005 3 Hawaii; Kauai; Oahu
American Falls; Bear Lake; Big Wood; Blackfoot; Boise-Mores; Brownlee Reservoir; C.J. Strike Reservoir; Clearwater; Coeur d'Alene Lake; Hells Canyon; Idaho Falls; Lake Walcott; Little Wood; Lower Bear; Lower Boise; Lower Henrys; Lower North Fork Clearwater; Lower Salmon; Lower Snake-Asotin; Middle Fork Clearwater; Middle Idaho 1905 2011 37 Salmon-Chamberlain; Middle Snake-Payette; Middle Snake-Succor; North Fork Payette; Pacific Northwest Region; Payette; Pend Oreille Lake; Priest; Salmon Falls; South Fork Boise; South Fork Clearwater; Spokane; St. Joe; Upper Owyhee; Upper Snake-Rock; Upper Spokane; Weiser
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=396 6/7/2020 Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) - Species Profile Page 4 of 12
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Iowa 1987 1987 1Little Sioux
Caney; Chikaskia; Elk; Lower Cottonwood; Lower Kansas; Lower Marais Des Cygnes; Medicine Kansas 1885 1995 12 Lodge; Middle Neosho; Prairie Dog; Upper Marais Des Cygnes; Upper Neosho; Upper Smoky Hill
Kentucky 1986 1986 1 Upper Cumberland
Aroostook; East Branch Penobscot; Kennebec; Little River-Saint John River; Lower Androscoggin; Lower Kennebec; Lower Penobscot; Maine Coastal; Mattawamkeag; New Maine 1868 2015 19 England Region; Passamaquoddy Bay-Bay of Fundy; Piscataqua-Salmon Falls; Piscataquis; Presumpscot; Saco; St. Croix; St. George- Sheepscot; Upper Androscoggin; Upper Kennebec
Cacapon-Town; Conococheague-Opequon; Gunpowder-Patapsco; Lower Susquehanna; Mid Maryland 1854 2010 9 Atlantic Region; Middle Potomac-Catoctin; Monocacy; North Branch Potomac; Upper Chesapeake
Blackstone; Cape Cod; Charles; Chicopee; Concord; Deerfield; Farmington; Housatonic; Massachusetts 1860 2009 17 Merrimack; Merrimack River; Middle Connecticut; Miller; Narragansett; Nashua; New England Region; Quinebaug; Westfield
Buffalo; Clearwater; Eastern Wild Rice; Lake of the Woods; Little Fork; Lower Rainy; Mustinka; Minnesota 1900 2014 16 Otter Tail; Rainy; Rainy Headwaters; Red; Red Lake; Red Lakes; Sandhill-Wilson; Upper Red; Vermilion
Mississippi 1991 1991 1 Upper Tombigbee
Lamine; Lower Grand; Lower Missouri-Crooked; Missouri 1980 1998 6 St. Francis; Tarkio-Wolf; Upper Grand
Battle; Beaver; Big Horn Lake; Blackfoot; Boxelder; Bullwhacker-Dog; Charlie-Little Muddy; Fisher; Fort Peck Reservoir; Frenchman; Judith; Little Bighorn; Lower Bighorn; Lower Clark Fork; Lower Flathead; Lower Milk; Lower Musselshell; Lower Tongue; Lower Yellowstone; Lower Yellowstone-Sunday; Marias; Middle Clark Fork; Montana 1914 2015 39 Middle Kootenai; Middle Milk; Middle Musselshell; O'Fallon; Peoples; Poplar; Prairie Elk-Wolf; Rosebud; Swan; Upper Milk; Upper Missouri; Upper Missouri-Dearborn; Upper Musselshell; Upper Tongue; Upper Yellowstone-Lake Basin; Upper Yellowstone-Pompeys Pillar; West Fork Poplar
Blackbird-Soldier; Cedar; Elkhorn; Frenchman; Harlan County Reservoir; Lewis and Clark Lake; Loup; Lower Elkhorn; Lower Middle Loup; Lower North Platte; Lower Platte-Shell; Lower South Nebraska 1970 1999 27 Platte; Medicine; Middle Niobrara; Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff; Middle Platte; Middle Platte- Buffalo; Middle Platte-Prairie; Ponca; Red Willow; Snake; Stinking Water; Turkey; Upper Niobrara; Upper Republican; Upper White; Wood
Nevada 1888 2002 9
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=396 6/7/2020 Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) - Species Profile Page 5 of 12
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Central Lahontan; Lake Mead; Lower Humboldt; Middle Carson; Middle Humboldt; Ralston-Stone Cabin Valleys; Truckee; Upper Carson; Upper Humboldt
Black-Ottauquechee; Contoocook; Merrimack River; Middle Connecticut; Miller; Nashua; New New England; Pemigewasset; Piscataqua-Salmon Falls; 1860 2001 16 Hampshire Saco; Upper Androscoggin; Upper Connecticut; Upper Connecticut-Mascoma; Waits; West; Winnipesaukee River
Cohansey-Maurice; Crosswicks-Neshaminy; Hackensack-Passaic; Lower Delaware; Mid- New Jersey 1866 2014 9 Atlantic Region; Middle Delaware-Mongaup- Brodhead; Mullica-Toms; Raritan; Rondout
Rio Grande-Albuquerque; Rio Grande-Santa Fe; San Francisco; Upper Canadian; Upper Canadian- New Mexico 1957 2007 11 Ute Reservoir; Upper Gila-Mangas; Upper Pecos; Upper Rio Grande; Upper Rio Grande; Upper San Juan; Upper San Juan
Ausable River; Chenango; Hudson-Hoosic; Hudson-Wappinger; Lower Hudson; Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead; Mohawk; Owego- New York 1872 2012 18 Wappasening; Raquette; Rondout; Sacandaga; Saranac River; Schoharie; St. Regis; Upper Delaware; Upper Hudson; Upper Susquehanna; Upper Susquehanna
Lower Dan; Lower Yadkin; Neuse; Seneca; South Fork Catawba; South Yadkin; Upper Broad; Upper North Carolina 1941 2016 14 Catawba; Upper Dan; Upper Neuse; Upper New; Upper Pee Dee; Upper Pee Dee; Upper Yadkin
Cedar; James Headwaters; Knife; Lake Sakakawea; Lower Cannonball; Lower Heart; Lower Sheyenne; Middle Sheyenne; Moose North Dakota 1980 1999 19 Mountain Creek-Souris River; North Fork Grand; Painted Woods-Square Butte; Pipestem; Red; Souris; Turtle; Upper Cannonball; Upper Heart; Upper James; Western Wild Rice
Oklahoma 1973 1980 2 Kiamichi; Red-Lake Texoma
Applegate; Beaver-South Fork; Brownlee Reservoir; Bully; Burnt; Coast Fork Willamette; Goose Lake; Lower Columbia-Clatskanie; Lower Deschutes; Lower John Day; Lower Malheur; Lower Owyhee; Lower Rogue; Lower Snake; Lower Willamette; Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Middle Fork Willamette; Middle Owyhee; Middle Rogue; Middle Snake; Oregon 1905 2018 44 Middle Willamette; Molalla-Pudding; North Fork John Day; North Santiam; Pacific Northwest; Powder; Siletz-Yaquina; Siltcoos; Silvies; South Santiam; South Umpqua; Tualatin; Umatilla; Umpqua; Upper Crooked; Upper Deschutes; Upper Grande Ronde; Upper John Day; Upper Malheur; Upper Rogue; Upper Willamette; Willamette; Willow
Pennsylvania 1983 1999 27 Bald Eagle; Cacapon-Town; Chemung; Conococheague-Opequon; Lehigh; Lower Juniata; Lower Susquehanna; Lower Susquehanna-Penns; Lower Susquehanna-Swatara; Lower West Branch
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=396 6/7/2020 Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) - Species Profile Page 6 of 12
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Susquehanna; Middle Delaware-Mongaup- Brodhead; Middle Delaware-Musconetcong; Middle West Branch Susquehanna; Monocacy; North Branch Potomac; Owego-Wappasening; Pine; Raystown; Schuylkill; Sinnemahoning; Susquehanna; Tioga; Upper Juniata; Upper Susquehanna; Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna; Upper Susquehanna-Tunkhannock; Upper West Branch Susquehanna
Rhode Island 1992 1994 2 Narragansett; New England Region
Congaree; Cooper; Lower Broad; Middle South 1975 2018 12 Savannah; Saluda; Santee; Santee; Seneca; Carolina Stevens; Tugaloo; Upper Broad; Upper Savannah
Angostura Reservoir; Cheyenne; Fort Randall Reservoir; Grand; James; Lewis and Clark Lake; Lower Belle Fourche; Lower Big Sioux; Lower South Dakota 1980 2001 18 Cheyenne; Lower James; Lower Lake Oahe; Lower Moreau; Middle Cheyenne-Spring; Mud; South Fork Grand; Turtle; Upper James; Vermillion
Amistad Reservoir; Austin-Travis Lakes; Blackwater Draw; Brady; Buchanan-Lyndon B. Johnson Lakes; Denton; Double Mountain Fork Brazos; Elm Fork Trinity; Elm-Sycamore; Farmers -Mud; Jim Ned; Lake Meredith; Lake O'the Pines; Lake Texoma; Lampasas; Leon; Llano; Lower Brazos; Lower Devils; Lower Sulpher; Lower Sulphur; Lower West Fork Trinity; Medina; Middle Texas 1966 2017 45 Brazos-Lake Whitney; Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto; Middle Canadian; Middle Colorado; Middle Colorado-Elm; Middle Guadalupe; Middle Sabine; Navasota; Palo Duro; Palo Duro; Pecan Bayou; Reagan-Sanderson; San Ambrosia-Santa Isabel; San Gabriel; San Marcos; South Concho; Tule; Upper Colorado; Upper Guadalupe; Upper Salt Fork Red; Upper West Fork Trinity; White
Beaver Bottoms-Upper Beaver; Duchesne; Escalante Desert; Escalante Desert-Sevier Lake; Lower Green; Lower Green; Lower Green- Desolation Canyon; Lower Green-Diamond; Lower Utah 1912 2006 17 Lake Powell; Lower Weber; Provo; Strawberry; Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper Lake Powell; Upper Sevier; Upper Weber; Utah Lake
Black-Ottauquechee; Deerfield; Hudson-Hoosic; Middle Connecticut; Missiquoi River; Passumpsic; Vermont 1908 2011 13 St. Francois River; Upper Connecticut; Upper Connecticut-Mascoma; Waits; West; White; Winooski River
Virginia 1945 2014 34 Appomattox; Chowan; Conococheague-Opequon; James; Kanawha; Lower Dan; Lower James; Lower Potomac; Lower Rappahannock; Mattaponi; Maury; Meherrin; Middle James- Buffalo; Middle James-Willis; Middle New; Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan; Middle Potomac- Catoctin; Middle Roanoke; North Fork Shenandoah; Nottoway; Pamunkey; Potomac; Rapidan-Upper Rappahannock; Rivanna; Roanoke; Shenandoah; South Branch Potomac;
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=396 6/7/2020 Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) - Species Profile Page 7 of 12
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† South Fork Shenandoah; Upper Dan; Upper James; Upper New; Upper Roanoke; Upper Yadkin; York
Banks Lake; Colville; Duwamish; Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake; Hangman; Kettle; Lake Chelan; Lake Washington; Little Spokane; Lower Columbia-Clatskanie; Lower Cowlitz; Lower Crab; Lower Grande Ronde; Lower Snake; Lower Snake; Lower Snake-Tucannon; Lower Spokane; Lower Yakima; Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Washington 1900 2019 39 Columbia-Lake Wallula; Nooksack; Okanogan; Pacific Northwest Region; Palouse; Puget Sound; Puyallup; Rock; San Juan Islands; Similkameen; Snohomish; Strait of Georgia; Upper Chehalis; Upper Columbia-Entiat; Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids; Upper Crab; Upper Spokane; Upper Yakima; Walla Walla; Wenatchee
Cacapon-Town; Conococheague-Opequon; Middle West Virginia 1984 2001 6 New; Potomac; South Branch Potomac; Upper James
Big Horn; Great Divide Closed Basin; North Platte; Powder; Upper Green; Upper Green; Wyoming 1889 2013 9 Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper Laramie; Upper Tongue
Table last updated 10/24/2019
† Populations may not be currently present.
Means of Introduction: Intentional stocking for sportfishing.
Status: Established in most of the above states. Reported in Mississippi.
Impact of Introduction: In Arizona, Smallmouth Bass reportedly are responsible for eliminating or reducing some populations of native fishes (Minckley 1973). Smallmouth Bass have been shown to eat smolts of Pacific salmonids, therefore posing a threat to these already declining species in the Columbia River (Dentler 1993). Similar trends have been observed in other major rivers of the Pacific Northwest, with Smallmouth Bass consuming up to 35 percent of outmigrating wild salmon. Kuehne and Olden (2012) found that juvenile Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha showed fewer anti-predator flight and panic responses when exposed to Smallmouth Bass odors compared to odors from native Northern Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis, indicating that salmonids may not recognize Smallmouth Bass as potential predators and prey naivety enhances success of novel predators. Smallmouth Bass experience a niche shift, switching food preference from insects and zooplankton to crayfish and fish, that causes competitive interactions with many other fish species (Carey et al. 2011). Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) speculated that introduced Smallmouth Bass may have contributed to the demise of an isolated population of Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus in the Potomac River in Virginia and Maryland. Smallmouth Bass were introduced into Flaming Gorge Reservoir to reduce the Utah Chub Gila atraria (Teuscher and Luecke 1996). Introduced predatory centrarchids are likely responsible for the decline of native ranid frogs in California and for the decline of California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense populations (Hayes and Jennings 1986; Dill and Cordone 1997). Nonnative predators, including Smallmouth Bass, have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of native prey species in several Pacific Northwest rivers (Hughes and Herlihy 2012). The presence of Smallmouth Bass, along with other introduced piscivores, reduced the richness of native minnow communities in Adirondack lakes (Findlay et al. 2000). Introduction of Smallmouth Bass may be driving isolation and population fragmentation in Umpqua Chub (Oregonichthys kalawatseti) in lower order streams in the Smith River drainage, Oregon (O'Malley et al. 2013).
Introduction of the Smallmouth Bass into the native range of Guadalupe Bass M. treculii in southcentral Texas has resulted in hybridization between the two species (Edwards 1979; Whitmore 1983). This hybrid bass is found in Canyon Lake and the San Marcos system, Guadalupe River drainage, on the Edwards Plateau in Texas (Whitmore 1983; International Game Fish Association 1994). It was first recognized by Edwards (1979) and later verified by Whitmore (1983). The hybrid is fertile and is capable of backcrossing to the parent species, with more backcrossing to Smallmouth Bass than to Guadalupe Bass (Whitmore 1983). Introgressive hybridization
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=396 6/7/2020 Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) - Species Profile Page 8 of 12
represents another threat to the already depleted Guadalupe Bass by compromising its genetic integrity (Whitmore 1983). Although Lake Travis, on the Colorado River, also has been stocked with Smallmouth Bass, Whitmore (1983) found no evidence of hybridization there. Bean et al. (2013) used microsatellites to estimate introgression rates of Smallmouth Bass within Guadalupe Bass in the Brazos, Colorado, Guadalupe-San Antonio, and Nueces drainages; introgression was found within 4 subbasins, with rates highest in the Guadalupe subbasin. The Smallmouth Bass also hybridizes with the Spotted Bass M. punctulatus when stocked in the Spotted Bass's native range or when both species are stocked in the same area. The Smallmouth/Spotted Bass hybrid has been found in the Verde River, Arizona (Minckley 1973); California (Moyle 2002); the Marmaton River, Barbour County, Kansas (Cross 1967; museum specimen KU 4682); and southeastern Oklahoma (formerly described as M. punctulatus wichitae) (Cofer 1995). A third hybrid resulting from stocking Smallmouth Bass is the Smallmouth/Largemouth hybrid. Introduced Smallmouth Bass hybridize with native Largemouth Bass in Squaw Reservoir in northcentral Texas (Whitmore and Hellier 1988).
There are a few benefits despite the negative impacts of Smallmouth Bass. Bass anglers account for a high influx of revenue in the Pacific Northwest, which helps supports the existing fisheries as well as conservation and management efforts in the region. In addition, anglers enjoy increased bag and size limits for Smallmouth Bass. These regulations allow anglers to play a role in managing the native fish populations by decreasing non-native population size (Carey et al. 2011).
Remarks: Introduced bass likely affect small fish populations through predation. Tyus et al. (1982) gave a distribution map of the this species in the upper Colorado basin. MacCrimmon and Robbins (1975) showed a map depicting this species' native and introduced range.
References:
Anonymous 2001. Oregon's Warm Water Fishing with Public Access. [online]. URL at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/fishing/warm_water_fishing/index.asp.
Anonymous. 2004. 'Brazen' act of putting smallmouth bass in county pond upsets DIF&W. Bangor Daily News. August 2, 2004.
Baxter, G.T., and J.R. Simon. 1970. Wyoming fishes. Bulletin No. 4. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY.
Bean, P.T., D.J. Lutz-Carrillo, and T.H. Bonner. 2013. Rangewide survey of the introgressive status of Guadalupe bass: implications for conservation and management. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142(3):681 -689. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00028487.2012.758170
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Madison Press, Madison, WI.
Behnke, R.J. and R.M. Wetzel. 1960. A preliminary list of the fishes found in the fresh waters of Connecticut. Copeia 1960(2):141-143.
Bond, C.E. 1994. Keys to Oregon freshwater fishes. Oregon State University Bookstores, Corvallis, OR.
Boschung, H.T. 1992. Catalogue of freshwater and marine fishes of Alabama. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin 14:1-266.
Brock, V.E. 1960. The introduction of aquatic animals into Hawaiian waters. International Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie 45:463-480.
Burr, B.M., and M.L. Warren, Jr. 1986. A distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Scientific and Technical Series No. 4. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, KY.
Carey, M.P., B.L. Sanderson, T.A. Friesen, K.A. Barnas, and J.D. Olden. 2011. Smallmouth bass in the Pacific Northwest: a threat to native species; a benefit for anglers. Review in Fisheries Science 19(3): 305-315.
Cheney, A.N. 1897. Black bass and their distribution in the waters of New York State. 176-184 in Second annual report of the Commissioners of Fisheries, Game and Forests. New York State Fisheries, Game and Forest Commission. Albany, NY.
Cofer, L.M. 1995. Invalidation of the Wichita spotted bass, Micropterus punctulatus wichitae, subspecies theory. Copeia 1995(2):487-490.
Conner, J.V., and R.D. Suttkus. 1986. Zoogeography of freshwater fishes of the western Gulf Slope of North America. Pages 413-456 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, eds. The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Cooper, E.L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania and the northeastern United States. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=396 6/7/2020 Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) - Species Profile Page 9 of 12
Cross, F.B. 1967. Handbook of fishes of Kansas. State Biological Survey and University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous Publication 45, Topeka, KS.
Cross, F.B., R.L. Mayden, and J.D. Stewart. 1986. Fishes in the western Mississippi basin (Missouri, Arkansas, and Red Rivers). Pages 363-412 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, eds. The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Dahlberg, M.D., and D.C. Scott. 1971. Introductions of freshwater fishes in Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science 29:245-252.
Deacon, J.E., and J.E. Williams. 1984. Annotated list of the fishes of Nevada. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 97:103-118.
Dentler, J.L. 1993. Noah's farce: the regulation and control of exotic fish and wildlife. University of Puget Sound Law Review 17:191-242.
Dill, W.A., and A.J. Cordone. 1997. History and status of introduced fishes in California, 1871-1996. California Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin, volume 178.
Eddy, S., and J.C. Underhill. 1974. Northern fishes, with special reference to the Upper Mississippi Valley, 3rd edition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Edwards, R.J. 1979. A report of Guadalupe bass (Micropterus treculi) x smallmouth bass (M. dolomieui) hybrids from two localities in the Guadalupe River, Texas. The Texas Journal of Science 31(3):231-238.
Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tenneessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.
Everhart, W.H. 1976. Fishes of Maine. 4th edition. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, ME.
Everhart, W.H., and W.R. Seaman. 1971. Fishes of Colorado. Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Division, Denver, CO.
Findlay, C.S., D.G. Bert, and L. Zheng. 2000. Effect of introduced piscivores on native minnow communities in Adirondack lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:570-580. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f99-276
Fowler, H.W. 1906. The fishes of New Jersey. Pages 35-477 in Annual Report of the New Jersey State Museum (1905), part II. MacCrellish and Quigley, State Province, Trenton, NJ.
Fowler, H.W. 1952. A list of the fishes of New Jersey, with off-shore species. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 104:89-151.
Gray, R.H., and D.D. Dauble. 1977. Checklist and relative abundance of fish species from the Hanford reach of the Columbia River. Northwest Science 51(3):208-215.
Hartel, K. 1992. Non-native fishes known from Massachusetts freshwaters. Occasional Reports of the MCZ Fish Department 1992:1-9.
Hartel, K.E., D.B. Halliwell, and A.E. Launer. 2002. Inland fishes of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA.
Hayes, M.P., and M.R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology 20(4):490-059.
Hocutt, C.H., R.E. Jenkins, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1986. Zoogeography of the fishes of the central Appalachians and central Atlantic Coastal Plain. Pages 161-212 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, eds. The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Holton, G.D. 1990. A field guide to Montana fishes. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT.
Hoover, E.E. 1936. Preliminary biological survey of some New Hampshire lakes. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Survey Report No. 1. Concord, NH.
Hubbs, C., and A.E. Peden. 1968. Notes on the distribution of blackbass (Micropterus) in the San Marcos River, Hays County, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 20(2):193-194.
Hubbs, C.L., and K.F. Lagler. 1947. Fishes of the Great Lakes region. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bulletin 26:1-186. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=396 6/7/2020 Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) - Species Profile Page 10 of 12
Hubert, W. 1994. Exotic fish. Pages 158-174 in Parrish, T.L., and S. H. Anderson, eds. Exotic species manual. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Laramie, WY.
Hughes, R.M. and A.T. Herlihy. 2012. Patterns in catch per unit effort of native prey fish and alien piscivorous fish in 7 Pacific Northwest USA rivers. Fisheries 37(5):201-211.
Idaho Fish and Game. 1990. Fisheries Management Plan 1991-1995. Appendix I. A list of Idaho fishes and their distribution by drainage. Idaho Fish and Game.
International Game Fish Association. 1994. World records. IN IGFA. World Record Game Fishes. International Game Fish Association.
Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Kendall, W.C. 1914. An annotated catalogue of the fishes of Maine. Proceedings of the Portland Society of Natural History 3:1-198.
Kraai, J.E., W.P. Provine, and J.A. Prentice. 1983. Case histories of three walleye stocking techniques with cost- to-benefit considerations. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 37 (1983):395-400.
Kuehne, L.M., and J.D. Olden. 2012. Prey naivety in the behavioural responses of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) to an invasive predator. Freshwater Biology 57:1126-1137.
Lampman, B.H. 1946. The coming of the pond fishes. Binfords and Mort, Portland, OR.
La Rivers, I. 1962. Fishes and fisheries of Nevada. Nevada State Print Office, Carson City, NV.
Lee, D.S. 1980. Micropterus dolomieui Lacepede, smallmouth bass. Page 605 in Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer Jr, eds. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History. Raleigh, NC.
Linder, A.D. 1963. Idaho's alien fishes. Journal of the Idaho Museum of Natural History 6(2):12-15.
Loppnow, G.L., and P.A. Venturelli. 2014. Stage-structured simulations suggest that removing young of the year is an effective method for controlling invasive Smallmouth Bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 143(5):1321-1347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2014.920724
Loyacano, H.A., Jr. 1975. A list of freshwater fishes of South Carolina. Bulletin of the South Carolina Experimental Station 580:1-8.
MacCrimmon, H.R., and W.H. Robbins. 1975. Distribution of black basses in North America. Pages 56-66 in Stroud, R.H, and H. Clepper, eds. Black bass biology and management. Sport Fishing Institute. Washington, DC.
Maciolek, J.A. 1984. Exotic fishes in Hawaii and other islands of Oceania. Pages 131-161 in W.R. Courtenay, Jr., and J.R. Stauffer, Jr., eds. Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fishes. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC.
Mettee, M.F., P.E. O'Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile basin. Oxmoor House, Inc., Birmingham, AL.
Miller, R.J., and H.W. Robison. 1973. The fishes of Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University Press, Stillwater, OK.
Miller, R.R., and J.R. Alcorn. 1946. The introduced fishes of Nevada, with a history of their introduction. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 73:173-193.
Miller, R.R. and C.H. Lowe. 1967. Part 2. Fishes of Arizona. Lowe, C.H., ed. The Vertebrates of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Fish and Game Department. Sims Printing Company, Inc., Phoenix, AZ.
Morris, J., L. Morris, and L. Witt. 1974. The fishes of Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE.
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. 2nd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=396 6/7/2020 Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) - Species Profile Page 11 of 12
Neale, G. 1931. Spiny-rayed fresh water game fishes of California inland waters. California Fish and Game 17 (1):1-17.
O'Malley, K.G, D.F. Markle, and W.R. Ardren. 2013. Timing of population fragmentation in a vulnerable minnow, the Umpqua Chub, and the role of nonnative predators. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142 (2):447-457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2012.728166
Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. The Peterson Guide Series, vol. 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Pflieger, W.L. 1971. A distributional study of Missouri fishes. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 20(3):225-570.
Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO.
Raasch, M.S., and V.L. Altemus, Sr. 1991. Delaware's freshwater and brackish water fishes - a popular account. Delaware State College Center for the Study of Del-Mar-Va Habitats and the Society of Natural History of Delaware, Dover, DE.
Rasmussen, J.L., 1998. Aquatic nuisance species of the Mississippi River basin. 60th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Aquatic Nuisance Species Symposium, Dec. 7, 1998, Cincinnati, OH.
Red River Authority of Texas. 2001. Red and Canadian Basins Fish Inventory: Grayson County.
Red River Authority of Texas. 2001.Red and Canadian Basins Fish Inventory: Red River County.
Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, J. W. Foltz, and J. M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater fishes of South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
Ross, S.T., and W.M. Brenneman. 1991. Distribution of freshwater fishes in Mississippi. Freshwater Fisheries Report No. 108. D-J Project Completion Report F-69. Mississippi Department of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries and Parks, Jackson, MS.
Scarola, J.F. 1973. Freshwater fishes of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Division of Inland and Marine Fisheries.
Schmidt, R.E. 1986. Zoogeography of the northern Appalachians. Pages 137-160 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, eds. The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Shebley, W.H. 1917. History of the introduction of food and game fishes into the waters of California. California Fish and Game 3:3-10.
Sigler, W.F., and R.R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah State Department of Fish and Game, Salt Lake City, UT.
Smith, H.M. 1896. A review of the history and results of the attempts to acclimitazie fish and other water animals in the Pacific states. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 15:379-472
Sommer, T., B. Harrell, M. Nobriga, R. Brown, P. Moyle, W. Kimmerer, and L. Schemel. 2001. California's Yolo Bypass: evidence that flood control can be compatible with fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, and agriculture. Fisheries 26(8):6-16.
Starnes, W.C., J. Odenkirk, and M.J. Ashton. 2011. Update and analysis of fish occurrences in the lower Potomac River drainage in the vicinity of Plummers Island, Maryland—Contribution XXXI to the natural history of Plummers Island, Maryland. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 124(4):280-309.
Stauffer, J.R., Jr., J.M. Boltz, and L.R. White. 1995. The fishes of West Virginia. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Stone, M.D. 1995. Fish stocking programs in Wyoming: a balanced perspective. Pages 47-51 in Schramm, H.L., Jr., and R.G. Piper, eds. Uses and effects of cultured fishes in aquatic ecosystems. American Fisheries Soceity Symposium 15. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.
Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.
Teuscher, D., and C. Luecke. 1996. Competition between kokanees and Utah chub in Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Utah-Wyoming. Transactions American Fisheries Society 125(4):505-511.
Tyus, H.M., B.D. Burdick, R.A. Valdez, C.M. Haynes, T.A. Lytle, and C.R. Berry. 1982. Fishes of the upper Colorado basin: distribution, abundance, and status. Pages 12-70 in Miller, W.H., H.M. Tyus, and C.A. Carlson,
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=396 6/7/2020 Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) - Species Profile Page 12 of 12
eds. Fishes of the upper Colorado River system: present and future. Western Division, American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.
Walker, P. 1993. A list of the endemic and introduced fishes of Colorado-March 1993. unpublished.
Webster, D.A. 1942. The life histories of some Connecticut fishes. Pages 122-227 in A fishery survey of important Connecticut lakes. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.
Whittier, T.R., D.B. Halliwell, and R.A. Daniels. 2000. Distributions of lake fishes in the Northeast - II. The Minnows (Cyprinidae). Northeastern Naturalist 7(2):131-156.
Whittier, T.R., and K.E. Hartel. 1997. First records of redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) in New England. Northeastern Naturalist 4(4):237-240.
Whitmore, D.H. 1983. Introgressive hybridization of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) and Guadalupe bass. Copeia 1983(3):672-679.
Whitmore, D.H. and T.R. Hellier. 1988. Natural hybridization between largemouth and smallmouth bass (Micropterus). Copeia 1988(2):493-396.
Whitworth, W.R. 1996. Freshwater fishes of Connecticut. Bulletin 114. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.
Whitworth, W.R., P.L. Berrien, and W.T. Keller. 1968. Freshwater fishes of Connecticut. Bulletin 101. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.
Wydoski, R.S., and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Yerger, R.W. 1977. Fishes of the Apalachicola River. Florida Marine Research Publications 26:22-33.
Other Resources: Missouri River Introduced Fish - Smallmouth Bass
Distribution in Illinois - ILNHS
Author: Pam Fuller, Matt Cannister, and Matt Neilson
Revision Date: 6/27/2019
Peer Review Date: 1/25/2016
Citation Information: Pam Fuller, Matt Cannister, and Matt Neilson, 2020, Micropterus dolomieu Lacepède, 1802: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx? speciesID=396, Revision Date: 6/27/2019, Peer Review Date: 1/25/2016, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=396 6/7/2020 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) - Species Profile Page 1 of 11
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth Bass) Fishes Native Transplant
< Image 1 of 2 >
Eric Szkodny © Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802)
Common name: Largemouth Bass
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: The Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) has an elongate body that ranges in color from a silvery-white to brassy-green and occasionally to a light brown in darker water. It is camouflaged with a dark olive mottling on its dorsal surface, a broad black stripe (typically broken into a series of blotches), and greenish-black speckles along its side. The caudal fin has a dusky black edge which is most prominent in juveniles. The species has a large mouth with an upper jaw that extends back past the eye in adults, and a tongue that lacks teeth. Micropterus salmoides have 3 anal spines, 9-11 dorsal spines, typically 58-73 lateral scales, and 8 rakers on its first gill arch (Page and Burr 2011; Robins et al. 2018). Morphological descriptions are also given in Becker (1983), Etnier and Starnes (1993), Jenkins and Burkhead (1994), and Moyle (2002).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=401 6/7/2020 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) - Species Profile Page 2 of 11
Two subspecies of Largemouth Bass are recognized (Bailey and Hubbs 1949). The Florida Bass (Micropterus s. floridanus) attains a larger size than the Northern Largemouth Bass (Micropterus s. salmoides). Micropterus s. floridanus typically has 31 or more branches on the pyloric caeca (second stomach), 65-77 (typically 69-73) lateral scales, and 27-34 (typically 29-31) scales around the caudal peduncle. The Northern Largemouth Bass (Micropterus s. salmoides) typically has fewer than 28 branches on the pyloric caeca, 58-69 (typically 59-67) lateral scales, and 24-32 (typically 27-28) scales around the caudal peduncle (Robins et al. 2018).
Size: 97 cm (Robins et al. 2018).
Native Range: Largemouth Bass are native to the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes, Hudson Bay (Red River), and Mississippi River basins from southern Quebec to Minnesota and south to the Gulf. Its native range also includes the Atlantic Slope drainages from North Carolina to Florida, and the Gulf Slope drainages from southern Florida into northern Mexico (Page and Burr 2011).
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Micropterus salmoides are found here.
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations†
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=401 6/7/2020 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) - Species Profile Page 3 of 11
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Alaska 2018 2018 1Anchorage
Aqua Fria; Big Chino-Williamson Valley; Bill Williams; Bouse Wash; Brawley Wash; Canyon Diablo; Centennial Wash; Chevelon Canyon; Detrital Wash; Grand Canyon; Grand Wash; Havasu Canyon; Havasu-Mohave Lakes; Imperial Reservoir; Lake Mead; Little Colorado Headwaters; Lower Colorado; Lower Colorado Region; Lower Arizona 1880 2013 38 Gila; Lower Lake Powell; Lower Salt; Lower San Pedro; Lower Santa Cruz; Lower Verde; Middle Gila; Middle Gila; Middle Little Colorado; San Bernardino Valley; Santa Maria; Silver; Tonto; Upper Gila-San Carlos Reservoir; Upper Little Colorado; Upper Salt; Upper San Pedro; Upper Santa Cruz; Upper Verde; Yuma Desert
Aliso-San Onofre; California Region; Calleguas; Central Coastal; Clear Creek-Sacramento River; Cottonwood-Tijuana; Crowley Lake; Honcut Headwaters-Lower Feather; Imperial Reservoir; Lake Tahoe; Los Angeles; Lower Colorado; Lower Colorado; Lower Klamath; Lower Pit; Lower Sacramento; Middle Kern-Upper Tehachapi- Grapevine; Middle San Joaquin-Lower Chowchilla; Mojave; Monterey Bay; Newport Bay; Owens Lake; Pajaro; Russian; Sacramento Headwaters; California 1874 2014 58 Salinas; Salton Sea; San Antonio; San Diego; San Jacinto; San Joaquin; San Joaquin Delta; San Luis Rey-Escondido; San Pablo Bay; Santa Ana; Santa Clara; Santa Margarita; Santa Maria; Santa Monica Bay; Santa Ynez; South Fork American; South Fork Kern; Suisun Bay; Surprise Valley; Thomes Creek-Sacramento River; Trinity; Tulare Lake Bed; Upper Cache; Upper Deer-Upper White; Upper Kaweah; Upper Klamath; Upper Pit; Upper Sacramento; Upper San Joaquin; Upper Stony; Upper Tule; Upper Yuba; Ventura
Animas; Beaver; Big Thompson; Cache La Poudre; Colorado Headwaters; Colorado Headwaters- Plateau; Horse; Huerfano; Lone Tree-Owl; Lower Gunnison; Lower South Platte; Lower White; Lower Yampa; McElmo; Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek; Middle South Platte-Sterling; North Fork Colorado 1878 2019 36 Republican; Piedra; Purgatoire; Republican; Rio Grande Headwaters; Rush; San Luis; South Fork Republican; South Platte; St. Vrain; Two Butte; Uncompahgre; Upper Arkansas; Upper Arkansas- John Martin Reservoir; Upper Arkansas-Lake Meredith; Upper Dolores; Upper San Juan; Upper South Platte; Upper White; Upper Yampa
Housatonic; Lower Connecticut; New England Connecticut 1850 2010 8 Region; Pawcatuck-Wood; Quinnipiac; Saugatuck; Shetucket; Thames
Brandywine-Christina; Broadkill-Smyrna; Delaware 1926 2007 6 Choptank; Delaware Bay; Nanticoke; Upper Chesapeake
District of 1999 2010 1 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan Columbia
Broad; Little; Tugaloo; Upper Oconee; Upper Georgia 1962 2008 5 Ogeechee
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=401 6/7/2020 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) - Species Profile Page 4 of 11
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Hawaii 1856 2016 4 Hawaii; Kauai; Maui; Oahu
American Falls; Bear Lake; Beaver-Camas; Blackfoot; Boise-Mores; Brownlee Reservoir; C.J. Strike Reservoir; Clearwater; Coeur d'Alene Lake; Curlew Valley; Idaho Falls; Kootenai; Lake Walcott; Lemhi; Little Wood; Lower Bear; Lower Bear-Malad; Lower Boise; Lower Kootenai; Lower Idaho 1887 2016 37 North Fork Clearwater; Lower Salmon; Lower Snake-Asotin; Middle Bear; Middle Snake-Boise; Middle Snake-Succor; North Fork Payette; Pacific Northwest Region; Palouse; Payette; Pend Oreille Lake; Portneuf; Spokane; St. Joe; Teton; Upper Snake-Rock; Upper Spokane; Weiser
Iowa 1885 1987 1 North Raccoon
Beaver; Buckner; Coon-Pickerel; Cow; Crooked; Gar-Peace; Little Arkansas; Lower North Fork Solomon; Lower Republican; Lower Smoky Hill; Lower South Fork Solomon; Lower Walnut Creek; Medicine Lodge; Middle Arkansas-Slate; Middle Republican; Middle Smoky Hill; Ninnescah; North Kansas 1958 2019 30 Fork Ninnescah; North Fork Smoky Hill; Pawnee; Rattlesnake; Smoky Hill Headwaters; Solomon; South Fork Ninnescah; South Fork Republican; Upper Cimarron; Upper Cimarron-Bluff; Upper North Fork Solomon; Upper South Fork Solomon; Upper Walnut Creek
Kentucky 1961 2004 1 Upper Cumberland
Aroostook; Dead; Kennebec; Lower Androscoggin; Lower Kennebec; Lower Penobscot; Maine Coastal; Maine 1910 2009 13 New England Region; Piscataqua-Salmon Falls; Presumpscot; Saco; St. George-Sheepscot; Upper Kennebec
Cacapon-Town; Choptank; Conococheague- Opequon; Gunpowder-Patapsco; Lower Potomac; Maryland 1854 2011 12 Lower Susquehanna; Mid Atlantic Region; Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan; Middle Potomac- Catoctin; Monocacy; Patuxent; Tangier
Blackstone; Cape Cod; Charles; Chicopee; Concord; Farmington; Housatonic; Hudson-Hoosic; Massachusetts 1860 2009 17 Merrimack; Merrimack River; Middle Connecticut; Miller; Narragansett; Nashua; New England Region; Quinebaug; Westfield
Minnesota 1982 1982 1Cloquet
Montana 1914 2014 72 Arrow; Battle; Beaver; Belle Fourche; Big Dry; Big Horn Lake; Big Muddy; Big Sandy; Bitterroot; Blackfoot; Box Elder; Boxelder; Brush Lake Closed Basin; Bullwhacker-Dog; Charlie-Little Muddy; Clarks Fork Yellowstone; Cottonwood; Fisher; Flathead Lake; Flint-Rock; Fort Peck Reservoir; Judith; Little Bighorn; Little Dry; Little Powder; Lodge; Lower Bighorn; Lower Clark Fork; Lower Flathead; Lower Milk; Lower Musselshell; Lower Powder; Lower Tongue; Lower Yellowstone; Lower Yellowstone-Sunday; Madison; Middle Clark Fork; Middle Kootenai; Middle Milk; Middle Musselshell; Middle Powder; Milk; Missouri Headwaters; Missouri-Poplar; Mizpah; Musselshell; O'Fallon; Peoples; Poplar; Prairie Elk-Wolf; Pryor; Redwater;
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=401 6/7/2020 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) - Species Profile Page 5 of 11
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Rosebud; Sage; South Fork Flathead; Stillwater; Sun; Swan; Teton; Tongue; Upper Clark Fork; Upper Little Missouri; Upper Missouri; Upper Missouri; Upper Missouri-Dearborn; Upper Musselshell; Upper Tongue; Upper Yellowstone; Upper Yellowstone; Upper Yellowstone-Lake Basin; Upper Yellowstone-Pompeys Pillar; Whitewater
Dismal; Frenchman; Harlan County Reservoir; Lewis and Clark Lake; Little Nemaha; Loup; Lower Elkhorn; Lower Middle Loup; Lower Niobrara; Lower North Loup; Lower North Platte; Lower Platte; Lower Platte-Shell; Middle Big Blue; Middle Niobrara; Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff; Middle Nebraska 1967 2018 33 Platte-Buffalo; Middle Platte-Prairie; Middle Republican; Missouri Region; North Fork Elkhorn; North Fork Republican; Prairie Dog; Red Willow; Salt; Snake; Upper Elkhorn; Upper Little Blue; Upper Middle Loup; Upper Niobrara; Upper North Loup; Upper Republican; West Fork Big Blue
Carson Desert; Central Lahontan; Fish Lake-Soda Spring Valleys; Hamlin-Snake Valleys; Havasu- Mohave Lakes; Hot Creek-Railroad Valleys; Imperial Reservoir; Lake Mead; Little Smoky- Newark Valleys; Long-Ruby Valleys; Lower Nevada 1909 2005 24 Humboldt; Meadow Valley Wash; Middle Carson; Muddy; Pilot-Thousand Springs; Smoke Creek Desert; South Fork Owyhee; Spring-Steptoe Valleys; Thousand-Virgin; Truckee; Upper Amargosa; Walker; West Walker; White
Black-Ottauquechee; Contoocook; Merrimack River; Middle Connecticut; Miller; Nashua; New New England; Pemigewasset; Piscataqua-Salmon Falls; 1940 2009 16 Hampshire Saco; Upper Androscoggin; Upper Connecticut; Upper Connecticut-Mascoma; Waits; West; Winnipesaukee River
Cohansey-Maurice; Crosswicks-Neshaminy; Great Egg Harbor; Hackensack-Passaic; Lower Delaware; Lower Hudson; Mid-Atlantic Region; Middle New Jersey 1871 2014 13 Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead; Middle Delaware- Musconetcong; Mullica-Toms; Raritan; Rondout; Sandy Hook-Staten Island
Chaco; Jemez; Mimbres; Rio Grande-Albuquerque; Rio Grande-Santa Fe; San Francisco; Upper New Mexico 1957 2015 15 Canadian; Upper Gila; Upper Gila-Mangas; Upper Pecos-Black; Upper Pecos-Long Arroyo; Upper Rio Grande; Upper San Juan; Upper San Juan; Zuni
Bronx; Chenango; Hudson-Wappinger; Lower Hudson; Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead; Middle Hudson; Mohawk; Owego-Wappasening; New York 1930 2013 17 Raquette; Rondout; Saranac River; Schoharie; Seneca; St. Regis; Upper Delaware; Upper Hudson; Upper Susquehanna
North Carolina 1925 2013 46 Albemarle; Black; Cape Fear; Chowan; Coastal Carolina; Contentnea; Deep; Fishing; Haw; Little Pee Dee; Lower Cape Fear; Lower Catawba; Lower Dan; Lower Neuse; Lower Pee Dee; Lower Roanoke; Lower Tar; Lower Yadkin; Lumber; Lynches; Meherrin; Middle Neuse; Middle Roanoke; Neuse; New River; Northeast Cape Fear;
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=401 6/7/2020 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) - Species Profile Page 6 of 11
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Nottoway; Pamlico; Roanoke; Roanoke Rapids; Rocky; Seneca; South Fork Catawba; South Yadkin; Tugaloo; Upper Broad; Upper Cape Fear; Upper Catawba; Upper Dan; Upper Neuse; Upper New; Upper Pee Dee; Upper Tar; Upper Yadkin; Waccamaw; White Oak River
Apple; Cedar; Knife; Lower Cannonball; Lower Heart; North Fork Grand; Painted Woods-Square North Dakota 1980 2005 10 Butte; Upper Cannonball; Upper Lake Oahe; West Missouri Coteau
Arkansas-White-Red Region; Middle North Oklahoma 1973 1997 2 Canadian
Alsea; Applegate; Brownlee Reservoir; Bully; Clackamas; Coast Fork Willamette; Coos; Coquille; Donner und Blitzen; Goose Lake; Guano; Harney- Malheur Lakes; Illinois; Jordan; Klamath; Lost; Lower Columbia; Lower Columbia-Clatskanie; Lower Columbia-Sandy; Lower Crooked; Lower Deschutes; Lower John Day; Lower Malheur; Lower Owyhee; Lower Rogue; Lower Willamette; Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Middle Fork Willamette; Middle Rogue; Middle Snake-Payette; Middle Willamette; Molalla- Oregon 1888 2013 65 Pudding; Necanicum; Nehalem; North Santiam; North Umpqua; Pacific Northwest; Pacific Northwest Region; Powder; Siletz-Yaquina; Siltcoos; Silver; Siuslaw; Sixes; South Santiam; South Umpqua; Sprague; Tualatin; Umatilla; Umpqua; Upper Crooked; Upper Deschutes; Upper Grande Ronde; Upper John Day; Upper Klamath; Upper Klamath Lake; Upper Malheur; Upper Rogue; Upper Willamette; Warner Lakes; Willamette; Willow; Wilson-Trusk-Nestuccu; Yamhill
Bald Eagle; Conococheague-Opequon; Crosswicks- Neshaminy; Delaware; Lehigh; Lower Juniata; Lower Susquehanna; Lower Susquehanna-Penns; Lower Susquehanna-Swatara; Lower West Branch Susquehanna; Middle Delaware-Mongaup- Pennsylvania 1980 2002 21 Brodhead; Monocacy; Pine; Potomac; Schuylkill; Susquehanna; Upper Juniata; Upper Susquehanna; Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna; Upper Susquehanna-Tunkhannock; Upper West Branch Susquehanna
Cibuco-Guajataca; Culebrinas-Guanajibo; Eastern Puerto Rico 1915 2009 5 Puerto Rico; Puerto Rico; Southern Puerto Rico
Narragansett; New England Region; Pawcatuck- Rhode Island 1979 2009 4 Wood; Quinebaug
Black; Broad-St. Helena; Carolina Coastal-Sampit; Edisto River; Enoree; Lake Marion; Lower South Catawba; Lower Pee Dee; Lower Savannah; 1960 2012 20 Carolina Lynches; North Fork Edisto; Salkehatchie; Saluda; Seneca; South Fork Edisto; Stevens; Upper Broad; Upper Savannah; Waccamaw; Wateree
South Dakota 1934 2003 38 Angostura Reservoir; Bad; Cherry; Cheyenne; Elm; Fort Randall Reservoir; Grand; James; Keya Paha; Lake Thompson; Lewis and Clark Lake; Little White; Lower Belle Fourche; Lower
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=401 6/7/2020 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) - Species Profile Page 7 of 11
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Cheyenne; Lower James; Lower Lake Oahe; Lower Moreau; Lower White; Medicine; Medicine Knoll; Middle Big Sioux; Middle Cheyenne-Elk; Middle Cheyenne-Spring; Middle James; Middle White; Mud; North Fork Snake; Ponca; Rapid; Snake; South Fork Grand; Turtle; Upper James; Upper Lake Oahe; Upper Little Missouri; Upper Moreau; Vermillion; West Missouri Coteau
Amistad Reservoir; Austin-Travis Lakes; Bois D'arc -Island; Buchanan-Lyndon B. Johnson Lakes; Buffalo-San Jacinto; Caddo Lake; Cedar; Chambers; Colorado Headwaters; Denton; Double Mountain Fork Brazos; East Fork Trinity; El Paso- Las Cruces; Elm Fork Trinity; Farmers-Mud; Hubbard; International Falcon Reservoir; Jim Ned; Lake Fork; Lake Meredith; Lake O'the Pines; Lake Texoma; Lampasas; Leon; Little Cypress; Little Wichita; Los Olmos; Lower Angelina; Lower Brazos -Little Brazos; Lower Colorado-Cummins; Lower Frio; Lower Guadalupe; Lower Nueces; Lower Pecos-Red Bluff Reservoir; Lower Prairie Dog Town Fork Red; Lower Sulpher; Lower Trinity-Kickapoo; Lower Trinity-Tehuacana; Lower West Fork Trinity; Medina; Middle Brazos-Lake Whitney; Middle Texas 1941 2018 85 Brazos-Millers; Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto; Middle Colorado; Middle Colorado-Elm; Middle Guadalupe; Middle Sabine; Navasota; Navidad; North Bosque; North Concho; North Fork Double Mountain Fork Brazos; Paint; Palo Duro; Pecan Bayou; Richland; Rio Grande-Fort Quitman; San Ambrosia-Santa Isabel; San Fernando; San Gabriel; South Concho; South Laguna Madre; Sulphur Headwaters; Toledo Bend Reservoir; Toyah; Tule; Upper Angelina; Upper Clear Fork Brazos; Upper Colorado; Upper Guadalupe; Upper Neches; Upper North Fork Red; Upper Nueces; Upper Prairie Dog Town Fork Red; Upper Sabine; Upper Salt Fork Red; Upper San Antonio; Upper Trinity; Upper West Fork Trinity; Upper Wolf; West Fork San Jacinto; White; White Oak Bayou; Wichita; Yegua
Bear Lake; Great Salt Lake; Hamlin-Snake Valleys; Jordan; Little Bear-Logan; Lower Bear-Malad; Lower Beaver; Lower Dolores; Lower Green- Desolation Canyon; Lower Green-Diamond; Lower Lake Powell; Lower San Juan; Lower San Juan- Utah 1880 2015 29 Four Corners; Lower Sevier; Lower Weber; Middle Bear; Middle Sevier; Montezuma; Provo; San Pitch; San Rafael; Sevier Lake; Upper Bear; Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil; Upper Colorado-Kane Springs; Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper Lake Powell; Upper Virgin; Utah Lake
Black-Ottauquechee; Deerfield; Hudson-Hoosic; Lamoille River; Mettawee River; Middle Vermont 1980 2011 13 Connecticut; Missiquoi River; St. Francois River; Upper Connecticut; Upper Connecticut-Mascoma; Waits; West; White
Virginia 1961 2012 44 Albemarle; Appomattox; Banister; Blackwater; Chincoteague; Chowan; Conococheague-Opequon; Eastern Lower Delmarva; Great Wicomico- Piankatank; Hampton Roads; James; Lower Chesapeake Bay; Lower Dan; Lower James; Lower
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=401 6/7/2020 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) - Species Profile Page 8 of 11
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Potomac; Lower Rappahannock; Lynnhaven- Poquoson; Mattaponi; Maury; Meherrin; Middle James-Buffalo; Middle James-Willis; Middle New; Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan; Middle Potomac-Catoctin; Middle Roanoke; North Fork Shenandoah; Nottoway; Pamunkey; Potomac; Rapidan-Upper Rappahannock; Rivanna; Roanoke; Roanoke Rapids; Shenandoah; South Fork Shenandoah; Upper Chesapeake; Upper Dan; Upper James; Upper New; Upper Roanoke; Upper Yadkin; Western Lower Delmarva; York
Banks Lake; Chief Joseph; Colville; Deschutes; Dungeness-Elwha; Duwamish; Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake; Grays Harbor; Hangman; Hoh- Quillayute; Hood Canal; Kettle; Lake Chelan; Lake Washington; Lewis; Little Spokane; Lower Chehalis; Lower Columbia; Lower Columbia- Clatskanie; Lower Columbia-Sandy; Lower Cowlitz; Lower Crab; Lower Skagit; Lower Snake; Lower Snake-Tucannon; Lower Spokane; Lower Yakima; Washington 1890 2011 58 Methow; Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia- Lake Wallula; Nisqually; Nooksack; Okanogan; Pacific Northwest Region; Palouse; Pend Oreille; Puget Sound; Puget Sound; Puyallup; Rock; San Juan Islands; Sanpoil; Similkameen; Skokomish; Skykomish; Snohomish; Snoqualmie; Stillaguamish; Strait of Georgia; Upper Chehalis; Upper Columbia-Entiat; Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids; Upper Crab; Upper Spokane; Upper Yakima; Walla Walla; Wenatchee; Willapa Bay
West Virginia 1993 1994 3 James; Middle New; Potomac
Big Horn; Big Horn Lake; Blacks Fork; Lower Laramie; North Platte; Powder; South Platte; Wyoming 1880 1999 10 Upper Belle Fourche; Upper Cheyenne; Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir
Table last updated 10/18/2019
† Populations may not be currently present.
Ecology: Largemouth bass occupy a variety of habitats ranging from large lakes, rivers, and reservoirs, to smaller waterbodies such as swamps, ponds, and creek pools. (Claussen 2015; Page and bur 2011; Robins et al. 2018). Although they thrive in most aquatic environments, M. salmoides tend to be most abundant in warm eutrophic lakes, rivers, and reservoirs that are highly vegetated. Bass are often associated with shallow shorelines, and they are commonly concentrated in areas with submerged structure such as logs, rocks, and aquatic macrophyte beds (Claussen 2015).
Largemouth Bass are opportunistic feeders that exploit a wide variety of prey. They feed predominately by sight, but also utilize their sense of smell and lateral line to capture prey (Janssen and Corcoran 1993). Because M. salmoides feed largely by sight, they prefer clear rather than turbid waters (Killgore et al. 1989; Sowa and Rabeni 1995). Largemouth Bass are voracious feeders and will consume almost any prey they can fit in their mouth and swallow whole. As adults, Largemouth bass are highly piscivorous, and they are often the dominant carnivores in the systems they inhabit (Howick and O’Brien 1983; Claussen 2015).
Means of Introduction: Intentional stocking for sportfishing. This species is an important sportfish, and it has been stocked extensively outside of its native range for purpose of angling (Maceina and Murphy 1992; Claussen 2015).
Status: Established in most locations.
Impact of Introduction: The introduction of Largemouth Bass usually impact populations of small native fishes directly through predation, sometimes resulting in the decline or extinction of such species (Minckley 1973). Species that have suffered such effects include relict dace (Relictus solitarius), Clover Valley speckled dace (Rhinichthys
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=401 6/7/2020 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) - Species Profile Page 9 of 11
osculus oligoporus), Independence Valley tui chub (Gila bicolor lethoporus) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985), a distinct population of Gila chub (G. intermedia), Monkey Spring pupfish (Cyprinodon sp.) (Minckley 1973), White River springfish (Crenichthys baileyi), Pahranagat roundtail chub (Gila robusta jordani) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985), Owens pupfish (Cyprinodon radiosus) (Miller and Pister 1971), wild brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) (Boucher 2003), and White River spinedace (Lepidomeda albivallis) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) speculated that introduced Largemouth Bass may have contributed to the demise of an isolated population of trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus) in the Potomac River in Virginia and Maryland. Introduced predatory centrarchids are likely responsible for the decline of native ranid frogs in California, California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) populations (Hayes and Jennings 1986; Dill and Cordone 1997), and the Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis) in southeastern Arizona (Rosen et al. 1995). In Squaw Creek Reservoir in northcentral Texas, introduced Florida largemouth intergrade with native northern largemouth (Whitmore and Hellier 1988). Nonnative predators, including Largemouth Bass, have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of native prey species in several Pacific Northwest rivers (Hughes and Herlihy 2012). The presence of Largemouth Bass, along with other introduced piscivores, reduced the richness of native minnow communities in Adirondack lakes (Findlay et al. 2000).
Remarks: This account includes introductions of both subspecies M. s. salmoides, the northern Largemouth Bass, and M. s. floridanus, the Florida Largemouth Bass. For instance, both subspecies have been introduced into Nevada (Deacon and Williams 1984). Tyus et al. (1982) gave a distribution map of the this species in the upper Colorado basin. MacCrimmon and Robbins (1975) showed a map depicting this species' native and introduced range. Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) reported the largemouth as introduced into the Roanoke drainage in Virginia. Recently prehistoric bones of M. salmoides were discovered near the Roanoke River in Roanoke, Virginia, indicating that the species is native there (Jenkins, personal communication).
Introduced Florida Largemouth Bass are known to hybridize with native populations of northern Largemouth Bass (Whitmore and Hellier 1988), with introgression of Florida bass genes into populations occurring rapidly (Gelwick et al. 1995) and dispersing away from original introduction/stocking sites (Ray et al. 2012).
References:
Bailey, R.M., and C.L. Hubbs. 1949. The black basses (Micropterus) of Florida, with description of a new species. Occassional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 516:1-40.
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Madison Press, Madison, WI.
Boucher, D. 2003. Illegal fish stockings threaten Maine lakes and rivers. Available online at URL http://www.state.me.us
Claussen, J.E. 2015. Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802). Pages 27-34 in Tringali, M.D., J.M. Long, T.W. Birdsong, and M.S. Allen (eds.), eds. Black bass diversity: multidisciplinary science for conservation. Volume 82. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.
Deacon, J.E. and J.E. Williams. 1984. Annotated list of the fishes of Nevada. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 97(1):103-118.
Dill, W.A., and A.J. Cordone. 1997. History and status of introduced fishes in California, 1871-1996. California Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin, volume 178.
Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.
Findlay, C.S., D.G. Bert, and L. Zheng. 2000. Effect of introduced piscivores on native minnow communities in Adirondack lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:570-580. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f99-276
Gelwick, F.P., E.R. Gilliland, and W.J. Matthews. 1995. Introgression of the Florida largemouth bass genome into stream populations of northern largemouth bass in Oklahoma. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124(4):550-560.
Hayes, M.P., and M.R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology 20(4):490-509.
Howick, G.L., and W.J. O'Brien. 1983. Piscivorous feeding behavior of largemouth bass: an experimental analysis. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 11(2):508-516. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659 (1983)112<508:PFBOLB>2.0.CO;2
Hughes, R.M. and A.T. Herlihy. 2012. Patterns in catch per unit effort of native prey fish and alien piscivorous fish in 7 Pacific Northwest USA rivers. Fisheries 37(5):201-211.
Janssen, J., and J. Corcoran. 1993. Lateral line stimuli can override vision to determine sunfish strike trajectory. Journal of Experimental Biology 176(1):299-305. https://jeb.biologists.org/content/176/1/299.short
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=401 6/7/2020 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) - Species Profile Page 10 of 11
Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Killgore, K.J., R.P. Morgan II, and N.B. Rybicki. 1989. Distribution and abundance of fishes associated with submersed aquatic plants in the Potomac River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:101-111.
MacCrimmon, H.R., and W.H. Robbins. 1975. Distribution of black basses in North America. 56-66 in R.H. Stroud, and H. Clepper, eds. Black bass biology and management. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D.C.
Maceina, M.J., and B.R. Murphy. 1992. Stocking Florida largemouth bass outside its native range. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:686-688.
Miller, R.R., and E.P. Pister. 1971. Management of the Owens pupfish, Cyprinodon radiosus, in Mono County, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 100(3):502-509.
Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Fish and Game Department. Sims Printing Company, Inc., Phoenix, AZ.
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. 2nd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr. 2011. Field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Peterson Field Guides series. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, MA.
Ray, J.W., M. Husemann, R.S. King, and P.D. Danely. 2012. Genetic analyses reveal dispersal of Florida bass haplotypes from reservoirs to rivers in central Texas. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141 (5):1269-1273.
Robins, R.H., L.M. Page, J.D. Williams, Z.S. Randall, and G.E. Sheehy. 2018. Fishes in the fresh waters of Florida: an identification guide and atlas. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL.
Rosen, P.C., C.R. Schwalbe, D.A. Parizek, Jr., P.A. Holm, and C.H. Lowe. 1995. Introduced aquatic vertebrates in the Chiricahua region: effects on declining native ranid frogs. 251-261 in Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago: the sky island of the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-264.
Sowa, S.P., and C.F. Rabeni. 1995. Regional evaluation of the relation of habitat to distribution and abundance of smallmouth bass and largemouth bass in Missouri streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 12 (2):240-251. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1995)124<0240:REOTRO>2.3.CO;2
Tyus, H.M., B.D. Burdick, R.A. Valdez, C.M. Haynes, T.A. Lytle, and C.R. Berry. 1982. Fishes of the upper Colorado River basin: distribution, abundance, and status. 12-70 in W.H.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Recovery plan for the Pahranagat roundtail chub, Gila robusta jordani. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. White River spinedace, Lepidomeda albivallis, recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
Whitmore, D.H. and T.R. Hellier. 1988. Natural hybridization between largemouth and smallmouth bass (Micropterus). Copeia 1988(2):493-396.
Other Resources: Distribution in Illinois - ILNHS
Micropterus salmoides (Global Invasive Species Database)
Author: Fuller, P., Neilson, M., and Procopio, J.
Revision Date: 6/21/2019
Peer Review Date: 7/23/2015
Citation Information: Fuller, P., Neilson, M., and Procopio, J., 2020, Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx? SpeciesID=401, Revision Date: 6/21/2019, Peer Review Date: 7/23/2015, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=401 6/7/2020 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) - Species Profile Page 11 of 11
provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=401 6/7/2020 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) - Species Profile Page 1 of 9
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill) Fishes Native Transplant
< Image 1 of 3 >
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, 1819
Common name: Bluegill
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Moyle (1976); Becker (1983); Page and Burr (1991); Jenkins and Burkhead (1994). Two subspecies: L. macrochirus mystacalis in Peninsular Florida, and L. m. macrochirus throughout the rest of the range (C. Gilbert, personal communication).
Size: 41 cm.
Native Range: St. Lawrence-Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins from Quebec and New York to Minnesota and south to the Gulf; Atlantic and Gulf Slope drainages from the Cape Fear River, Virginia, to the Rio Grande, Texas and New Mexico. Also in northern Mexico (Page and Burr 1991).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=385 6/7/2020 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) - Species Profile Page 2 of 9
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Lepomis macrochirus are found here.
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations†
Aqua Fria; Bill Williams; Bouse Wash; Brawley Wash; Burro; Canyon Diablo; Imperial Reservoir; Lake Mead; Little Colorado Headwaters; Lower Colorado; Lower Colorado Region; Lower Gila; Lower Gila-Painted Rock Reservoir; Lower Lake Arizona 1934 2013 27 Powell; Lower Salt; Lower San Pedro; Lower Santa Cruz; Lower Verde; Middle Gila; San Bernardino Valley; Tonto; Upper Gila; Upper Gila-San Carlos Reservoir; Upper Salt; Upper Santa Cruz; Upper Verde; Yuma Desert
California 1891 2014 73 Aliso-San Onofre; California Region; Central Coastal; Clear Creek-Sacramento River; Cottonwood-Tijuana; Coyote; Crowley Lake; East
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=385 6/7/2020 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) - Species Profile Page 3 of 9
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Branch North Fork Feather; East Walker; Fresno River; Honcut Headwaters-Lower Feather; Honey- Eagle Lakes; Imperial Reservoir; Lake Tahoe; Los Angeles; Lower American; Lower Colorado; Lower Colorado; Lower Eel; Lower Klamath; Lower Pit; Lower Sacramento; Lower Sacramento; Middle Kern-Upper Tehachapi-Grapevine; Middle San Joaquin-Lower Chowchilla; Mojave; Monterey Bay; Newport Bay; North Fork American; Owens Lake; Pajaro; Paynes Creek-Sacramento River; Sacramento Headwaters; Sacramento-Stone Corral; Salinas; Salton Sea; San Antonio; San Diego; San Francisco Bay; San Gabriel; San Jacinto; San Joaquin; San Joaquin Delta; San Luis Rey-Escondido; San Pablo Bay; San Pedro Channel Islands; Santa Ana; Santa Barbara Coastal; Santa Clara; Santa Margarita; Santa Maria; Santa Monica Bay; Santa Ynez; Seal Beach; South Fork Kern; Suisun Bay; Surprise Valley; Tomales-Drake Bays; Tulare Lake Bed; Upper Cache; Upper Calaveras California; Upper Cosumnes; Upper Deer-Upper White; Upper Kaweah; Upper Kern; Upper Klamath; Upper Pit; Upper Putah; Upper Sacramento; Upper Stony; Upper Tule; Upper Yuba; Ventura
Animas; Big Thompson; Cache La Poudre; Colorado Headwaters; Colorado Headwaters- Plateau; Fountain; Horse; Huerfano; Lower Gunnison; Lower White; Lower Yampa; McElmo; Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek; Middle South Platte-Sterling; North Fork Republican; Piedra; Colorado 1925 2019 32 Purgatoire; Republican; Rio Grande Headwaters; Rush; San Luis; South Fork Republican; South Platte; St. Vrain; Upper Arkansas; Upper Arkansas -John Martin Reservoir; Upper Arkansas-Lake Meredith; Upper Cimarron; Upper Dolores; Upper San Juan; Upper South Platte; Upper Yampa
Housatonic; Lower Connecticut; New England Connecticut 1940 2013 8 Region; Pawcatuck-Wood; Quinnipiac; Saugatuck; Shetucket; Thames
Brandywine-Christina; Broadkill-Smyrna; Delaware 1970 1998 7 Choptank; Delaware Bay; Mid Atlantic Region; Nanticoke; Upper Chesapeake
District of 1999 2010 1 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan Columbia
Hawaii 1946 2005 4 Hawaii; Kauai; Maui; Oahu
American Falls; Beaver-Camas; Blackfoot; Boise- Mores; Brownlee Reservoir; C.J. Strike Reservoir; Clearwater; Coeur d'Alene Lake; Idaho Falls; Kootenai; Lake Walcott; Lemhi; Little Wood; Lower Bear; Lower Bear-Malad; Lower Boise; Idaho 1940 2011 33 Lower Kootenai; Lower Snake-Asotin; Middle Bear; Middle Kootenai; Middle Snake-Boise; Middle Snake-Succor; Moyie; North Fork Payette; Palouse; Payette; Pend Oreille Lake; Spokane; Teton; Upper Snake; Upper Snake-Rock; Upper Spokane; Weiser
Kansas 1969 2014 24 Big; Buckner; Chikaskia; Coon-Pickerel; Gar- Peace; Lower Saline; Lower South Fork Solomon;
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=385 6/7/2020 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) - Species Profile Page 4 of 9
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Lower Walnut Creek; Medicine Lodge; Middle Arkansas-Lake McKinney; Middle Smoky Hill; Ninnescah; North Fork Ninnescah; North Fork Smoky Hill; Pawnee; Rattlesnake; Smoky Hill Headwaters; South Fork Ninnescah; Upper Cimarron-Bluff; Upper North Fork Solomon; Upper Saline; Upper Salt Fork Arkansas; Upper Smoky Hill; Upper Walnut Creek
Lower Kennebec; Piscataqua-Salmon Falls; Saco; Maine 2000 2018 4 St. George-Sheepscot
Cacapon-Town; Chester-Sassafras; Conococheague-Opequon; Gunpowder-Patapsco; Lower Potomac; Lower Susquehanna; Middle Maryland 1934 2011 15 Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan; Middle Potomac- Catoctin; Monocacy; North Branch Potomac; Patuxent; Pokomoke-Western Lower Delmarva; Potomac; Severn; Upper Chesapeake
Blackstone; Cape Cod; Charles; Chicopee; Concord; Farmington; Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy; Massachusetts 1700 2008 17 Housatonic; Merrimack; Merrimack River; Middle Connecticut; Miller; Narragansett; Nashua; New England Region; Quinebaug; Westfield
Michigan 1949 1952 2 Carp-Pine; Lake Superior
Clearwater; Lake Superior; Little Fork; Otter Tail; Minnesota 1955 2008 11 Rainy Headwaters; Rapid; Red Lake; Red Lakes; Roseau; Snake; St. Louis
Battle; Beaver; Beaver; Big Horn Lake; Blackfoot; Boxelder; Cottonwood; Fort Peck Reservoir; Judith; Little Bighorn; Lodge; Lower Bighorn; Lower Milk; Lower Musselshell; Lower Powder; Lower Tongue; Lower Yellowstone; Lower Yellowstone; Lower Yellowstone-Sunday; Middle Kootenai; Middle Milk; Middle Musselshell; Middle Montana 1933 2012 44 Powder; Milk; Missouri Headwaters; Missouri- Poplar; Mizpah; Musselshell; O'Fallon; Prairie Elk- Wolf; Redwater; Rock; Rosebud; Tongue; Two Medicine; Upper Little Missouri; Upper Missouri; Upper Tongue; Upper Yellowstone; Upper Yellowstone; Upper Yellowstone-Lake Basin; Upper Yellowstone-Pompeys Pillar; Willow; Yellowstone Headwaters
Calamus; Cedar; Harlan County Reservoir; Loup; Lower Elkhorn; Lower Lodgepole; Lower North Loup; Lower North Platte; Lower South Platte; Medicine; Middle Platte-Buffalo; Middle Platte- Nebraska 1967 2013 26 Prairie; Middle Republican; Missouri Region; Niobrara Headwaters; Red Willow; Snake; South Loup; Turkey; Upper Big Blue; Upper Elkhorn; Upper Middle Loup; Upper Niobrara; Upper North Loup; Upper White; West Fork Big Blue
Carson Desert; Central Lahontan; Fish Lake-Soda Spring Valleys; Havasu-Mohave Lakes; Hot Creek- Railroad Valleys; Imperial Reservoir; Lake Mead; Nevada 1909 2002 15 Lower Humboldt; Northern Big Smoky Valley; Pyramid-Winnemucca Lakes; Ralston-Stone Cabin Valleys; Spring-Steptoe Valleys; Truckee; Upper Carson; White
1973 2001 10
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=385 6/7/2020 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) - Species Profile Page 5 of 9
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† New Black-Ottauquechee; Contoocook; Merrimack Hampshire River; Middle Connecticut; Miller; Nashua; Piscataqua-Salmon Falls; Waits; West; Winnipesaukee River
Cohansey-Maurice; Crosswicks-Neshaminy; Great Egg Harbor; Hackensack-Passaic; Lower Delaware; Lower Hudson; Mid-Atlantic Region; New Jersey 1920 2014 13 Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead; Middle Delaware-Musconetcong; Mullica-Toms; Raritan; Rondout; Sandy Hook-Staten Island
Conchas; Mimbres; Upper Canadian; Upper New Mexico 1957 2000 7 Canadian-Ute Reservoir; Upper Gila-Mangas; Upper San Juan; Upper San Juan
Black; Chenango; Hudson-Hoosic; Hudson- Wappinger; Lake Champlain; Lower Hudson; Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead; Middle New York 1970 2013 15 Hudson; Mohawk; Oneida; Owego-Wappasening; Rondout; Schoharie; Upper Susquehanna; Upper Susquehanna
Albemarle; Chowan; Contentnea; Fishing; Lower Dan; Lower Neuse; Lower Roanoke; Lower Tar; Meherrin; Middle Neuse; Middle Roanoke; Neuse; North Carolina 1947 2019 24 New River; Nottoway; Pamlico; Pamlico Sound; Roanoke; Roanoke Rapids; Upper Cape Fear; Upper Dan; Upper Neuse; Upper New; Upper Tar; White Oak River
Apple; Cedar; Devils Lake-Sheyenne; Goose; James Headwaters; Lake Sakakawea; Lower Cannonball; Lower Heart; Lower Sheyenne; Middle North Dakota 1965 2005 18 Sheyenne; North Fork Grand; Painted Woods- Square Butte; Pipestem; Upper Heart; Upper James; Upper Pembina River; Western Wild Rice; Willow
Chikaskia; Cimarron Headwaters; Lower Cimarron -Skeleton; Lower Salt Fork Arkansas; Lower Wolf; Oklahoma 1926 2018 9 Middle North Canadian; Upper Cimarron-Liberal; Upper Salt Fork Arkansas; Upper Washita
Alsea; Applegate; Brownlee Reservoir; Bully; Clackamas; Coast Fork Willamette; Coos; Coquille; Goose Lake; Illinois; Klamath; Lost; Lower Columbia; Lower Columbia-Clatskanie; Lower Columbia-Sandy; Lower Crooked; Lower Deschutes; Lower John Day; Lower Malheur; Lower Owyhee; Lower Rogue; Lower Willamette; Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Middle Rogue; Middle Snake-Payette; Oregon 1905 2013 51 Middle Snake-Succor; Middle Willamette; Molalla- Pudding; Necanicum; Nehalem; North Umpqua; Pacific Northwest; Siletz-Yaquina; Siltcoos; Siuslaw; South Santiam; South Umpqua; Tualatin; Umatilla; Umpqua; Upper Deschutes; Upper Grande Ronde; Upper John Day; Upper Klamath Lake; Upper Malheur; Upper Rogue; Upper Willamette; Willow; Wilson-Trusk-Nestuccu; Yamhill
Pennsylvania 1966 2002 24 Bald Eagle; Conococheague-Opequon; Crosswicks- Neshaminy; Lehigh; Lower Juniata; Lower Susquehanna; Lower Susquehanna; Lower
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=385 6/7/2020 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) - Species Profile Page 6 of 9
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Susquehanna-Penns; Lower Susquehanna- Swatara; Lower West Branch Susquehanna; Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead; Middle West Branch Susquehanna; Owego-Wappasening; Raystown; Schuylkill; Sinnemahoning; Susquehanna; Upper Delaware; Upper Juniata; Upper Susquehanna; Upper Susquehanna- Lackawanna; Upper Susquehanna-Tunkhannock; Upper West Branch Susquehanna; West Branch Susquehanna
Cibuco-Guajataca; Culebrinas-Guanajibo; Eastern Puerto Rico 1915 2007 5 Puerto Rico; Puerto Rico; Southern Puerto Rico
Narragansett; New England Region; Pawcatuck- Rhode Island 1991 1996 3 Wood
Angostura Reservoir; Bad; Bois De Sioux; Cheyenne; Elm; Fort Randall Reservoir; Grand; Lac Qui Parle; Lake Thompson; Little White; Lower Belle Fourche; Lower James; Lower Lake Oahe; South Dakota 1949 2001 28 Lower Moreau; Medicine; Medicine Knoll; Middle Cheyenne-Elk; Middle Cheyenne-Spring; Middle James; Mud; North Fork Snake; Ponca; Snake; Turtle; Upper James; Upper Moreau; Vermillion; West Missouri Coteau
Beals; Lake Meredith; North Fork Double Mountain Texas 1951 2016 5 Fork Brazos; Upper Prairie Dog Town Fork Red; Upper Salt Fork Red
Dirty Devil; Duchesne; Escalante; Little Bear- Logan; Lower Bear-Malad; Lower Green-Diamond; Lower Lake Powell; Lower San Juan; Lower San Juan-Four Corners; Lower Sevier; Lower Weber; Utah 1890 2015 20 Lower White; Middle Bear; San Pitch; San Rafael; Southern Great Salt Lake Desert; Upper Colorado- Kane Springs; Upper Lake Powell; Upper Virgin; Utah Lake
Mettawee River; Missiquoi River; White; Winooski Vermont 1986 2016 4 River
Albemarle; Appomattox; Banister; Blackwater; Chincoteague; Chowan; Conococheague-Opequon; Eastern Lower Delmarva; Great Wicomico- Piankatank; Hampton Roads; James; Lower Chesapeake; Lower Dan; Lower James; Lower Potomac; Lower Rappahannock; Lynnhaven- Poquoson; Mattaponi; Maury; Meherrin; Middle James-Buffalo; Middle James-Willis; Middle New; Virginia 1916 2014 44 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan; Middle Potomac-Catoctin; Middle Roanoke; North Fork Shenandoah; Nottoway; Pamunkey; Potomac; Rapidan-Upper Rappahannock; Rivanna; Roanoke; Roanoke Rapids; Shenandoah; South Branch Potomac; South Fork Holston; South Fork Shenandoah; Upper Dan; Upper James; Upper New; Upper Roanoke; Upper Yadkin; York
Washington 1891 2011 46 Banks Lake; Chief Joseph; Colville; Deschutes; Duwamish; Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake; Grays Harbor; Hood Canal; Lake Chelan; Lake Washington; Lewis; Little Spokane; Lower Chehalis; Lower Columbia-Clatskanie; Lower Columbia-Sandy; Lower Cowlitz; Lower Crab;
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=385 6/7/2020 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) - Species Profile Page 7 of 9
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Lower Skagit; Lower Snake; Lower Snake; Lower Snake-Tucannon; Lower Spokane; Lower Yakima; Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Nisqually; Nooksack; Okanogan; Pacific Northwest Region; Palouse; Puget Sound; Puyallup; San Juan Islands; Similkameen; Snohomish; Strait of Georgia; Upper Chehalis; Upper Columbia-Entiat; Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids; Upper Crab; Upper Spokane; Upper Yakima; Walla Walla; Wenatchee; Willapa Bay; Yakima
Cacapon-Town; Conococheague-Opequon; West Virginia 1993 2001 7 Greenbrier; James; Lower New; Middle New; Potomac
Beartrap-Nemadji; Southwestern Lake Superior; Wisconsin 1983 1983 3 St. Louis
Big Horn; Lower Wind; Powder; Upper Belle Wyoming 1970 1994 6 Fourche; Upper Cheyenne; Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir
Table last updated 6/3/2020
† Populations may not be currently present.
Means of Introduction: Intentional stocking for sportfishing.
Status: Established in most locations.
Impact of Introduction: In California, aggressive Bluegill outcompete native Sacramento perch Archoplites interruptus (Moyle et al. 1974; Moyle 1976). Bluegill may chase Sacramento perch away from spawning areas and out of favored places, such as shallow weedy areas, and into open water (Moyle 1976). Once in open water, the perch are more vulnerable to predation and have less available food. Introduced predatory centrarchids are likely responsible for the decline of native ranid frogs in California, California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense populations (Hayes and Jennings 1986; Dill and Cordone 1997), and the Chiricahua leopard frog Rana chiricahuensis in southeastern Arizona (Rosen et al. 1995).
Hybridizes with green sunfish, redear sunfish, redbreast sunfish, and warmouth (Scribner et al. 2001).
Remarks: Bluegill are commonly stocked as forage for largemouth bass in farm ponds. Because introduced California Bluegill are typically small, possibly due to a limited genetic background, the California Department of Fish and Game began introducing Bluegill from Florida in an effort to obtain a larger, faster-growing fish (Moyle 1976). Tyus et al. (1982) gave a distribution map of the this species in the upper Colorado basin.
References:
Anonymous 2001. Oregon's Warm Water Fishing with Public Access. [online]. URL at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/warm_water_fishing/index.asphttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/warm_water_fishing/index.asp.
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Madison Press, Madison, WI.
Bradley, W. G. and J. E. Deacon. 1967. The biotic communities of southern Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 13, Part 4. 201--273.
Dill, W.A., and A.J. Cordone. 1997. History and status of introduced fishes in California, 1871-1996. California Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin, volume 178.
Erdsman, D.S. 1984. Exotic fishes in Puerto Rico, p 162-176, In: W.R.Jr. Courtenay and J.R.Jr. Stauffer, eds. Distribution, Biology, and Management of Exotic Fishes. John Hopkins. Baltimore and London.
Halliwell, D.B. 2003. Introduced Fish in Maine. MABP series: Focus on Freshwater Biodiversity.
Hayes, M.P., and M.R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology 20(4):490-509.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=385 6/7/2020 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) - Species Profile Page 8 of 9
Insider Viewpoint. 2001. Fishing Records - Nevada. Insider Viewpoint Magazine. 3 pp.
Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Linder, A. D. 1963. Idaho's Alien Fishes. TEBIWA, 6(2), 12-15.
Madison, D. 2003. Outlaw Introductions. Montana Outdoors. July/August: 26-35.
Matern, S.A., P.B. Moyle, and L.C. Pierce. 2002. Native and alien fishes in a California estuarine marsh: twenty- one years of changing assemblages. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 131: 797-816.
Moyle, P.B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Moyle, P.B., S.B. Matthews, and N. Bonderson. 1974. Feeding habits of the Sacramento perch, Archoplites interruptus. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 103(2):399-402.
Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. The Peterson Guide Series, vol. 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Rasmussen, J.L. 1998. Aquatic nuisance species of the Mississippi River basin. 60th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Aquatic Nuisance Species Symposium, Dec. 7, 1998, Cincinnati, OH.
Robison, H.W., and T.M. Buchanan. 1998. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, AR.
Rosen, P.C., C.R. Schwalbe, D.A. Parizek, Jr., P.A. Holm, and C.H. Lowe. 1995. Introduced aquatic vertebrates in the Chiricahua region: effects on declining native ranid frogs. Pages 251-261 in DeBano, L.H., P.H. Folliott, A. Ortega-Rubio, G.J. Gottfried, R.H. Hamre, and C.B. Edminster, eds. Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago: the sky islands of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO.
Scribner, K.T., K.S. Page, and M.L. Bartron. 2001. Hybridization in freshwater fishes: a review of case studies and cytonuclear methods of biological inference. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10:293-323.
Smith, C.L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
Sommer, T, B. Harrell, M. Nobriga, R. Brown, P. Moyle, W. Kimmerer, and L. Schemel. 2001. California's Yolo Bypass: Evidence that flood control can be compatible with fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, and agriculture. Fisheries. American Fisheries Society. 26 (8): 6-16.
Stauffer, J.R., Jr., J.M. Boltz, and L.R. White. 1995. The fishes of West Virginia. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources.
Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.
Tilmant, J.T. 1999. Management of nonindigenous aquatic fish in the U.S. National Park System. National Park Service. 50 pp.
Tyus, H. M., B. D. Burdick, R. A. Valdez, C. M. Haynes, T. A. Lytle, and C. R. Berry. 1982. Fishes of the upper Colorado River basin: distribution, abundance, and status. Pages 12--70 in W. H. Miller, H. M. Tyus, and C. A. Carlson, editors. Fishes of the upper Colorado River system: present and future, Western Division, American Fisheries Society.
Waldrip, L. 1993. 1992 fish stocking report. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. January 8, 1993. 1993: 9-12.
Other Resources: Distribution in Illinois - ILNHS
Author: Pam Fuller, and Matt Cannister
Revision Date: 6/27/2019
Peer Review Date: 4/12/2013
Citation Information: Pam Fuller, and Matt Cannister, 2020, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, 1819: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx? SpeciesID=385, Revision Date: 6/27/2019, Peer Review Date: 4/12/2013, Access Date: 6/7/2020
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=385 6/7/2020 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) - Species Profile Page 9 of 9
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=385 6/7/2020 Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) - Species Profile Page 1 of 8
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Black Crappie) Fishes Native Transplant
< Image 1 of 2 >
Sam Stukel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Lesueur in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1829)
Common name: Black Crappie
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Moyle (1976a); Becker (1983); Page and Burr (1991); Etnier and Starnes (1993); Jenkins and Burkhead (1994).
Size: 49 cm.
Native Range: So widely introduced that native range is difficult to determine; presumably Atlantic Slope from Virginia to Florida, Gulf Slope west to Texas, St. Lawrence, Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins from Quebec to Manitoba south to the Gulf (Page and Burr 1991).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=409 6/7/2020 Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) - Species Profile Page 2 of 8
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Pomoxis nigromaculatus are found here.
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations†
Aqua Fria; Bill Williams; Canyon Diablo; Imperial Reservoir; Lake Mead; Lower Colorado Region; Lower Gila; Lower Gila-Painted Rock Reservoir; Arizona 1934 2012 16 Lower Lake Powell; Lower Salt; Lower Verde; Middle Gila; Rio De Bavispe; San Bernardino Valley; Upper Gila-San Carlos Reservoir; Upper Santa Cruz
California 1891 2014 58 Aliso-San Onofre; Antelope-Fremont Valleys; Butte; California Region; Carrizo Plain; Central California Coastal; Central Coastal; Cottonwood Creek; Cuyama; Estrella; Honey-Eagle Lakes; Imperial Reservoir; Indian Wells-Searles Valleys; Los Angeles; Lost; Lower Pit; Lower Sacramento;
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=409 6/7/2020 Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) - Species Profile Page 3 of 8
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† McCloud; Middle San Joaquin-Lower Chowchilla; Monterey Bay; Owens Lake; Pajaro; Russian; Sacramento Headwaters; Sacramento-Stone Corral; Salinas; Salmon; San Antonio; San Diego; San Joaquin; San Joaquin Delta; Santa Ana; Santa Barbara Coastal; Santa Clara; Santa Margarita; Santa Maria; Santa Monica Bay; Santa Ynez; Scott; Seal Beach; Shasta; Smith; South Fork Kern; South Fork Trinity; Suisun Bay; Trinity; Tulare Lake Bed; Upper Bear; Upper Cache; Upper Calaveras California; Upper Dry; Upper Kern; Upper King; Upper Klamath; Upper Mokelumne; Upper Pit; Upper Stony; Upper Yuba
Big Sandy; Big Thompson; Cache La Poudre; Colorado Headwaters; Colorado Headwaters- Plateau; Fountain; Huerfano; Lower Gunnison; Lower White; Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek; Colorado 1882 2009 22 Middle South Platte-Sterling; Piedra; Republican; San Luis; South Platte; St. Vrain; Upper Arkansas; Upper Arkansas-John Martin Reservoir; Upper Arkansas-Lake Meredith; Upper Gunnison; Upper South Platte; Upper Yampa
Farmington; Housatonic; Lower Connecticut; New Connecticut 1940 2010 7 England Region; Quinnipiac; Saugatuck; Thames
Brandywine-Christina; Broadkill-Smyrna; Delaware 1970 1991 6 Delaware Bay; Mid Atlantic Region; Upper Chesapeake; Western Lower Delmarva
American Falls; Beaver-Camas; Brownlee Reservoir; C.J. Strike Reservoir; Clearwater; Coeur d'Alene Lake; Idaho Falls; Kootenai; Lake Walcott; Lower Bear; Lower Bear-Malad; Lower Idaho 1892 2011 27 Boise; Lower Kootenai; Lower Snake-Tucannon; Middle Bear; Middle Snake-Payette; Middle Snake -Succor; Pacific Northwest Region; Palouse; Payette; Pend Oreille Lake; Priest; Salmon Falls; Spokane; St. Joe; Upper Snake-Rock; Weiser
Illinois 1989 1989 1 Lake Michigan
Arkansas-White-Red Region; Big; Big Nemaha; Buckner; Caney; Chikaskia; Cow; Delaware; Elk; Fall; Little Arkansas; Lower Big Blue; Lower Cottonwood; Lower Kansas; Lower Marais Des Cygnes; Lower Smoky Hill; Lower Walnut Creek; Medicine Lodge; Middle Arkansas-Lake McKinney; Middle Arkansas-Slate; Middle Kansas; Middle Neosho; Middle Republican; Middle Smoky Hill; Kansas 1894 2019 45 Neosho Headwaters; North Fork Ninnescah; Pawnee; Prairie Dog; Rattlesnake; Republican; Smoky Hill; Solomon; South Fork Big Nemaha; South Fork Ninnescah; South Fork Republican; Upper Cimarron-Bluff; Upper Cottonwood; Upper Marais Des Cygnes; Upper Neosho; Upper North Fork Solomon; Upper Saline; Upper Smoky Hill; Upper South Fork Solomon; Upper Verdigris; Upper Walnut River
Kentucky 1986 1986 1 Upper Cumberland
Kennebec; Lower Androscoggin; Lower Kennebec; Maine 1952 2017 9 Lower Penobscot; Maine Coastal; Piscataquis; Presumpscot; Saco; St. George-Sheepscot
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=409 6/7/2020 Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) - Species Profile Page 4 of 8
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Maryland 1947 2014 12 Chester-Sassafras; Choptank; Conococheague- Opequon; Gunpowder-Patapsco; Lower Potomac; Mid Atlantic Region; Middle Potomac-Catoctin; Patuxent; Pokomoke-Western Lower Delmarva; Severn; Tangier; Upper Chesapeake
Blackstone; Cape Cod; Charles; Chicopee; Concord; Housatonic; Merrimack; Merrimack Massachusetts 1952 2008 14 River; Middle Connecticut; Miller; Narragansett; Nashua; New England Region; Quinebaug
Minnesota 2008 2008 1Lake Superior
Missouri 1871 1871 1 Independence-Sugar
Arrow; Battle; Beaver; Beaver; Big Horn; Big Horn Lake; Big Muddy; Big Sandy; Box Elder; Boxelder; Brush Lake Closed Basin; Bullwhacker- Dog; Charlie-Little Muddy; Clarks Fork Yellowstone; Cottonwood; Fort Peck Reservoir; Frenchman; Jefferson; Lodge; Lower Bighorn; Lower Clark Fork; Lower Milk; Lower Musselshell; Lower Tongue; Lower Yellowstone; Lower Montana 1948 2012 49 Yellowstone-Sunday; Marias; Middle Milk; Middle Musselshell; Missouri Headwaters; Musselshell; O'Fallon; Peoples; Poplar; Porcupine; Prairie Elk- Wolf; Redwater; Rock; Sage; Stillwater; Upper Milk; Upper Missouri; Upper Missouri-Dearborn; Upper Musselshell; Upper Tongue; Upper Yellowstone; Upper Yellowstone-Lake Basin; Upper Yellowstone-Pompeys Pillar; Whitewater
Cedar; Lower Elkhorn; Lower Lodgepole; Lower Middle Loup; Lower Niobrara; Lower Platte; Lower Nebraska 1928 2018 15 South Platte; Medicine; Middle Platte-Buffalo; Missouri Region; Turkey; Upper Elkhorn; Upper Niobrara; Upper Republican; Wood
Havasu-Mohave Lakes; Imperial Reservoir; Lake Nevada 1924 2001 5 Mead; Middle Carson; Middle Humboldt
Black-Ottauquechee; Contoocook; Merrimack New River; Middle Connecticut; Miller; Pemigewasset; 1973 2020 11 Hampshire Piscataqua-Salmon Falls; Saco; Upper Connecticut; West; Winnipesaukee River
Cohansey-Maurice; Crosswicks-Neshaminy; Great Egg Harbor; Hackensack-Passaic; Lower New Jersey 1873 2014 11 Delaware; Lower Hudson; Mid-Atlantic Region; Middle Delaware-Musconetcong; Mullica-Toms; Raritan; Sandy Hook-Staten Island
Caballo; Conchas; Elephant Butte Reservoir; Pecos Headwaters; Rio Chama; Rio Grande-Santa New Mexico 1957 2000 10 Fe; Upper Canadian; Upper Canadian-Ute Reservoir; Upper Pecos-Black; Upper San Juan
Chemung; Chenango; Hudson-Hoosic; Hudson- Wappinger; Lake Champlain; Lower Hudson; Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead; Middle New York 1954 2005 16 Hudson; Mohawk; Owego-Wappasening; Rondout; Sacandaga; Southern Long Island; Tioga; Upper Hudson; Upper Susquehanna
North Carolina 1961 2008 3 Coastal Carolina; Upper New; White Oak River
North Dakota 1980 2005 4
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=409 6/7/2020 Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) - Species Profile Page 5 of 8
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Grand Marais-Red; Middle Little Missouri; Painted Woods-Square Butte; Upper Lake Oahe
Arkansas-White-Red Region; Clear Boggy; Deep Fork; Kaw Lake; Lake O' The Cherokees; Lower Oklahoma 1948 2019 12 Cimarron-Skeleton; Lower Salt Fork Arkansas; Lower Washita; Middle North Canadian; Middle Washita; Muddy Boggy; Upper Washita
Alsea; Applegate; Brownlee Reservoir; Burnt; Coos; Goose Lake; Illinois; Lost; Lower Columbia; Lower Columbia-Clatskanie; Lower Columbia- Sandy; Lower Deschutes; Lower John Day; Lower Owyhee; Lower Rogue; Lower Willamette; Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Middle Rogue; Middle Willamette; Molalla- Oregon 1892 2013 41 Pudding; Necanicum; North Umpqua; Pacific Northwest; Pacific Northwest Region; Powder; Siletz-Yaquina; Siltcoos; South Umpqua; Tualatin; Umatilla; Umpqua; Upper Deschutes; Upper Grande Ronde; Upper Klamath; Upper Rogue; Upper Willamette; Warner Lakes; Willow; Wilson- Trusk-Nestuccu; Yamhill
Chemung; Crosswicks-Neshaminy; Lehigh; Lower Susquehanna; Lower Susquehanna-Swatara; Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead; Middle Pennsylvania 1892 1999 12 Delaware-Musconetcong; Schuylkill; Susquehanna; Upper Susquehanna; Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna; Upper West Branch Susquehanna
Rhode Island 1991 1996 2 Narragansett; New England Region
Grand; James; Keya Paha; Lewis and Clark Lake; Lower James; Lower Lake Oahe; Medicine Knoll; South Dakota 1934 2000 13 Middle Cheyenne-Spring; Middle James; Snake; Upper Lake Oahe; Upper Moreau; Vermillion
Cedar; Chambers; Cibolo; East Fork Trinity; Hondo; Hubbard; Jim Ned; Llano; Lower Guadalupe; Lower Trinity-Tehuacana; Middle Texas 1959 2016 19 Canadian-Spring; Middle Guadalupe; Navidad; San Ambrosia-Santa Isabel; San Marcos; South Laguna Madre; Upper Guadalupe; Upper San Antonio; Wichita
Great Salt Lake; Little Bear-Logan; Lower Bear- Malad; Lower Dolores; Lower Lake Powell; Lower Utah 1890 1999 13 San Juan; Lower Weber; Upper Bear; Upper Colorado-Kane Springs; Upper Lake Powell; Upper Virgin; Utah Lake; Westwater Canyon
Vermont 1962 1993 2 Mettawee River; Richelieu River
Albemarle; Big Sandy; Lower Chesapeake Bay; Lower Potomac; Lower Rappahannock; Mattaponi; Maury; Middle James-Buffalo; Middle James- Willis; Middle New; Middle Potomac-Anacostia- Occoquan; Middle Potomac-Catoctin; North Fork Virginia 1888 2010 25 Holston; Pamunkey; Potomac; Rapidan-Upper Rappahannock; Rivanna; Shenandoah; South Fork Shenandoah; Upper Chesapeake; Upper James; Upper Levisa; Upper New; Upper Roanoke; York
Washington 1891 2006 51
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=409 6/7/2020 Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) - Species Profile Page 6 of 8
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Banks Lake; Chief Joseph; Colville; Deschutes; Duwamish; Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake; Grays Harbor; Hangman; Hood Canal; Kettle; Lake Chelan; Lake Washington; Lewis; Little Spokane; Lower Columbia; Lower Columbia-Clatskanie; Lower Columbia-Sandy; Lower Cowlitz; Lower Crab; Lower Skagit; Lower Snake; Lower Snake- Tucannon; Lower Spokane; Lower Yakima; Methow; Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia -Lake Wallula; Nisqually; Nooksack; Okanogan; Pacific Northwest Region; Palouse; Pend Oreille; Puget Sound; Puyallup; Rock; Similkameen; Skykomish; Snohomish; Stillaguamish; Strait of Georgia; Upper Chehalis; Upper Columbia-Entiat; Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids; Upper Crab; Upper Spokane; Upper Yakima; Walla Walla; Wenatchee; Willapa Bay; Yakima
Conococheague-Opequon; Greenbrier; Lower West Virginia 1993 1996 8 Kanawha; Lower New; Middle New; North Branch Potomac; Potomac; Upper James
Wisconsin 1983 1983 1 Lake Michigan
Badwater; Big Horn; Big Horn Lake; Cheyenne; Clear; Crow; Glendo Reservoir; Little Powder; Wyoming 1946 1999 16 Little Wind; Lower Wind; North Platte; Powder; Shoshone; South Platte; Sweetwater; Upper Laramie
Table last updated 6/3/2020
† Populations may not be currently present.
Means of Introduction: Its popularity as a sport fish has led to stockings throughout the west and northeast. Intentional stocking for sportfishing.
Status: Established in most or all states where it has been introduced.
Impact of Introduction: Black Crappie prey on threatened and endangered juvenile salmon that spawn in rivers of the Northwest United States and may further contribute to salmon decline through habitat alteration, though the extent of those impacts are unknown (Sanderson et al. 2009). Nonnative predators, including crappie, have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of native prey species in several Pacific Northwest rivers (Hughes and Herlihy 2012).
Remarks: Tyus et al. (1982) gave a distribution map of the this species in the upper Colorado basin.
References:
Anonymous 2001. Oregon's Warm Water Fishing with Public Access. [online]. URL at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/warm_water_fishing/index.asp.
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Madison Press, Madison, WI.
Bradley W. G. and J. E. Deacon. 1967. The biotic communities of southern Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 13, Part 4. 201-273.
Cross, F.B., and J.T. Collins. 1995. Fishes in Kansas. University of Kansas Natural History Museum, Lawrence, KS. 316 pp.
Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tenneessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.
Hocutt, C.H., R.E. Jenkins, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1986. Zoogeography of the fishes of the central Appalachians and central Atlantic Coastal Plain. 161-212 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, eds. The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=409 6/7/2020 Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) - Species Profile Page 7 of 8
Hughes, R.M. and A.T. Herlihy. 2012. Patterns in catch per unit effort of native prey fish and alien piscivorous fish in 7 Pacific Northwest USA rivers. Fisheries 37(5):201-211.
Insider Viewpoint. 2001. Fishing Records – Nevada. Insider Viewpoint Magazine. 3 pp.
Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
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, NC.
Linder, A. D. 1963. Idaho's Alien Fishes. TEBIWA, 6(2), 12-15.
Madison, D. 2003. Outlaw Introductions. Montana Outdoors. July/August: 26-35.
Matern, S.A., P.B. Moyle, and L.C. Pierce. 2002. Native and alien fishes in a California estuarine marsh: twenty- one years of changing assemblages. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 131: 797-816.
Miller, R.R. and C.H. Lowe. 1967. Part 2. Fishes of Arizona, p 133-151, In: C.H. Lowe, ed. The Vertebrates of Arizona. University of Arizona Press. Tucson.
Moyle, P.B. and J. Randall. 1999. Distribution maps of fishes in California. [on-line] Available URL at http://ice.ucdavis.edu/aquadiv/fishcovs/fishmaps.html.
Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. The Peterson Guide Series, vol. 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Red River Authority of Texas. 2001. Red and Canadian Basins Fish Inventory: Grayson County. Red River Authority of Texas.
Red River Authority of Texas. 2001. Red and Canadian Basins Fish Inventory: Red River County. Red River Authority of Texas.
Sanderson, B.L., K.A. Barnas, and A.M.W. Rub. 2009. Nonindigenous species of the Pacific Northwest: an overlooked risk to endangered salmon? BioScience 59(3): 245-256.
Sigler, F.F. and R.R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah Department of Fish and Game. Salt Lake City, Utah. 203 pp.
Simon, J.R. 1946. Wyoming Fishes. Wyoming Game and Fish Dept., Bull. No. 4. 1-129+ pp.
Sommer, T, B. Harrell, M. Nobriga, R. Brown, P. Moyle, W. Kimmerer, and L. Schemel. 2001. California's Yolo Bypass: Evidence that flood control can be compatible with fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, and agriculture. Fisheries. American Fisheries Society. 26 (8): 6-16.
Starnes, W.C., J. Odenkirk, and M.J. Ashton. 2011. Update and analysis of fish occurrences in the lower Potomac River drainage in the vicinity of Plummers Island, Maryland—Contribution XXXI to the natural history of Plummers Island, Maryland. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 124(4):280-309.
State of Oregon. 2000. Warm Water Game Fish Records. 7 pp.
Tilmant, J.T. 1999. Management of nonindigenous aquatic fish in the U.S. National Park System. National Park Service. 50 pp.
Urbain, B. 2001. Personal communication.
Other Resources: Author: Pam Fuller, Matt Cannister, and Matt Neilson
Revision Date: 8/28/2019
Peer Review Date: 5/29/2012
Citation Information: Pam Fuller, Matt Cannister, and Matt Neilson, 2020, Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Lesueur in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1829): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=409, Revision Date: 8/28/2019, Peer Review Date: 5/29/2012, Access Date: 6/7/2020
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=409 6/7/2020 Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) - Species Profile Page 8 of 8
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=409 6/7/2020 White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis) - Species Profile Page 1 of 8
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Pomoxis annularis (White Crappie) Fishes Native Transplant
Garold W. Sneegas © Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque, 1818
Common name: White Crappie
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: White crappie, Pomoxis annularis, have deep laterally compressed bodies which are iridescent olive green in color on the back and silvery white on the sides. The sides will also have 10 or fewer indistinct dark vertical bars. The head is small with a sharp depression in the profile above their eyes and the mouth appears to project because it is large and oblique. The dorsal and anal fins are large and round with 5-6 spines. Dorsal fins have 13-15 rays and anal fins have 17-18 rays. In the pelvic fins there is 1 spine and 5 rays and in rounded pectoral fins 15 rays. Dorsal, anal, and caudal fins are checkered with dark spots. The lateral line of White crappie is arched with 38- 45 scales. Breeding males are very dark with the head and breast becoming nearly black (Moyle 1976).
Size: 53 cm.
Native Range: Southern Great Lakes, Hudson Bay (Red River), and Mississippi River basins from New York and southern Ontario west to Minnesota and South Dakota, and south to the Gulf; Gulf Slope drainages from Mobile Bay, Georgia and Alabama, to the Neuces River, Texas (Page and Burr 1991).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=408 6/7/2020 White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis) - Species Profile Page 2 of 8
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Pomoxis annularis are found here.
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations†
Apalachicola Basin; Choctawhatchee-Escambia; Escambia; Lower Choctawhatchee; Lower Alabama 1976 2015 11 Conecuh; Middle Chattahoochee-Walter F; Middle Chattahoochee-Walter F George Reservoir; Pea; Upper Choctawhatchee; Upper Conecuh; Yellow
Aqua Fria; Havasu-Mohave Lakes; Lower Colorado Region; Lower Lake Powell; Moenkopi Wash; Arizona 1924 2017 11 Tonto; Upper Gila-San Carlos Reservoir; Upper Little Colorado; Upper Salt; Upper San Pedro; Upper Santa Cruz
California 1891 2002 86 Aliso-San Onofre; Antelope-Fremont Valleys; Applegate; Big Chico Creek-Sacramento River; Big
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=408 6/7/2020 White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis) - Species Profile Page 3 of 8
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† -Navarro-Garcia; Butte Creek; California; California Region; Calleguas; Carrizo Plain; Central Coastal; Clear Creek-Sacramento River; Cottonwood Creek; Cottonwood-Tijuana; Coyote; Cuyama; Estrella; Fresno River; Havasu-Mohave Lakes; Honcut Headwaters-Lower Feather; Honey- Eagle Lakes; Illinois; Imperial Reservoir; Los Angeles; Lower American; Lower Colorado; Lower Colorado; Lower Eel; Lower Sacramento; Lower Sacramento; Middle Fork Eel; Middle Kern-Upper Tehachapi- Grapevine; Middle Kern-Upper Tehachapi-Grapevine; Middle San Joaquin-Lower Chowchilla; Middle San Joaquin-Lower Merced- Lower Stanislaus; Monterey Bay; Newport Bay; Pajaro; Panoche-San Luis Reservoir; Paynes Creek -Sacramento River; Sacramento-Stone Corral; Salinas; San Antonio; San Diego; San Francisco Bay; San Francisco Coastal South; San Gabriel; San Jacinto; San Joaquin; San Joaquin Delta; San Luis Rey-Escondido; San Pablo Bay; Santa Ana; Santa Barbara Coastal; Santa Clara; Santa Margarita; Santa Maria; Santa Monica Bay; Santa Ynez; Seal Beach; South Fork Eel; South Fork Kern; South Fork Trinity; Suisun Bay; Thomes Creek-Sacramento River; Tomales-Drake Bays; Trinity; Tulare Lake Bed; Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes; Upper Bear; Upper Cache; Upper Calaveras California; Upper Cosumnes; Upper Deer-Upper White; Upper Dry; Upper Eel; Upper Kaweah; Upper King; Upper Klamath; Upper Mokelumne; Upper Poso; Upper Putah; Upper Stony; Upper Tule; Upper Yuba; Ventura
Beaver; Big Sandy; Lower South Platte; Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek; Middle South Platte- Sterling; Piedra; South Platte; St. Vrain; Upper Colorado 1882 2009 13 Arkansas; Upper Arkansas-John Martin Reservoir; Upper Arkansas-Lake Meredith; Upper Gunnison; Upper San Juan
Connecticut 1986 2016 2 Lower Connecticut; Quinnipiac
Brandywine-Christina; Broadkill-Smyrna; Delaware Delaware 1980 2007 4 Bay; Upper Chesapeake
Apalachicola; Escambia; Lower Choctawhatchee; Florida 1959 2015 8 Lower Ochlockonee; Lower Suwannee; Ochlockonee; Perdido Bay; Yellow
Altamaha; Apalachicola Basin; Conasauga; Little; Lower Savannah; Middle Chattahoochee-Lake Georgia 1971 2016 10 Harding; Middle Flint; Savannah; Upper Flint; Upper Ocmulgee
Bear Lake; Brownlee Reservoir; C.J. Strike Reservoir; Curlew Valley; Lower Boise; Middle Idaho 1892 2009 12 Bear; Pacific Northwest Region; Payette; Pend Oreille Lake; Upper Snake-Rock; Upper Spokane; Weiser
Buckner; Coon-Pickerel; Cow; Little Arkansas; Lower Smoky Hill; Middle Arkansas; North Fork Kansas 1914 2012 14 Smoky Hill; Pawnee; Republican; Smoky Hill; Upper Cimarron; Upper Cimarron-Bluff; Upper North Fork Solomon; Upper Walnut Creek
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=408 6/7/2020 White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis) - Species Profile Page 4 of 8
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Kentucky 1965 1986 3 Rockcastle; Upper Cumberland; Upper Cumberland -Lake Cumberland
Chester-Sassafras; Conococheague-Opequon; Maryland 1949 1999 7 Lower Susquehanna; Middle Potomac-Catoctin; Monocacy; Potomac; Upper Chesapeake
Massachusetts 1992 2005 1 Middle Connecticut
Michigan 1941 1941 1 Lone Lake-Ocqueoc
Minnesota 1958 1982 4 Prairie-Willow; Red; Sandhill-Wilson; Upper Red
Beaver; Beaver; Big Horn Lake; Bullwhacker-Dog; Charlie-Little Muddy; Fort Peck Reservoir; Lower Milk; Lower Powder; Lower Tongue; Lower Yellowstone; Lower Yellowstone-Sunday; Middle Montana 1948 2011 24 Clark Fork; Poplar; Prairie Elk-Wolf; Redwater; Rosebud; Sage; Upper Little Missouri; Upper Milk; Upper Missouri-Dearborn; Upper Tongue; Upper Yellowstone-Lake Basin; Upper Yellowstone- Pompeys Pillar; Whitewater
Arikaree; Calamus; Cedar; Frenchman; Harlan County Reservoir; Lower Lodgepole; Lower Middle Loup; Lower Niobrara; Lower North Loup; Lower North Platte; Medicine; Middle Niobrara; Middle Nebraska 1970 2000 22 North Platte-Scotts Bluff; Niobrara Headwaters; North Fork Elkhorn; Red Willow; Snake; Upper Elkhorn; Upper Niobrara; Upper Republican; Upper White; West Fork Big Blue
Carson Desert; Central Lahontan; Havasu-Mohave Lakes; Lake Mead; Lower Humboldt; Meadow Nevada 1955 2001 10 Valley Wash; Middle Carson; Thousand-Virgin; Truckee; White
Cohansey-Maurice; Crosswicks-Neshaminy; New Jersey 1905 1994 7 Hackensack-Passaic; Lower Delaware; Mid-Atlantic Region; Middle Delaware-Musconetcong; Raritan
Caballo; Conchas; El Paso-Las Cruces; Elephant Butte Reservoir; Mimbres; Pecos Headwaters; Revuelto; Rio Chama; Rio Grande-Albuquerque; Rio Grande-Santa Fe; Upper Canadian; Upper New Mexico 1982 1991 21 Canadian; Upper Canadian-Ute Reservoir; Upper Gila-Mangas; Upper Pecos; Upper Pecos; Upper Pecos-Black; Upper Pecos-Long Arroyo; Upper San Juan; Upper San Juan; Zuni
Chenango; Hudson-Wappinger; Lake Champlain; New York 1886 1998 10 Lower Hudson; Middle Hudson; Mohawk; Oneida; Owego-Wappasening; Schoharie; Seneca
Albemarle; Cape Fear; Chowan; Contentnea; Deep; Haw; Lower Cape Fear; Lower Dan; Lower Tar; Lower Yadkin; Middle Neuse; Middle Roanoke; Neuse; Pamlico; Roanoke; Roanoke Rapids; North Carolina 1948 2019 27 Rocky; South Yadkin; Upper Broad; Upper Cape Fear; Upper Catawba; Upper Dan; Upper Neuse; Upper Pee Dee; Upper Pee Dee; Upper Yadkin; Waccamaw
Elm-Marsh; Lake Sakakawea; Lower Sheyenne; North Dakota 1980 2005 8 Maple; Painted Woods-Square Butte; Park; Sandhill-Wilson; Upper Sheyenne
Oklahoma 1948 2015 15
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=408 6/7/2020 White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis) - Species Profile Page 5 of 8
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Blue; Cache; Clear Boggy; Lower Beaver; Lower Canadian-Deer; Lower Cimarron-Eagle Chief; Lower North Fork Red; Lower Salt Fork Red; Lower Washita; Middle North Fork Red; Middle Washita; Northern Beaver; Upper Washita; Washita Headwaters; West Cache
Brownlee Reservoir; Bully; Donner und Blitzen; Goose Lake; Guano; Harney-Malheur Lakes; Jordan; Lost; Lower Columbia; Lower Columbia- Clatskanie; Lower Columbia-Sandy; Lower Deschutes; Lower John Day; Lower Malheur; Lower Willamette; Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Oregon 1893 2013 38 Columbia-Lake Wallula; Middle Fork Willamette; Middle Rogue; Middle Willamette; Molalla-Pudding; Necanicum; Nehalem; Pacific Northwest; Powder; Siletz-Yaquina; Silver; Tualatin; Umatilla; Umpqua; Upper Grande Ronde; Upper Klamath; Upper Malheur; Upper Rogue; Upper Willamette; Warner Lakes; Willow; Yamhill
Crosswicks-Neshaminy; Lehigh; Lower Susquehanna; Lower Susquehanna-Swatara; Pennsylvania 1892 1998 8 Lower West Branch Susquehanna; Raystown; Susquehanna; Upper West Branch Susquehanna
Congaree; Enoree; Lake Marion; Lower Catawba; Middle Savannah; North Fork Edisto; Saluda; South 1949 2016 15 Santee; Seneca; South Atlantic-Gulf Region; Carolina Stevens; Upper Broad; Upper Catawba; Upper Savannah; Wateree
Fort Randall Reservoir; James; Lower James; South Dakota 1934 2003 8 Lower Lake Oahe; Medicine Knoll; Middle James; Turtle; Vermillion
Colorado Headwaters; Double Mountain Fork Brazos; Elm-Sycamore; International Falcon Reservoir; Lake Meredith; Lower Frio; Lower Rio Texas 1960 2018 15 Grande; North Wichita; Salt Fork Brazos; South Laguna Madre; Toyah; Tule; Upper North Fork Red; Upper Salt Fork Red; White
Utah 1936 1992 1Lower San Juan
Vermont 1993 1999 3 Lake Champlain; Richelieu; Richelieu River
Appomattox; Banister; Big Sandy; Chowan; James; Lower James; Meherrin; Middle James- Buffalo; Middle James-Willis; Middle New; Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan; Middle Potomac- Virginia 1971 1994 25 Catoctin; Middle Roanoke; North Fork Holston; Pamunkey; Potomac; Rapidan-Upper Rappahannock; Rivanna; Roanoke; Roanoke Rapids; Shenandoah; South Fork Shenandoah; Upper New; Upper Roanoke; York
Colville; Lake Washington; Lewis; Lower Columbia- Clatskanie; Lower Cowlitz; Lower Crab; Lower Snake; Lower Snake; Lower Snake-Tucannon; Washington 1890 2005 17 Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Nisqually; Pacific Northwest Region; Similkameen; Upper Columbia-Entiat; Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids; Upper Spokane
West Virginia 1993 1998 2 Potomac; Upper Kanawha
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=408 6/7/2020 White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis) - Species Profile Page 6 of 8
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Wisconsin 1980 2008 6 Lower Fox; Manitowoc-Sheboygan; Namekagon; Northwestern Lake Michigan; South Fork Flambeau; Upper Wisconsin
Big Horn; Big Horn Lake; Cheyenne; Glendo Reservoir; Horse; Lower Laramie; North Platte; Wyoming 1970 1999 11 Powder; South Platte; Upper Belle Fourche; Upper Tongue
Table last updated 5/15/2020
† Populations may not be currently present.
Ecology: White crappie are found in warm, turbid lakes, rivers, river backwaters and are most abundant in lakes and reservoirs greater than 5 acres in size. In rivers, Pomoxis annularis prefers low velocity areas (Edwards et al. 1982; Moyle 1976). Vegetation is not required in habitat (Becker 1983). Despite White Crappie’ tolerance of, and apparent preference for turbid waters, greater growth is observed in clearer water (Edwards et al. 1982). Optimum water temperature range is 27-29°C and the maximum observed temperature was 31.1°C (Becker 1983). Ideal dissolved oxygen concentrations are 5 mg/L and the lowest concentration White Crappie have been observed at was 2.2 mg/L. It is assumed that the safe pH range is 5-9 and for best production a pH of 6.5-8.5 is required. The highest salinity in which White crappie have been observed is 1.3 ppt (Edwards et al. 1982).
White crappie are schooling fish and schools are frequently localized in distribution (Becker 1983). During the winter they are reportedly inactive and remain close to the bottom in deep water (Moyle 1976). Spawning begins in April or May when temperatures reach 17-20°C, but spawning could possibly be delayed by continuously low water temperatures. Males will construct nests in colonies of shallow depressions in hard clay bottoms, near beds of plants, algae or submerged plant debris to which eggs typically adhere. Nests are typically near overhanging bushes or banks in water that is less than 1 meter deep but nests have also been observed in 7 meter deep water (Moyle 1976; Hansen 1951). White crappie have exhibited territorial behavior over nests and will chase away intruders until eggs have hatched, which typically takes 2-5 days. Growth rates of White crappie can vary greatly depending on conditions and it is common for stunting and overcrowding to occur (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Individuals become mature in their second or third spring. It is rare for individuals to survive more than five years with 50% of fish in a brood typically dead by the third year of life (Becker 1983). The maximum lifespan is estimated to be 10 years (Etnier and Starnes 1993).
White crappie congregate around submerged logs or boulders in 2-4 m deep water during the day and leave to feed in open water during the evening and early morning. They use long, fine gill rakers for straining zooplankton from the water and also have large protrusible mouths for consuming large prey . White crappie are an opportunistic feeders and will feed on fish and available aquatic insects (Moyle 1976). Individuals less than a year old only feed on zooplankton, but as they become mature fish become the most important source of food (Becker 1983). Fish identified in the stomach contents of White crappie include the Spotfin shiner, Lepomis spp., the Tessellated darter, among other unidentified fish (Mathur 1972). It is preyed upon by larger fishes which can include Largemouth bass, Smallmouth bass, Northern pike and Muskellunge (Becker 1983).
Means of Introduction: Intentional stocking for sportfishing.
Status: Established in most locations.
Impact of Introduction: White Crappie prey on threatened and endangered juvenile salmon that spawn in rivers of the Northwest United States and may further contribute to salmon decline through habitat alteration, though the extent of those impacts are unknown (Sanderson et al. 2009). Nonnative predators, including crappie, have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of native prey species in several Pacific Northwest rivers (Hughes and Herlihy 2012).
Remarks: It is probable that all the White crappie in California are descendents of the original 16 fish planted in the state in 1917 (Goodson 1966a).
References:
Anonymous 2001. Oregon's Warm Water Fishing with Public Access. [online]. URL at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/warm_water_fishing/index.asp.
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Madison Press Madison, WI. http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/EcoNatRes.FishesWI.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=408 6/7/2020 White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis) - Species Profile Page 7 of 8
Edwards, E.A., D.A. Krieger, G. Gebhart, and O.E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: White Crappie. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.
Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.
GLMRIS. 2011. Inventory of Available Controls for Aquatic Nuisance Species of Concern, Chicago Area Waterway System. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Goodson, L.F. 1966. Crappie. Pages 312-322 in Calhoun, A, ed. Inland fisheries management. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento.
Hansen, D.F. 1951. Biology of the white crappie in Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 25(4):209-265.
Hocutt, C.H., R.E. Jenkins, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1986. Zoogeography of the fishes of the central Appalachians and central Atlantic Coastal Plain. 161-212 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, eds. The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Hubbs, C.L., and K.F. Lagler. 1949. Fishes of the Great Lakes region. Volume 26. Cranbrook Institute of Science.
Hughes, R.M. and A.T. Herlihy. 2012. Patterns in catch per unit effort of native prey fish and alien piscivorous fish in 7 Pacific Northwest USA rivers. Fisheries 37(5):201-211.
Insider Viewpoint. 2001. Fishing Records – Nevada. Insider Viewpoint Magazine. 3 pp.
Linder, A. D. 1963. Idaho's Alien Fishes. TEBIWA, 6(2), 12-15.
Macenia, M.J., and I.F. Greenbaum. 1988. Allozymic Differences between Black and White Crappies. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:123-126.
Matern, S.A., P.B. Moyle, and L.C. Pierce. 2002. Native and alien fishes in a California estuarine marsh: twenty- one years of changing assemblages. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 131: 797-816.
Mathur, D. 1972. Seasonal Food Habits of Adult White Crappie, Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque, in Conowingo Reservoir. The American Midland Naturalist 87(1):236-241.
Meronek, T.G., P.M. Bouchard, E.R. Buckner, T.M. Burri, K.K. Demmerly, D.C. Hatleli, R.A. Klumb, S.H. Schmidt, and D.W. Coble. 1996. A Review of Fish Control Projects. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:63 -74.
Miller, R.R. and C.H. Lowe. 1967. Part 2. Fishes of Arizona, p 133-151, In: C.H. Lowe, ed. The Vertebrates of Arizona. University of Arizona Press. Tucson.
Miranda, L.E. 1999. A Typology of Fisheries in Large Reservoirs of the United States Large Reservoirs of the United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:536-550.
Moyle, P.B. and J. Randall. 1999. Distribution maps of fishes in California. [on-line] Available URL at http://ice.ucdavis.edu/aquadiv/fishcovs/fishmaps.html.
Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Volume 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Patrick, P.H., A.E. Christie, D. Sager, C. Hocutt, and J. Stauffer, Jr. 1985. Responses of fish to a strobe light/air- bubble barrier. Fisheries Research 3:157-172.
Rasmussen, J.L. 1998. Aquatic nuisance species of the Mississippi River basin. 60th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Aquatic Nuisance Species Symposium, Dec. 7, 1998, Cincinnati, OH.
Red River Authority of Texas. 2001. Red and Canadian Basins Fish Inventory: Grayson County. Red River Authority of Texas.
Red River Authority of Texas. 2001. Red and Canadian Basins Fish Inventory: Red River County. Red River Authority of Texas.
Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, J. W. Foltz, and J. M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. 430 pp.
Sanderson, B.L., K.A. Barnes, and A.M.W. Rub. 2009. Nonindigenous Species of the Pacific Northwest: An Overlooked Risk to Endangered Salmon? BioScience 59(3): 245-256.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=408 6/7/2020 White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis) - Species Profile Page 8 of 8
Sommer, T, B. Harrell, M. Nobriga, R. Brown, P. Moyle, W. Kimmerer, and L. Schemel. 2001. California's Yolo Bypass: Evidence that flood control can be compatible with fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, and agriculture. Fisheries. American Fisheries Society. 26 (8): 6-16.
Starnes, W.C., J. Odenkirk, and M.J. Ashton. 2011. Update and analysis of fish occurrences in the lower Potomac River drainage in the vicinity of Plummers Island, Maryland—Contribution XXXI to the natural history of Plummers Island, Maryland. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 124(4):280-309.
Tilmant, J.T. 1999. Management of nonindigenous aquatic fish in the U.S. National Park System. National Park Service. 50 pp.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press. Columbus, OH. 782 pp.
Other Resources: USGS/NAS Technical Fact Sheet Missouri River Introduced Fish - White Crappie FishBase Fact Sheet
Great Lakes Waterlife
Author: P.Fuller, M. Cannister, M. Neilson and K. Hopper
Revision Date: 9/12/2019
Peer Review Date: 5/29/2012
Citation Information: P.Fuller, M. Cannister, M. Neilson and K. Hopper, 2020, Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque, 1818: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx? SpeciesID=408, Revision Date: 9/12/2019, Peer Review Date: 5/29/2012, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=408 6/7/2020
Clupeidae
American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) - Species Profile Page 1 of 6
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Alosa sapidissima (American Shad) Fishes Native Transplant
Rene Reyes - Bureau of Reclamation Alosa sapidissima (Wilson, 1811)
Common name: American Shad
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Smith (1985); Whitehead (1985); Page and Burr (1991); Jenkins and Burkhead (1994).
Size: 75 cm.
Native Range: Atlantic Coast from the Sand Hill River, Labrador, to the St. Johns River, Florida; ascends coastal rivers to spawn (Page and Burr 1991).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=491 6/7/2020 American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) - Species Profile Page 2 of 6
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Alosa sapidissima are found here.
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations†
Alabama 1876 1902 2 Cahaba; Upper Alabama
Admiralty Island; Anchorage; Baranof Island; Bering Glacier; Burroughs Bay; Chilkat-Skagway Rivers; Cook Inlet; Etolin-Zarembo-Wrangell Islands; Glacier Bay; Ketchikan; Kodiak-Afognak Islands; Lower Copper River; Lower Kenai Alaska 1891 2002 24 Peninsula; Lower Susitna River; Lynn Canal; Matanuska; Middle Copper River; Port Heiden; Prince of Wales; Prince William Sound; Stikine River; Thomas Bay; Upper Kenai Peninsula; Yakutat Bay-Gulf of Alaska
Arizona 1884 1886 1 Havasu-Mohave Lakes
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=491 6/7/2020 American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) - Species Profile Page 3 of 6
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Arkansas 1876 1876 1 Upper White-Village
Honcut Headwaters-Lower Feather; Lower American; Lower Eel; Lower Klamath; Lower Sacramento; Lower Sacramento; Mad-Redwood; Monterey Bay; Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf; Russian; Sacramento California 1871 2002 25 Headwaters; San Gabriel; San Joaquin Delta; San Pablo Bay; Santa Barbara Coastal; Santa Monica Bay; Smith; Suisun Bay; Thomes Creek- Sacramento River; Tomales-Drake Bays; Upper Coon-Upper Auburn; Upper Mokelumne; Upper San Joaquin; Upper Stanislaus; Upper Yuba
Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek; Upper South Colorado 1872 1872 2 Platte
Apalachicola; Aucilla; Florida Southeast Coast; Florida 1900 1900 5 Lower Ochlockonee; Lower Suwannee
Georgia 1900 1900 1 Lower Flint
Bear Lake; Lower Snake-Asotin; Upper Snake- Idaho 1891 1990 3 Rock
Illinois 1871 1874 3 Lake Michigan; Little Calumet-Galien; Lower Rock
Indiana 1872 1874 3 St. Joseph; Upper Wabash; Upper White
Iowa 1874 1874 2 Lower Des Moines; Middle Des Moines
Kansas 1885 1885 *
Louisiana 1875 1875 1 Tickfaw
Maryland 1962 1962 1 Youghiogheny
Detroit; Lower Grand; Raisin; Shiawassee; St. Michigan 1873 1874 5 Joseph
Minnesota 1872 1872 1Twin Cities
Mississippi 1875 1876 2 Little Tallahatchie; Middle Pearl-Strong
Missouri 1879 1879 *
Nebraska 1873 1873 1 Lower Elkhorn
Nevada 1946 2001 1 Havasu-Mohave Lakes
Chaumont-Perch; Lake Ontario; Niagara; Upper New York 1870 1985 4 Allegheny
North 1980 1980 1 Upper Broad Carolina
Ashtabula-Chagrin; Black-Rocky; Cedar-Portage; Cuyahoga; Huron-Vermilion; Lake Erie; Ohio 1870 1900 12 Muskingum; Sandusky; Tuscarawas; Upper Great Miami; Upper Ohio-Shade; Upper Scioto
Alsea; Coos; Coquille; Lower Columbia; Lower Columbia-Clatskanie; Lower Columbia-Sandy; Lower Rogue; Lower Willamette; Middle Columbia Oregon 1876 2003 15 -Hood; Middle Willamette; Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf; Siletz-Yaquina; South Umpqua; Umpqua; Upper Willamette
Pennsylvania 1873 1962 2 Lower Monongahela; Youghiogheny
1991 1991 1Lower Catawba
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=491 6/7/2020 American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) - Species Profile Page 4 of 6
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† South Carolina
Hiwassee; Holston; Lower Cumberland- Tennessee 1875 1876 6 Sycamore; Lower Hatchie; Middle Tennessee- Chickamauga; South Fork Forked Deer
Texas 1874 1992 2 Austin-Travis Lakes; Lower Brazos
Bear Lake; Great Salt Lake; Lower Weber; Middle Utah 1871 1896 5 Bear; Utah Lake
Lamoille River; Missiquoi River; Otter Creek; Vermont 1873 1874 4 Winooski River
Virginia 1873 1873 1 Upper New
Dungeness-Elwha; Grays Harbor; Hoh-Quillayute; Hood Canal; Lower Columbia; Lower Columbia- Clatskanie; Lower Snake; Lower Snake; Middle Washington 1876 2004 17 Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Pacific Northwest Region; Puget Sound; Queets- Quinault; Strait of Georgia; Upper Columbia- Entiat; Walla Walla; Willapa Bay
West 1873 1995 3 Greenbrier; Raccoon-Symmes; Upper Kanawha Virginia
Wisconsin 1873 1873 1Lower Fox
Table last updated 9/30/2019
† Populations may not be currently present.
* HUCs are not listed for states where the observation(s) cannot be approximated to a HUC (e.g. state centroids or Canadian provinces).
Means of Introduction: This species was stocked intentionally in California starting in 1871 (Dill and Cordone 1997), and then spread to Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. It was intentionally stocked in many other areas as well, for forage, food, sport, and commercial fishing. It was accidentally stocked in Nebraska (Smith 1896).
Status: Established in coastal states, including; Alaska, California, Idaho (Snake River), Oregon, Virginia, and Washington. Stocked but extirpated in Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho (Bear Lake and Bear River), Iowa, Kansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Large spawning runs observed in Oregon and Washington as early as 1876 (Smith 1896; Moyle 1976; Wydoski and Whitney 1979).
Impact of Introduction: A study of A. sapidissima in the Umpqua and Willamette rivers in Oregon revealed that they were infected by the nematode Anisakis simplex, which could pose a health risk to native wildlife and even human consumers if they are undercooked (Shields et al. 2002).
American Shad were introduced into the Columbia River over a century ago and now maintain the largest population known to exist in the world. The presence of so many American Shad likely result in competitive pressures against native salmonids, although no studies have been conducted to quantify those effects (Sanderson et al. 2009). Shad may also compete with other native fishes for space, and could cause migratory delays in salmonids and other anadromous fishes (Hasselman et al. 2012b).
Haskell et al. (2006) studied the zooplankton in the Columbia River during the outmigration of subyearling American Shad and Chinook Salmon. They found that shad eat Daphnia as a major food item. At times the Daphnia disappear from John Day Reservoir. Subyearling Chinook also depend on Daphnia. Because of the large increase in abundance of shad from 1980 to 1994, and the pressure they put on the Daphnia population, they reasoned that the salmon may be affected by these Daphnia declines.
Remarks: Intensive stocking took place in the 1800s in eastern coastal states where populations had declined from overharvesting (Ferguson 1876; Baird 1878; Morse 1905). One such example is the Delaware River, Pennsylvania, which was stocked to help the overfished population recover (Morse 1905). Dill and Cordone (1997) provided a detailed account of shad introductions in California. A small commercial fishery exists for them in the Columbia
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=491 6/7/2020 American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) - Species Profile Page 5 of 6
River. Hasselman et al. (2012a) reviewed the introduction of Americ an Shad to the Pacific Northwest, and some of the factors thought to have enhanced the success of introduction and disperal in this region. Hinrichsen et al. (2013) analyzed the effects of habitat disturbances on the abundance of American Shad in the Columbia River basin, suggesting that dam/reservoir construction (and their associated changes in thermal and water flow patterns) has enhanced American Shad distribution and abundance in the region.
References:
Baughman, J. L. 1950. Random notes on Texas fishes. Texas Journal of Science 2:117-138.
Chapman, W.M. 1942. Alien fishes in the waters of the Pacific Northwest. California Fish and Game. 28(1): 9-15.
Cudmore-Vokey, B. and E.J. Crossman. 2000. Checklists of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes and their connecting channels. Can. MS Rpt. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2500: v + 39p.
Deacon, J. E., and J. E. Williams. 1984. Annotated list of the fishes of Nevada. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 97(1):103-118.
Ferguson, T. B. 1876. Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries of Maryland to the General Assembly. 1 January 1876. John F. Wiley, Annapolis, MD.
Hartel, K. E. 1992. Non-native fishes known from Massachusetts freshwaters. Occasional Reports of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Fish Department, Cambridge, MA. 2. September. pp. 1-9.
Haskell, C.A., K.F. Tiffan, and D.W. Rondorf. 2006. Food habits of juvenile American shad and dynamics of zooplankton in the lower Columbia River. Northwest Science 80(1):47-64.
Hasselman, D.J., R.A. Hinrichsen, B.A. Shields, and C.C. Ebbesmeyer. 2012a. The rapid establishment, dispersal, and increased abundance of invasive American shad in the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries 37(3):103-114.
Hasselman, D.J., R.A. Hinrichsen, B.A. Shields, and C.C. Ebbesmeyer. 2012b. American shad of the Pacific coast: a harmful invasive species or benign introduction. Fisheries 37(3):115-122.
Hendricks, M. L., J. R. Stauffer, Jr., C. H. Hocutt, and C. R. Gilbert. 1979. A preliminary checklist of the fishes of the Youghiogheny River. Chicago Academy of Sciences, Natural History Miscellanea 203:1-15.
Hinrichsen, R.A., D.J. Hasselman, C.C. Ebbesmeyer, and B.A. Shields. 2013. The role of impoundments, temperature, and discharge on colonization of the Columbia River basin, USA, by nonindigenous American Shad. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142(4):887-900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2013.788553.
Howells, R. G. 1992a. Annotated list of introduced non-native fishes, mollusks, crustaceans and aquatic plants in Texas waters. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Management Data Series 78, Austin, TX. 19 pp.
Idaho Fish and Game. 1990. Fisheries Management Plan 1991-1995. Appendix I: A list of Idaho fishes and their distribution by drainage. Idaho Fish and Game.
Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Jordan, D. S. 1882. Report on the fishes of Ohio. Report of the Geological Survey of Ohio 4(1):735-1002.
Linder, A. D. 1963. Idaho's alien fishes. Tebiwa 6(2):12-15.
Matern, S.A., P.B. Moyle, and L.C. Pierce. 2002. Native and alien fishes in a California estuarine marsh: twenty- one years of changing assemblages. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 131: 797-816.
Menhinick, E. F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 227 pp.
Morris, J., L. Morris, and L. Witt. 1974. The fishes of Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE. 98 pp.
Morse, S. R. 1905. Fresh and salt water fish found in the waters of New Jersey, part I. Annual Report of the New Jersey State Museum. MacCrellish and Quigley, State Province, Trenton, NJ.
Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. The Peterson Field Guide Series, volume 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=491 6/7/2020 American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) - Species Profile Page 6 of 6
Popov, B. H., and J. B. Low. 1953. Game, fur animal, and fish introductions into Utah. Utah State Department of Fish and Game Publication 4, pp. 1-85.
Sanderson, B.L., K.A. Barnas, and A.M.W. Rub. 2009. Nonindigenous species of the Pacific northwest: an overlooked risk to endangered salmon? BioScience 59(3): 245-256.
Shields, B.A., P. Bird, W.J. Liss, K.L. Groves, R. Olson, and P.A. Rossignol. 2002. The nematode Anisakis simplex in American shad (Alosa sapidissima) in two Oregon Rivers. The Journal of Parasitology 88(5): 1033-1035.
Sigler, F. F., and R. R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah Department of Fish and Game, Salt Lake City, UT. 203 pp.
Simpson, J., and R. Wallace. 1978. Fishes of Idaho. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID.
Skinner, J. E. 1962. An historical overview of the fish and wildlife resources of the San Francisco Bay area. California Fish and Game Water Projects Branch Report. 1:225 pp.
Smith, C. L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York state. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 522 pp.
Smith, H. M. 1896. A review of the history and results of the attempts to acclimatize fish and other water animals in the Pacific states. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 15: 379-472.
Sommer, T, B. Harrell, M. Nobriga, R. Brown, P. Moyle, W. Kimmerer, and L. Schemel. 2001. California's Yolo Bypass: Evidence that flood control can be compatible with fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, and agriculture. Fisheries. American Fisheries Society. 26 (8): 6-16.
Tilmant, J.T. 1999. Management of nonindigenous aquatic fish in the U.S. National Park System. National Park Service. 50 pp.
Trautman, M. B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH.
Wiltzius, W. J. 1985. Fish culture and stocking in Colorado, 1872-1978. Division Report 12. Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Wydoski, R.S., and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Other Resources: Author: Pam Fuller, and Matt Neilson
Revision Date: 11/4/2013
Peer Review Date: 11/4/2013
Citation Information: Pam Fuller, and Matt Neilson, 2020, Alosa sapidissima (Wilson, 1811): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=491, Revision Date: 11/4/2013, Peer Review Date: 11/4/2013, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=491 6/7/2020
Cottidae
Prickly Sculpin (Cottus asper) - Species Profile Page 1 of 3
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Cottus asper (Prickly Sculpin) Fishes Native Transplant
© Andy Murch / Elasmodiver.com Cottus asper Richardson, 1836
Common name: Prickly Sculpin
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Moyle (1976, 2002); Morrow (1980); Page and Burr (1991).
Size: 30 cm (Page and Burr 1991).
Native Range: Pacific Slope drainages from Seward, Alaska, to Ventura River, California; east of Continental Divide in upper Peace River, British Columbia (Page and Burr 1991).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=501 6/7/2020 Prickly Sculpin (Cottus asper) - Species Profile Page 2 of 3
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Cottus asper are found here.
State Year of earliest Year of last Total HUCs with HUCs with observations† observation observation observations†
Antelope-Fremont Valleys; Santa California 1972 2018 4 Ana; Santa Clara; Santa Margarita
Washington 2012 2015 2 Lower Chehalis; Nisqually
Table last updated 3/19/2020
† Populations may not be currently present.
Means of Introduction: Apparently introduced in imported water, possibly with water released into Piru Creek, a tributary of the Santa Clara River, from Pyramid Reservoir during the 1970s (Bell 1978; Swift et al. 1993; Moyle 2002). Pyramid Reservoir recevies water through the California Aqueduct from the Sacaramento and San Joaquin River basins, which are part of the inland range of this species (Bell 1978; Moyle 2002).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=501 6/7/2020 Prickly Sculpin (Cottus asper) - Species Profile Page 3 of 3
Status: Established in California and Washington.
Impact of Introduction: Unknown. The occurrence of this cottid in the Santa Clara River system has been viewed as a possible threat to the survival of the federally endangered unarmoured threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1977).
Remarks: According to Bell (1978), this species and others would have survived passage through pumping and power plants in route to Pyramid Reservoir before colonizing the Santa Clara River system. Cottus asper is capable of surviving in a wide range of habitats including disturbed sites; it is also known to prey on salmon eggs and fry (Moyle 1976).
References:
Bell, M.A. 1978. Fishes of the Santa Clara system, southern California. Contributions in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 295:1-20.
Mongillo, P. E., and M. Hallock. 1997. Distribution and habitat of native nongame steam fishes of the Olympic Peninsula. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Technical Report# FRD (1997): 97-05.
Morrow, J.E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company, Anchorage, AK.
Moyle, P.B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. 2nd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. The Peterson Field Guide Series, volume 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Swift, C.C., T.R. Haglund, M. Ruiz, and R.N. Fisher. 1993. The status and distribution of the freshwater fishes of southern California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Science 92(3):101-167.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. Recovery plan for unarmored threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni, an endangered fish. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 60 pp.
Other Resources: Author: Pam Fuller, and Matt Neilson
Revision Date: 7/18/2016
Peer Review Date: 3/2/2012
Citation Information: Pam Fuller, and Matt Neilson, 2020, Cottus asper Richardson, 1836: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=501, Revision Date: 7/18/2016, Peer Review Date: 3/2/2012, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=501 6/7/2020 Torrent Sculpin - Montana Field Guide Page 1 of 5
Montana Field Guides
Home - Other Field Guides Kingdom - Animals - Animalia Phylum - Vertebrates - Craniata Class - Fish - Actinopterygii Order - Sculpins - Scorpaeniformes Family - Sculpins - Cottidae Species - Torrent Sculpin - Cottus rhotheus
Torrent Sculpin - Cottus rhotheus
Species of Concern Native Species
Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3 (see State Rank Reason below)
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3
State Rank Reason (see State Rank above) The torrent sculpin is currently listed as an "S3" species of special concern by the state of Montana (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2004), and is also designated as a sensitive species by the U.S. Forest Service in Region 1 (Lee et al. 1997). A "S3" designation means that the species in Montana is potentially at risk because of limited and potentially declining numbers, extent and-or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas.
http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFC4E02220 6/7/2020 Torrent Sculpin - Montana Field Guide Page 2 of 5
General Description In Montana, the Torrent Sculpin is found only in the fast headwater streams of the Kootenai River drainage in the northwest portion of the state. As with all sculpins, it presents a somewhat grotesque appearance with its large head, huge pectoral fins, and bulging eyes. Sculpins have a very flattened hydrodynamic shape, which serves them well as they dart along the bottom between the cracks and crevices of rocks (Montana AFS Species Status Account).
For a comprehensive review of the ecology, conservation status, threats, and management of this and other Montana fish species of concern, please see Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Species of Concern Status Reviews.
Diagnostic Characteristics This species is gray-brown with black speckling. The underside is light and the chin strongly mottled. The first dorsal fin is fringed with orange on spawning males. Palatine teeth are usually present. The body is robust. They usually have coarse prickles on the back, sides, and sometimes on the caudal peduncle.
Species Range Montana Range
Year-round
http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFC4E02220 6/7/2020 Torrent Sculpin - Montana Field Guide Page 3 of 5
Western Hemisphere Range
Range Comments The torrent sculpin is native to the Pacific Northwest and is found in Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, Idaho, and Montana. It occurs primarily in tributary systems of the Columbia River basin, but also occurs in the Fraser River System in British Columbia, and in coastal streams from Oregon to British Columbia.
Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database Number of Observations: 87
(Click on the following maps and charts to see full sized version) Map Help and Descriptions
http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFC4E02220 6/7/2020 Torrent Sculpin - Montana Field Guide Page 4 of 5
Relative Density Recency
(Observations spanning multiple months or years are excluded from time charts)
Migration Movements of torrent sculpin are poorly understood. In Washington, torrent sculpin have been documented moving upstream to spawn from late-January to mid-April, then moving back downstream, presumably to pre-spawning nodal habitats, after completion of spawning in May and June (Thomas 1973).
Habitat These fish are typically found in the riffles of cold, clear streams, but are also reported in the rocky shores of lakes. They hide among the boulders and cobbles on the bottom.
Food Habits The torrent sculpin feeds predominately on zooplankton and aquatic insect larvae as a sub-adult; adult diets also include small fish and fish eggs (Northcote 1954; Brown 1971). The fry eat mostly plankton. Adults feed mainly on aquatic insects and a variety of invertebrates, but also include plankton. Larger individuals often eat small fish.
Reproductive Characteristics They are sexually mature in 2 years and spawn in late spring. The eggs hatch in 30 to 50 degrees F. The male remains close to the nest until after the eggs hatch.
Management A primary focus of managing the torrent sculpin in Montana should be to more accurately determine the status of the species. Efforts should be made to describe its complete range, as well as to estimate abundance at locations where its presence is currently known. Populations should be routinely monitored to describe population trends over time.
Threats or Limiting Factors In Montana, the torrent sculpin is likely most threatened by land use practices that could diminish habitat quality. Lee et al. (1997) considered sedimentation, increased water temperature, and pollution as the major potential negative impacts to the torrent sculpin.
http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFC4E02220 6/7/2020 Torrent Sculpin - Montana Field Guide Page 5 of 5
References
Literature Cited Above Additional References Additional Sources of Information Related to "Fish"
Citation for data on this website: Torrent Sculpin — Cottus rhotheus. Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Retrieved on June 7, 2020, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFC4E02220
http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFC4E02220 6/7/2020
Cyprinidae
Invasive Species of the Pacific Northwest:
Northern Pikeminnow, Ptychocheilus oregonensis, Northern Squawfish
Adan Martinez Garcia
FISH 423: Julian Olden
Autumn 2014
Figure 1: Adult P. oregonensis (above) and juvenile (below). Images are not to scale. Photos from http://www.pikeminnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Pikeminnow-2.png and http://www.fpc.org/bon_jda/Pictures/northern%20pikeminnow.jpg.
Classification waters in the fall, while larger individuals remain deeper (Page and Burr, 1991).
Order: Cypriniformes The P. oregonensis has an elongated body that
Family: Cyprinidae averages a length of 200 to 350mm (8 to 12 inches) in length, but may reach up to 600mm Genus: Ptychocheilus (24 inches). Their head makes up about 25% of Species: oregonensis (Richardson) the length (Montana Field Guide, 2014).
Average weight of the fish can be about a pound. Catches of 7 pounds have been reported Identification Key in Montana and up to 30 pounds in British Columbia (Montana Field Guide, 2014). Formerly known as the Northern Although they lack teeth, their predator voracity Squawfish, the P. oregonensis received its new makes them an undesirable fish. name after an international committee held in Their close resemblance to the peamouth chub 1998 agreed to the complaint from various could be a problem when attempting to control Native American tribes, which claimed the term P. oregonensis. The peamouth, unlike the P. ‘squawfish’ was highly offensive to women oregonensis, have small mouths and their jaw (Spokesman’s Review, 1998). The P. bend stops way before the eye (Figures 3 & 4). oregonensis belongs to the minnow family, The P. oregonensis has a fairly large mouth, Cyprinidae, a family of fishes with long, slender where up two three fingers fit inside and the jaw bodies. Pikeminnow from the Columbia River bend goes beyond the eye (Figure 2). system are generally a bright silvery color, while Pikeminnows tend to have a flat head (Figure2), those from tributaries will usually be darker and whereas peamouth chubs have a round head more colored. Juveniles have a prominent dark (Figure 4). The hints of bright orange on the spot at the base of the caudal (tail) fin (Figure1). peamouth’s mouth, gill plate and fins are P. oregonensis have no teeth and have a deeply another great indication it is not a pikeminnow. forked tail (Figure 1). The distinction between a pikeminnow and a According to Scott et al, pikeminnow prefer chub are important when harvesting to kill, in lakes or slow moving runs of rivers just like the order to protect chubs, a fish harmless to the large pools formed just above hydroelectric salmonids of the Pacific Northwest. dams. Juvenile pikeminnows prefer shallow waters during the summer, moving to deeper Figure 4. Facial characteristics of the peamouth chub which allow easier distinction from the pikeminnow. http://www.pikeminnow.org/how- to/how-to-tell-a-northern-pikeminnow-from-a- peamouth.
Life History and Basic Ecology
Life Cycle and Reproduction
When the water temperature begins to warm up in the spring into early summer, the
Figure 2. Facial characteristics of the P. pikeminnows are ready to spawn. P. oregonensis oregonensis used to compare to Peamouth chub. reach sexual maturity in about 3 to 8 years (Scott http://www.pikeminnow.org/how-to/how-to-tell-a- northern-pikeminnow-from-a-peamouth. et al, 1973). When they are ready to spawn, fish migrate upriver into calmer water. The fish may swim into small tributaries or backwater pockets where they seek where the current will not drift
Figure 3. Peamouth chub adult. Notice the hints of their eggs away. Lake tributaries and reservoirs orange on the fins and mouth. are also used to spawn where more gravel and http://www.pikeminnow.org/how-to/how-to-tell-a- northern-pikeminnow-from-a-peamouth. soft sand bottom are found (Gadomski et al. 2001). Figure 5. Northern pikeminnow life cycle from (Gadomski et al. 2001)
The ideal temperature for pikeminnow spawning the tributaries and backwaters away from the is approximately 65 degrees Fahrenheit main current. The vegetation found in the littoral (Gadomski et al. 2001). Once the upstream areas of the rivers provides cover from predators migration occurs, fish try to find a mate. Once to juvenile fish. After successful survivorship, a the spawning groups are formed, Page and Burr juvenile P. oregonensis will mature into an adult (1991) found that a female is surrounded by after reaching a length of between 200 - 350 mm males close to the bottom, where eggs and sperm (Beamesderfer, 1992). Depending on genetic are released at the same time and eggs settle in and positive environmental factors, juveniles the gravel. Female pikeminnow will typically may mature in 3 years. At this point, the fish are have a fecundity of about 25,000 eggs a year now 8 to 12 inches. Considering P. oregonensis (Parker et al. 1995). Unlike salmonid eggs, lives 15 to 20 years (Scott, 1973), a single fish pikeminnow eggs are much smaller and have a may spawn 12 to 17 of the remaining years in sticky texture to them. P. oregonensis eggs their lifetime. average from 2.6 to 2.8 millimeters in diameter Such was the case study of Beamesderfer et al and will hatch in about 8 to 10 days, depending (1996) where P. oregonensis rearing in littoral on the temperature of the water they were laid in habitats of the upper John Day Reservoir thrived (Figure 5). After the eggs are laid, the in stillwater factors such as high vegetation pikeminnows do not attend the fry, so after growth and high near-shore water temperatures. about 11 days, the larvae emerge and drift Phenotype differences in the sexes are not slowly downstream at night for 1 to 3 days noticeable, but Parker et al (1995) found that (Gadomski et al. 2001). females mature slower than males and males The warm temperatures in a river are found in develop a yellow tint to their fins when more shallow, slower water, which is found in spawning. Patten et al (1979) found that females are easy to recognize during the prespawn, when trophic level of 4.3 of the pikeminnows after they have enlarged abdomens from the eggs consuming an average of 83 percent of fish in developing inside. Extraordinary congregations their diet, about 66 percent consisting of of fish occur during spawning season, which salmonids. At warmer temperatures, fish were occur every year. Erratic movements of fish end found to digest salmonids quickly (up to 50% up with reproduction acts that may result up to 6 per hour) and continue to eat. (Brown et al. males chasing a female (Patten et al, 1979). 1981). Not all pikeminnows are considered a threat to out-migrating salmonids, though. P. Feeding Habits oregonensis 11 inches and larger were found to
The voracious predatory instinct of P. be the most vulnerable to feed on out-migrating oregonensis is what gives them the reputation of salmonids (Petersen, 2001). Juvenile P. a trash fish, but most importantly, makes them a oregonensis feed on plankton, aquatic and species of ecological concern. The largest terrestrial insects and other small invertebrates problem associated with P. oregonensis in all in the littoral zone as any other fish in its habitat. time has been the predation of salmonids. When In the Columbia River, invertebrates dominate juvenile salmon are preparing to migrate out of the diets of P. oregonensis that are smaller than backwaters into the main river systems such as 11.8 in (300 mm), with fishes and crayfish the Columbia River to journey back to the increasing in importance as fish size increases ocean, P. oregonensis are preparing to spawn. (Poe et al. 1991). Being high on the trophic level Just as pikeminnows migrate upstream to in the means P. oregonensis eventually turn their diet spring into backwaters or to the pools created by to juvenile fish of any species they share habitat dams, schools of salmon may be intercepted by with, such as bass and other panfish as well as the pikeminnows at these points at eaten. As small baitfish like sculpins abundant in the mentioned before, the erratic commotion created Columbia River, for example. Unfortunately for during the spawning may increase the salmonids, the larger the pikeminnows get, the interactions and predation on salmonids. more they will be able to consume at a time.
In the John Day reservoir of the lower Columbia This means that sometimes pikeminnows will River, Poe et al (1991) recorded an average even consume out-migrating salmonids at rates greater than what they can hold as seen in Figure 6 (Thompson et al, 1959).
Many fish increase their prey size as they grow to a size capable of eating larger prey. At various surveyed areas along the Columbia
Figure 6. Pikeminnow eat a substantial amount of juvenile salmonids to the point of satiation. River, P. oregonensis were found to have a diet conditions are in the spring, where the water of fish and crawfish, with fish prey size reaches about 65 degrees. Not surprisingly, P. increasing as length of pikeminnow increased oregonensis eggs in a laboratory study were (Zimmerman et al, 1999). Perhaps the most incubated successfully under water temperatures surprising prey of the P. oregonensis is the of 59°F–62.6°F (15°C to 17°C) (Gadomski et al. cannibalistic predation of the eggs of other 2001). The same study revealed ideal hatching pikeminnows, almost exclusively from males, as conditions which resulted in eggs hatching in 8 observed by Scott et al (1973) in surveys during to 10 days under these ideal temperatures the spawning season. (Gadomski et al. 2001). Building of dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers has been Environmental Conditions controversial in respect to ecological impacts on
P. oregonensis generally prefer slower, salmon. An indirect effect would be the creation less turbid water where they could seek cover in of more ideal water conditions for P. their juvenile stages. As the fish develop, the oregonensis to thrive. Impoundments slow down vegetation that is found in littoral zones may oxygenated water and raise water temperature, provide protection to the juveniles from other which create conditions favorable for a predators such as walleye and bass also found in pikeminnow, but not for salmonids (Brown et al. their range. The juvenile pikeminnows may 1981). Increased turbidity is also unfavorable for greatly benefit from a wide array of aquatic the P. oregonensis. Increased water turbidity insects that depend on aquatic vegetation for decreased visual predation on juvenile white their life cycle. sturgeon in controlled predation studies (Gadomski et al. 2000, 2001, 2002). As with Many fish require an ideal water conditions that other Pacific Northwest warmwater fish, the can remain steady in order to assure maximum ideal temperatures to feed and spawn are similar possible survivorship of their eggs and for the P. oregonensis, increasing up to about 75 hatchlings. A study in Southwest Washington degrees Fahrenheit, where then will seek cooler found the average water temperature during water. Large P. oregonensis have been observed pikeminnow spawning in Merwin Reservoir was in benthic areas (bottom dwellers) that may 62.5°F (17°C) (Patten et al. 1969). In a river reach up to 15 feet, which is highly possible in system, the warmer temperatures will be found the large river systems it inhabits. in the shallow banks that tend to also have calmer current flows preferred by the fish in the In 1999, ideal temperatures for living and same study (Patten et al. 1969). Like many growing of P. oregonensis were observed for the warmwater fish such as bass, ideal spawning Idaho Division of Environmental Quality. According to the observation, there was three the spawn, the small predator may feed on major pieces of data recorded: Final pikeminnow eggs, emerging larvae and juveniles Temperature Preferendum (FTP), Upper Lethal present. Temperature (ULT) and Optimum Temperature Biotic Associations Range (OTR). Final Temperature Preferendum
(FTP) was defined as the temperature for P. oregonensis is no exception to maximum growth. Upper Lethal Temperature parasites or diseases. Four main parasite groups (ULT) was defined as the temperature at which are Acanthocephala (spiny-headed worms), survival is 50% in a 10-minute exposure. Cestoda (cestodes or flatworms), Nematoda Optimum Temperature Range (OTR) is a range (round worms) and Trematoda (flukes or of temperatures that provide for feeding activity, flatworms) (Hoffman, 1967). These parasitic normal physiological response, and normal groups go well together since they form in the behavior. In the observations, Hillman, T. W, et stomachs of the fish after accidental ingestion of al (1999) found a FTP of 16.1°-22.8°C (about 60 infected prey (Hoffman, 1967). These various to 70 degrees Fahrenheit), an OTR of 16.1°- groups of worms do not always kill the fish, as 24.4°C (about 60 to 75 degrees Fahrenheit) and compared with tape worms in a dog. an ULT of 29.4°-32.0°C (about 84 to 89 degrees Fahrenheit). Parasites are not always microscopic or in the interior of a host. Another class of parasite for P. Predators of P. oregonensis oregonensis is leeches and lampreys which attach their mouths to the body of a fish and feed Environmental factors indirectly affect off their blood supply (Hoffman, 1967). A P. oregonensis as well. A good recruitment of member of the mollusk family, Glochidia, is a pest species to P. oregonensis may be bad news. parasite that uses P. oregonensis by transporting Three main predators throughout the life cycle larva mussels to other areas using the gills of the of the P. oregonensis are walleyes (Sander fish (Hoffman, 1967). The last main group of vitreus), prickly sculpin (Cottus asper) and parasites are the microscopic crustaceans such as smallmouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) Lernaea cyprinacea and Ergasilus caeruleus (Zimmerman, 1999). Beamesderfer et al. (1996) (Hoffman, 1976), more commonly known as gill suggested that the non-native species, walleye, lice. These parasites attach to fleshy gills of the might reduce P. oregonensis numbers through fish where they can live off the fish’s juices. predation. Smallmouths live in similar habitat as the pikeminnow, so their aggressiveness would Geographic Distribution explain the predation on juvenile pikeminnow. Prickly sculpins live in benthic habitat, so during Figure 7. Distribution of P. oregonensis in its year-round range according to Lee et al, (1980) and Scott and Crossman, (1973).
P. oregonensis is a native fish to the Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, and Pacific Northwest. Major distributions are found Nevada. all along the Columbia River and most of its tributaries and drainages that cause distribution as far east as Montana and North into British History of Invasiveness Columbia’s Nass River (Figure 7). The Snake River’s Shoshone Falls is a natural barrier that P. oregonensis is not an invasive species prevents distribution further southeast (Figure since it is a native fish to the region. The 7). The area covered in Figure 7 is on a latitude predation on juvenile fish gives it the reputation range of 55°N - 39°N as the stated distribution of a “trash” fish, more appropriately, a nuisance by Page, L. M., et al (1991). The successful to sport fishermen. P. oregonensis may spread establishment of the species in these rivers may throughout watersheds if waterways that are be in part from the damming of the river systems uninhabited are connected to pikeminnow-free (Brown et al, 1981). The P. oregonensis occurs waters; they would simply swim across. In a in Pacific drainages in British Columbia south to more complex situation, global warming may the Columbia and Snake River basins in increase water temperatures that allow spread of the species northward into regions previously not warm enough. The impoundments as stated to the fact salmonid prey is generally more by Brown et al (1981) built on the river systems important to the older, larger specimens (Vigg et such as the Columbia River have altered the al. 1991). A large-scale predator removal natural flow of the river, allowing slower current program has been operating since 1990 with The and warming up the water for a more ideal Bonneville Power Administration at the head of habitat. funding the project (Beamesderfer et al. 1996)
Environmental/ Economic Concerns Current Management Efforts
P. oregonensis has been a concern for Of all the management efforts to reduce many decades ecologically and economically. P. the amount of large adult pikeminnows, the oregonensis eat millions of juvenile salmonids a current effort of a Sport Reward Fishery brings year in the Columbia and Snake River systems, the most attention to the public, which takes approximately 16.4 million juvenile salmonids place downstream of the Snake River’s Lower annually in Columbia River Basin, alone Granite Dam all the way to the mouth of the (Beamesderfer et al. 1996) . Large quantities of Columbia River on the Washington/ Oregon money may be placed into these salmon smolt border (Figure 8). Public attention is caught by through hatchery funds throughout the state, setting out 4 to 8 dollar rewards per fish, costing the state thousands, if not millions of depending on the amount that is caught in a dollars annually in lost fish (Washington season, some rewards reaching 500 dollars from Department Fish Wildlife, 2014.) tagged fish (Pikeminnow Sport Reward Program). The season runs from May to Management Efforts/ Control Methods September and in some cases of die-hard anglers, have brought up to 70,000 dollars in Before current day efforts were put to rewards (Pikeminnow Sport Reward Program). test, more unorthodox methods of removal or Since 1991 through 2011, over 3.9 million P. eradication were set into play. Some early efforts to control pikeminnow populations included chemicals, dynamite, lowering of lake levels and traps (Nevada Department fish and game). Since P. oregonensis are voracious predators upon juvenile salmonids, various Figure 8. Stations along the Snake and Columbia organizations have put forth the effort for the river to report catches towards the Pikeminnow past 24 years to help reduce numbers of adult Reward Program. pikeminnow. The effort to remove adults is due oregonensis have been removed by the Sport Reward Fishery activities in the program area Brown, L. R. Moyle, P. B. 1981. The impact of (PSRP). squawfish on salmonid populations: a review. North American Journal of Other research includes whether or not these Fisheries Management 1: 104-111. angling efforts are working in reducing salmonid predation. The PSR program has resulted in the Gadomski, D. M., C. A. Barfoot, J. M. Bayer, removal of nearly 3.5 million pikeminnow from and T. P. Poe. 2001. Early life history of the Columbia and Snake Rivers, reducing the northern pikeminnow in the lower predation on young salmon by an estimated 40 Columbia River Basin. Transactions of percent (Pikeminnow Sport Reward Program). the American Fisheries Society 130: This is 4 to 6 million juvenile salmon annually 250-262. that otherwise would have been eaten by this Gadomski, D.M., M.J. Parsley, D.G. Gallion, P. predator, saving the hatchery funders a lot of Kofoot. 2000. Pages 48-113 in D.L. money from higher fish recruitment. Ward, editor. White sturgeon mitigation Literature Cited and restoration in the Columbia and Snake rivers upstream from Bonneville Beamesderfer, C.P., D.L. Ward, and A.A. Nigro. Dam. Annual progress report submitted 1996. Evaluation of the biological basis to Bonneville Power Administration for a predator control program on (Project 86-50), Portland, Oregon. northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) in the Columbia and Snake Hillman, T. W., Miller, M. D., Nishitani, B. A. rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 1999. Evaluation of Seasonal-Cold and Aquatic Sciences 53:2898-2908. Water Temperature Criteria. Idaho Division of Environmental Quality. Beamesderfer, R.C. and B. E. Rieman. 1991. BioAnalysts, Inc. Abundance and distribution of northern squawfish, walleyes, and smallmouth Hoffman, G. L. 1967. Parasites of North bass in John Day Reservoir, Columbia American Fishes. University of River. California, Berkeley Press.
Beamesderfer, R.C. 1992. Reproduction and Montana Field Guide. 2014. Northern early life history of northern Pikeminnow — Ptychocheilus pikeminnow, Ptychocheilus oregonensis. Montana Natural Heritage oregonensis, in Idaho’s St. Joe River. Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Nelson, Joseph S. 2004. Common and scientific Poe, T.P., H.C. Hansel, S. Vigg, D.E. Palmer names of fishes from the United States, and L.A. Predergast, 1991. Feeding of Canada, and Mexico, Sixth Edition. predaceous fishes on out-migrating American Fisheries Society Special juvenile salmonids in John Day Publication, no. 29. Reservoir, Columbia River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 120(4):405-420. Nevada Department of Conservation & Natural Resources. 2014. Nevada’s Native Schell, S. C. 1976. The Life History of Fishes. Nezpercella lewisi Schell 1974 (Trematoda: Opecoelidae), a Parasite of Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr, 1991. A field guide the Northern Squawfish, and the to freshwater fishes of North America Smallmouth Bass. The Journal of north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Parasitology, Vol. 62, No. 6, pp. 894- Company, Boston. p. 432. 898. Parker, R.M., M.P. Zimmerman, and D.L. Ward. Scott, W.B., E.J. Crossman. 1973. Morphology 1995. Variability in biological Data of Ptychocheilus oregonensis. characteristics of northern pikeminnow FishBase. in the Lower Columbia and Snake rivers. Transactions of the American Spokesman’s Review. 1998. Former squawfish Fisheries Society 124:335-346. hooks new name. Indian Country Today (Lakota Times). Patten, B. G., Rodman D. T. (1969) Reproductive Behavior of Northern Thompson, R.B. 1959. Food of the pikeminnow Squawfish, Ptychocheilus oregonensis, Ptychocheilus oregonensis (Richardson) Transactions of the American Fisheries of the Lower Columbia River. Fish. Bul. Society, 98:1, 108-111.Scott, W.B., E.J. 60:43-58. Crossman. 1973. Ecology of Vigg, S., T.P. Poe, L.A. Prendergast, And H.C. Ptychocheilus oregonensis. FishBase. Hansel. 1991. Rates of consumption of Petersen, J. H. 2001. Density, aggregation, and juvenile salmonids and alternative prey body size of northern pikeminnow fish by northern pikeminnow, walleyes, preying on juvenile salmonids in a large smallmouth bass, and channel catfish in river. Journal of Fish Biology 58:1137- John Day Reservoir, Columbia River. 1148. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 120:421-438. Zimmerman, M.P., and D.L. Ward. 1999. Index of predation on juvenile salmonids by northern pikeminnow in the lower Columbia River basin from 1994-96. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:995-1007.
Other Key Sources
Northern Pikeminnow Sport Reward Program. http://www.pikeminnow.org/.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Northern Pikeminnow Management. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/oscrp/CRI/Pike minnow.asp .
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Northern Pikeminnow Weekly Reports. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/creel/northern_pike .
Regional Contacts
Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208-3621
(503) 230-3000
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Vancouver Field Office 2108 Grand Boulevard Vancouver, Washington 98661
- Fish Program -- Northern Pikeminnow (360) 906-6702
Redside Shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) - Species Profile Page 1 of 4
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Richardsonius balteatus (Redside Shiner) Fishes Native Transplant
Jay DeLong; North American Native Fishes Association (www.nanfa.org) Richardsonius balteatus (Richardson, 1836)
Common name: Redside Shiner
Synonyms and Other Names: Bonneville redside shiner, subspecies R. b. hydrophlox
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Wydoski and Whitney (1979); Sigler and Sigler (1987); Page and Burr (1991).
Size: 18 cm.
Native Range: Pacific Slope drainage from Nass River, British Columbia, to Rogue, Klamath, and Columbia River drainages, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, and Wyoming; Bonneville basin, southern Idaho, western Wyoming, and Utah; Peace River system (Arctic basin), Alberta and British Columbia (Page and Burr 1991).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=644 6/7/2020 Redside Shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) - Species Profile Page 2 of 4
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Richardsonius balteatus are found here.
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs with HUCs with observations† earliest observation observations† observation
Lake Mead; Lower Colorado Region; Lower Arizona 1965 1991 3 Lake Powell
Colorado Headwaters; Colorado Headwaters- Plateau; Lower Green-Diamond; Lower Colorado 1969 1993 5 Yampa; Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir
Big Hole; Jefferson; Lower Flathead; Madison; Middle Fork Flathead; North Fork Montana 1975 2017 8 Flathead; Upper Missouri; Upper Missouri- Dearborn
Utah 1934 2004 9 Colorado Headwaters-Plateau; Dirty Devil; Duchesne; Fremont; Lower Green; Lower
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=644 6/7/2020 Redside Shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) - Species Profile Page 3 of 4
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs with HUCs with observations† earliest observation observations† observation Green-Diamond; Strawberry; Upper Colorado -Dolores; Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir
Washington 1991 2009 2 Dungeness-Elwha; Upper Skagit
Blacks Fork; Upper Green; Upper Green; Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper Wyoming 1948 1994 7 Green-Slate; Upper Yellowstone; White - Yampa
Table last updated 9/30/2019
† Populations may not be currently present.
Means of Introduction: Presumably through bait bucket release (Minckley 1973) and probably by way of subsequent natural dispersal.
Status: This species has been present in the Colorado River basin since the 1930s (Simon 1946; Sigler and Miller 1963), and has continued to expand its range (Haynes et al. 1982; Tyus et al. 1982). It is established in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming.
Impact of Introduction: Largely unknown. It has been suggested that nonindigenous fishes, including R. balteatus, have contributed to the decline of native Colorado River species such as the Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius and the humpback chub Gila cypha (Haynes et al. 1982). These shiners are known to feed on the eggs of other species and possibly compete with the young of other fish for food and space (Woodling 1985). Sigler and Miller (1963) noted that it preys on the young of sport fishes. The introduced Redside Shiner appears to be replacing native Virgin River spinedace Lepidomeda m. mollispinis in the Virgin River (Minckley 1973). In areas where it is introduced, Redside Shiners can hybridize with speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus (Sigler and Miller 1963). This hybrid has been recorded from Utah in the Price River, Utah County in 1953; and Sheep Creek, Uintah County in 1960 (Sigler and Miller 1963). It has also been reported from Washington and the Provo River in Utah, where both species are native (Sigler and Miller 1963). Note: the subspecies R. b. hydrophlox is not native to Washington but the typical subspecies is. In British Columbia, introduced Redside Shiners adversely affected populations of a subspecies of introduced rainbow trout, the Kamloops trout Oncorhynchus mykiss kamloops; in addition to having a negative influence on trout growth and diet, the shiner was found to prey on trout fry (Larkin and Smith 1954). Competition with and predation by nonnative species (i.e., Catostomus sp., creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus, Redside Shiner Richardsonius balteatus, burbot Lota lota, brown trout Salmo trutta, and lake trout Salvelinus namaycush) limit populations of the rare bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2010).
Remarks: Introductions into Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming were recorded as the subspecies R. b. hydrophlox (Sigler and Miller 1963; Baxter and Simon 1970; Minckley 1973). This species is a popular bait fish (Sigler and Miller 1963; Baxter and Simon 1970; Minckley 1973). Tyus et al. (1982) gave a distribution map of the this species in the upper Colorado basin.
References:
Haynes, C.M., R.T. Muth, and L.C. Wycoff. 1982. Range extension for the redside shiner, Richarsonius balteatus (Richardson), in the upper Colorado River drainage. Southwestern Naturalist 27(2):223.
Larkin, P.A., and S.B. Smith. 1954. Some effects of introduction of the redside shiner on the Kamloops trout in Paul Lake, British Columbia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 83(1):161-175.
Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Fish and Game Department Sims Printing Company, Inc, Phoenix, AZ.
Sigler, W.F., and R.R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah Department of Fish and Game, Salt Lake City, UT.
Tilmant, J.T. 1999. Management of nonindigenous aquatic fish in the U.S. National Park System. National Park Service. 50 pp.
Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado's Little Fish: a guide to the minnows and other lesser known fishes in the state of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO.
Other Resources:
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=644 6/7/2020 Redside Shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) - Species Profile Page 4 of 4
Author: Leo Nico, and Pam Fuller
Revision Date: 8/6/2004
Peer Review Date: 8/6/2004
Citation Information: Leo Nico, and Pam Fuller, 2020, Richardsonius balteatus (Richardson, 1836): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=644, Revision Date: 8/6/2004, Peer Review Date: 8/6/2004, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=644 6/7/2020 Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) - Species Profile Page 1 of 3
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Rhinichthys cataractae (Longnose Dace) Fishes Native Transplant
Noel M. Burkhead - U.S. Geological Survey Rhinichthys cataractae (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1842)
Common name: Longnose Dace
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Wydoski and Whitney (1979); Smith (1985); Hubbs et al. (1991); Page and Burr (1991); Jenkins and Burkhead (1994). In his type catalogue, Gilbert (1998) recognized three subspecies: R. c. cataractae, R. c. dulcis, and R. c. smithi; he noted that considerable work still needs to be done on the taxonomy of the species.
Size: 16 cm.
Native Range: Generally distributed above 40 N from coast to coast; occurs as far north as Arctic Circle in Mackenzie River drainage; south in Appalachian Mountains to northern Georgia and in Rocky Mountains south into Rio Grande drainage of Texas and northern Mexico (Page and Burr 1991).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=638 6/7/2020 Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) - Species Profile Page 2 of 3
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Rhinichthys cataractae are found here.
State Year of earliest Year of last Total HUCs with HUCs with observations† observation observation observations†
Colorado 1993 1993 1 Colorado Headwaters
Kentucky 1985 2000 1Upper Levisa
North 1999 2003 1 Lake Sakakawea Dakota
Utah 1951 1982 1 Strawberry
Virginia 1974 1994 2 Roanoke; Upper Roanoke
Blacks Fork; Upper Green; Upper Wyoming 1970 1995 4 Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper Green-Slate
Table last updated 9/30/2019
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=638 6/7/2020 Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) - Species Profile Page 3 of 3
† Populations may not be currently present.
Means of Introduction: Evidently a bait bucket release in Strawberry Reservoir in 1951 (Sigler and Miller 1963). Suspected bait bucket introduction in Wyoming (Baxter and Simon 1970) and in Kentucky (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994); possible bait bucket releases in other sites.
Status: Established in Colorado where it is abundant and widespread in the main-stem Colorado River and in transition zone riffles (Walker 1993); Tyus et al. (1982) listed it as rare in the upper Colorado River basin. An eradication program was carried out in Strawberry Reservoir, Utah (Sigler and Miller 1963), but the results of those efforts were unclear. Established an spreading in the upper Roanoke, Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Reported from Kentucky (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).
Impact of Introduction: Longnose Dace hybridize with native speckled dace R. osculus in areas where Longnose Dace have been introduced (Sigler and Miller 1963). This hybrid has been recorded from Utah in the Provo River in 1942 and from the Strawberry Reservoir in Wasatch County in 1951 (Sigler and Miller 1963). It has also been recorded from areas where both species are native, such as, the Bear River Wyoming, Little Wood River, Idaho and Ross Fork at Fort Hall, Idaho (Sigler and Miller 1963).
Remarks: This species is sometimes used as a baitfish (Baxter and Simon 1970; Scott and Crossman 1973). Tyus et al. (1982) gave a distribution map of the this species in the upper Colorado basin.
References:
Powers, S.L, and P.A. Ceas. 2000. Ichthyofauna and biogeography of Russell Fork (Big Sandy River - Ohio River). Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings. 41: 1-12.
Sigler, W.F., and R.R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah Department of Fish and Game, Salt Lake City, UT.
Other Resources: Author: Nico, L.
Revision Date: 8/6/2004
Peer Review Date: 8/6/2004
Citation Information: Nico, L., 2020, Rhinichthys cataractae (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1842): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx? speciesID=638, Revision Date: 8/6/2004, Peer Review Date: 8/6/2004, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=638 6/7/2020 Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus) - Species Profile Page 1 of 3
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Rhinichthys osculus (Speckled Dace) Fishes Native Transplant
William Roston; used with permission ( www.nanfa.org ) Rhinichthys osculus (Girard, 1856)
Common name: Speckled Dace
Synonyms and Other Names: western dace, spring dace, dusky dace, Pacific dace
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Moyle (1976a); Wydoski and Whitney (1979); Sublette et al. (1990); Page and Burr (1991); Bond (1994). It is considered a species complex; some subspecies are protected as endangered (Page and Burr 1991). Gilbert (1998) recognized 15 subspecies. One subspecies is R. o. nubilis from Washington and closely adjacent areas, sometimes reported as Rhinichthys nubilus (Miller 1952).
Size: 11 cm.
Native Range: Western drainages (Pacific and endorheic) from Columbia River, British Columbia, to Colorado River, Arizona and New Mexico, and south into Sonora, Mexico (Page and Burr 1991).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=640 6/7/2020 Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus) - Species Profile Page 2 of 3
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Rhinichthys osculus are found here.
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs with HUCs with observations† earliest observation observations† observation
Central Coastal; Cuyama; Death Valley-Lower Amargosa; Eureka-Saline Valleys; Lower Eel; California 1939 1993 10 Mono Lake; Sacramento Headwaters; Santa Clara; Santa Maria; Truckee
Nevada 1951 2005 2 Lake Mead; Long-Ruby Valleys
New 1975 1990 1Mimbres Mexico
Oregon 1994 1994 1Lower Rogue
Utah 1952 1952 1 San Rafael
Table last updated 9/30/2019
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=640 6/7/2020 Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus) - Species Profile Page 3 of 3
† Populations may not be currently present.
Means of Introduction: Several transplants into parts of California during 1939 and 1940 were considered experiments to test the effects of changed environment on meristic and morphometric characters (Miller 1968). This species was intentionally stocked by Nevada Fish and Game officials in Ruby Marsh-Ruby Lake complex as forage for introduced largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides; the first introduction, in 1950, involved R. osculus robustus from a headwater of the Humboldt River, and the second, in 1951, from nearby Diamond Valley, Eureka County (La Rivers 1962; Hubbs et al. 1974). Although La Rivers (1962) recognized that R. osculus robustus was native to the Truckee River system, he concluded that the high-altitude lake had no native fishes and that small fishes present in the lake had likely arrived as a result of being stocked along with trout. Introductions of this species in other areas were probably the result of bait bucket releases (e.g., Miller 1952; La Rivers 1962). For instance, Miller (1946) indicated that the presence of Rhinichthys osculus in the Santa Clara River system (California) was possibly the result of its introduction as bait by trout fishermen.
Status: Established in San Luis Obispo Creek and Webber Lake, California (Moyle 1976a), and in Ruby Marsh, Nevada (La Rivers 1962). Reported from New Mexico (Sublette et al. 1990). Fishes introduced into Willow Creek and the Old Borax Works of California failed to survive; however, the species was common at River Springs, California, in 1967, more than 25 years after its initial introduction (Miller 1968). Although Miller (1968) reported on its occurrence in the Santa Clara River system, California, Bell (1978) did not collect the species there.
Impact of Introduction: Unknown in introduced areas. Speckled Dace are known to hybridize with least chubs Iotichthys phlegethontis (Sigler and Sigler 1987), a species under review for federal listing, and therefore present a threat to this rare species.
Remarks: Widely used as a baitfish in certain parts of the western United States (Miller 1952; La Rivers 1962; Baxter and Simon 1970). Contrary to Moyle (1976a), Miller (1968) and Bell (1978) believed that R. osculus is native to San Luis Obispo Creek. They based that conclusion on Jordan (1894), who included this species under the name Agosia nubila in his early list of fishes found in San Luis Creek.
References:
Miller, R.R. 1952. Bait fishes of the lower Colorado River, from Lake Mead, Nevada, to Yuma, Arizona, with a key for identification. California Fish and Game. 38: 7-42.
Miller, R.R. and J.R. Alcorn. 1946. The introduced fishes of Nevada, with a history of their introduction. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 73: 173-193.
Sigler, W.F., and J.W. Sigler. 1987. Fishes of the Great Basin: a natural history. University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV.
Other Resources: Author: Leo Nico, and Pam Fuller
Revision Date: 4/21/2006
Peer Review Date: 4/21/2006
Citation Information: Leo Nico, and Pam Fuller, 2020, Rhinichthys osculus (Girard, 1856): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=640, Revision Date: 4/21/2006, Peer Review Date: 4/21/2006, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=640 6/7/2020 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - Species Profile Page 1 of 13
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Cyprinus carpio (Common Carp) Fishes Exotic
< Image 1 of 3 >
Kaitlin Kovacs, U.S. Geological Survey Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758
Common name: Common Carp
Synonyms and Other Names: European carp, German carp, mirror carp, leather carp
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Wheeler (1978); Becker (1983); Page and Burr (1991); Etnier and Starnes (1993); Jenkins and Burkhead (1994); Balon (1995). In Eurasia there are two poorly defined subspecies C. c. carpio and C. c. haematopterus; unfortunately, feral common carp, descendants of earlier escapees or introductions, have greatly confused the picture (Balon 1995). Several genetic strains—some bred in aquaculture or used as ornamentals (e.g., leather carp, mirror carp, Israeli carp, koi)—are recognized by some as separate varieties (Robison and Buchanan 1988; Balon 1995).
Size: 122 cm
Native Range: Eurasia (Page and Burr 1991; Balon 1995). Balon (1995) found that Cyprinus carpio evolved in the Caspian Sea, then migrated naturally to the Black and Aral Seas, east to eastern mainland Asia and west as far as the Danube River.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4 6/7/2020 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - Species Profile Page 2 of 13
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Cyprinus carpio are found here.
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations†
Alabama-Coosa; Apalachicola Basin; Bear; Black Warrior-Tombigbee; Cahaba; Chipola; Choctawhatchee; Coosa-Tallapoosa; Guntersville Lake; Lower Alabama; Lower Black Warrior; Lower Chattahoochee; Lower Choctawhatchee; Lower Conecuh; Lower Coosa; Lower Elk; Lower Tallapoosa; Lower Tombigbee; Luxapallila; Middle Alabama; Middle Chattahoochee-Lake Alabama 1964 2009 43 Harding; Middle Chattahoochee-Walter F; Middle Chattahoochee-Walter F George Reservoir; Middle Coosa; Middle Tallapoosa; Middle Tennessee-Elk; Middle Tombigbee-Chickasaw; Middle Tombigbee-Lubbub; Mississippi Coastal; Mobile Bay; Mobile-Tensaw; Mulberry; Noxubee; Pickwick Lake; Sipsey; Sipsey Fork; Sucarnoochee; Upper Alabama; Upper Black Warrior; Upper Choctawhatchee; Upper Coosa; Upper Tallapoosa; Wheeler Lake
Aqua Fria; Bill Williams; Canyon Diablo; Centennial Wash; Detrital Wash; Grand Canyon; Grand Wash; Hassayampa; Havasu-Mohave Lakes; Imperial Reservoir; Lake Mead; Lower Colorado; Lower Colorado Region; Lower Colorado-Lake Mead; Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon; Lower Gila; Lower Gila; Lower Gila-Agua Fria; Lower Gila-Painted Rock Reservoir; Lower Lake Arizona 1885 2013 37 Powell; Lower Little Colorado; Lower Salt; Lower San Pedro; Lower Santa Cruz; Lower Verde; Middle Gila; Middle Little Colorado; San Bernardino Valley; San Francisco; Upper Gila-San Carlos Reservoir; Upper Little Colorado; Upper Salt; Upper San Pedro; Upper Santa Cruz; Upper Verde; Whitewater Draw; Yuma Desert
Bayou Bartholomew; Bayou Macon; Bayou Meto; Beaver Reservoir; Big; Bodcau Bayou; Boeuf; Boeuf-Tensas; Buffalo; Bull Shoals Lake; Cache; Current; Dardanelle Reservoir; Fourche La Fave; Frog-Mulberry; Illinois; Lake Conway-Point Remove; L'Anguille; Little Missouri; Little Red; Little River Ditches; Lower Arkansas; Lower Arkansas-Maumelle; Lower Black; Lower Little Arkansas; Lower Mississippi; Lower Mississippi-Greenville; Lower Mississippi-Helena; Arkansas 1950 2017 58 Lower Mississippi-Memphis; Lower Ouachita; Lower Ouachita-Bayou De Loutre; Lower Ouachita -Smackover; Lower Saline; Lower St. Francis; Lower Sulpher; Lower White; Lower White; Lower White-Bayou Des Arc; McKinney-Posten Bayous; Middle White; Neosho; North Fork White; Ouachita Headwaters; Pecan-Waterhole; Petit Jean; Poteau; Red-Little; Red-Saline; Robert S. Kerr Reservoir; Spring; St. Francis; Strawberry; Upper Black; Upper Ouachita; Upper Ouachita; Upper Saline; Upper White; Upper White-Village
California Region; Cottonwood-Tijuana; Crowley Lake; Los Angeles; Lower Colorado; Lower Colorado; Lower Pit; Lower Sacramento; Lower Sacramento; Mad-Redwood; Middle San Joaquin-Lower Chowchilla; Mojave; Monterey Bay; Newport Bay; Owens Lake; Pajaro; Russian; Salinas; Salton Sea; San Antonio; San Diego; San Francisco Bay; San Francisco Bay; San California 1872 2012 46 Francisco Coastal South; San Jacinto; San Joaquin; San Joaquin Delta; San Pablo Bay; Santa Ana; Santa Clara; Santa Margarita; Santa Ynez; South Fork Kern; Suisun Bay; Tomales-Drake Bays; Truckee; Tulare Lake Bed; Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes; Upper Cache; Upper Carson; Upper Coon-Upper Auburn; Upper Deer-Upper White; Upper Sacramento; Upper Yuba; Ventura -San Gabriel Coastal; West Walker
Colorado 1879 2019 49 Alamosa-Trinchera; Arkansas-White-Red Region; Beaver; Beaver; Big Thompson; Cache La Poudre; Clear; Colorado Headwaters; Colorado Headwaters-Plateau; Crow; Gunnison; Horse; Huerfano; Little Snake; Lone Tree-Owl; Lower Green-Diamond; Lower Gunnison; Lower San
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4 6/7/2020 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - Species Profile Page 3 of 13
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Juan; Lower South Platte; Lower White; Lower Yampa; Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek; Middle South Platte-Sterling; Missouri Region; Pawnee; Piedra; Purgatoire; Republican; Rio Grande; Rio Grande Headwaters; Rush; San Luis; South Fork Republican; South Platte; South Platte Headwaters; St. Vrain; Two Butte; Upper Arkansas; Upper Arkansas-John Martin Reservoir; Upper Arkansas-Lake Meredith; Upper Cimarron; Upper Colorado; Upper Dolores; Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper Gunnison; Upper San Juan; Upper South Platte; Upper White; White - Yampa
Connecticut 1940 1995 6 Connecticut Coastal; Housatonic; Lower Connecticut; New England Region; Saugatuck; Thames
Brandywine-Christina; Broadkill-Smyrna; Chincoteague; Choptank; Delaware Bay; Lower Delaware 1879 2007 7 Delaware; Upper Chesapeake
District of 1999 1999 1 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan Columbia
Apalachee Bay-St. Marks; Apalachicola; Apalachicola Bay; Chipola; Choctawhatchee Bay; Escambia; Everglades; Florida Southeast Coast; Lake Okeechobee; Lower Chattahoochee; Florida 1890 2019 21 Lower Choctawhatchee; Lower Ochlockonee; Northern Okeechobee Inflow; Oklawaha; Pensacola Bay; Perdido Bay; Santa Fe; South Atlantic-Gulf Region; St. Marys; Upper St. Johns; Western Okeechobee Inflow
Altamaha; Altamaha; Apalachicola Basin; Broad; Conasauga; Coosawattee; Etowah; Hiwassee; Little; Lower Chattahoochee; Lower Flint; Lower Ocmulgee; Lower Oconee; Middle Chattahoochee-Lake Harding; Middle Chattahoochee-Walter F; Middle Flint; Middle Savannah; Georgia 1923 2019 31 Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga; Ocoee; Ogeechee Coastal; Oostanaula; Satilla; Savannah; Tugaloo; Upper Chattahoochee; Upper Coosa; Upper Flint; Upper Ocmulgee; Upper Oconee; Upper Savannah; Upper Tallapoosa
Guam 2004 2010 1Guam
Hawaii 1870 2005 6 Hawaii; Kauai; Lanai; Maui; Molokai; Oahu
American Falls; Bear Lake; Brownlee Reservoir; C.J. Strike Reservoir; Lower Bear; Middle Idaho 1882 2005 10 Snake-Payette; Middle Snake-Succor; Pacific Northwest Region; Palouse; Upper Snake-Rock
Apple-Plum; Bear-Wyaconda; Big Muddy; Cache; Cahokia-Joachim; Chicago; Copperas-Duck; Des Plaines; Embarras; Flint-Henderson; Green; Iroquois; Kankakee; Kaskaskia; Kishwaukee; La Moine; Lake Michigan; Little Calumet-Galien; Little Wabash; Lower Fox; Lower Illinois; Lower Illinois; Lower Illinois-Lake Chautauqua; Lower Illinois-Senachwine Lake; Lower Kaskaskia; Lower Ohio; Lower Ohio; Lower Ohio-Bay; Lower Rock; Lower Sangamon; Lower Illinois 1894 2018 59 Wabash; Mackinaw; Macoupin; Middle Kaskaskia; Middle Rock; Middle Wabash-Busseron; Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion; Pecatonica; Peruque-Piasa; Pike-Root; Rock; Saline; Salt; Shoal; Skillet; South Fork Sangamon; Spoon; The Sny; Upper Fox; Upper Illinois; Upper Kaskaskia; Upper Mississippi Region; Upper Mississippi-Cape Girardeau; Upper Mississippi- Meramec; Upper Mississippi-Skunk-Wapsipinicon; Upper Sangamon; Vermilion; Vermilion; Wabash
Blue-Sinking; Driftwood; Eel; Kankakee; Little Calumet-Galien; Lower East Fork White; Lower Wabash; Middle Ohio-Laughery; Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion; Mississinewa; Muscatatuck; Indiana 1894 2014 23 Ohio Region; Patoka; Salamonie; St. Joseph; St. Joseph; Sugar; Tippecanoe; Upper Wabash; Upper White; Vermilion; Wabash; Whitewater
Apple-Plum; Big Papillion-Mosquito; Blackbird-Soldier; Boone; Boyer; Coon-Yellow; Copperas- Duck; Des Moines; East Fork Des Moines; East Nishnabotna; Flint-Henderson; Floyd; Grant- Little Maquoketa; Iowa; Keg-Weeping Water; Lake Red Rock; Little Sioux; Lower Big Sioux; Lower Cedar; Lower Des Moines; Lower Iowa; Lower Wapsipinicon; Maple; Maquoketa; Middle Iowa 1900 2018 49 Cedar; Middle Des Moines; Middle Iowa; Missouri-Little Sioux; Monona-Harrison Ditch; Nishnabotna; North Raccoon; North Skunk; One Hundred and Two; Rock; Skunk; South Raccoon; South Skunk; Thompson; Turkey; Upper Cedar; Upper Chariton; Upper Des Moines; Upper Grand; Upper Iowa; Upper Wapsipinicon; West Fork Cedar; West Nishnabotna; West Nodaway; Winnebago
Arkansas-Keystone; Big Blue; Big Nemaha; Chikaskia; Gar-Peace; Independence-Sugar; Kansas; Lower Big Blue; Lower Cottonwood; Lower Kansas; Lower Marais Des Cygnes; Lower Republican; Lower Sappa; Medicine Lodge; Middle Arkansas; Middle Arkansas-Slate; Middle Kansas 1880 2019 37 Kansas; Middle Republican; Middle Smoky Hill; Missouri-Nishnabotna; Neosho; Osage; Pawnee; Prairie Dog; Republican; Smoky Hill; South Fork Republican; Spring; Tarkio-Wolf; Upper Arkansas-John Martin Reservoir; Upper Cimarron; Upper Cimarron; Upper Cimarron- Bluff; Upper Cimarron-Liberal; Upper Kansas; Upper Walnut River; Verdigris
Barren; Bayou De Chien-Mayfield; Big Sandy; Kentucky Lake; Licking; Little Scioto-Tygarts; Lower Kentucky; Lower Ohio; Lower Ohio-Bay; Lower Tennessee; Middle Green; Middle Ohio- Kentucky 1942 2018 25 Laughery; Ohio Brush-Whiteoak; Pond; Red; Rockcastle; Rolling Fork; Rough; Salt; Silver- Little Kentucky; South Fork Licking; Tradewater; Upper Cumberland; Upper Green; Upper Levisa
Atchafalaya; Bayou Sara-Thompson; Bayou Teche; Bodcau Bayou; Boeuf; Calcasieu- Mermentau; East Central Louisiana Coastal; Lake Maurepas; Liberty Bayou-Tchefuncta; Lower Louisiana 1955 2010 19 Grand; Lower Mississippi-Baton Rouge; Lower Mississippi-New Orleans; Lower Ouachita; Mermentau; Mermentau Headwaters; Sabine; Tensas; West Central Louisiana Coastal; West Fork Calcasieu
Maine 1880 2003 3 Lower Kennebec; New England Region; St. George-Sheepscot
Chester-Sassafras; Choptank; Conococheague-Opequon; Gunpowder-Patapsco; Lower Potomac; Lower Susquehanna; Mid Atlantic Region; Mid-Atlantic; Middle Potomac-Anacostia- Maryland 1874 2010 20 Occoquan; Middle Potomac-Catoctin; Monocacy; Nanticoke; North Branch Potomac; Patuxent; Pokomoke-Western Lower Delmarva; Potomac; Tangier; Upper Chesapeake; Upper Chesapeake Bay; Youghiogheny
Massachusetts 1980 2005 6 Charles; Chicopee; Concord; Merrimack; Middle Connecticut; New England Region
Michigan 1880 2017 46 Au Gres-Rifle; Au Sable; Betsie-Platte; Birch-Willow; Black-Macatawa; Boardman-Charlevoix; Brevoort-Millecoquins; Cass; Cheboygan; Clinton; Detroit; Fishdam-Sturgeon; Flint; Great
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4 6/7/2020 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - Species Profile Page 4 of 13
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Lakes Region; Huron; Kalamazoo; Kawkawlin-Pine; Keweenaw Peninsula; Lake Erie; Lake Huron; Lake Michigan; Lake St. Clair; Lone Lake-Ocqueoc; Lower Grand; Manistee; Maple; Menominee; Muskegon; Ottawa-Stony; Pere Marquette-White; Pigeon-Wiscoggin; Pine; Raisin; Saginaw; Shiawassee; St. Clair; St. Joseph; St. Joseph; St. Marys; Sturgeon; Tacoosh- Whitefish; Thornapple; Thunder Bay; Tiffin; Tittabawassee; Upper Grand
Blue Earth; Bois De Sioux; Buffalo; Buffalo-Whitewater; Cannon; Chippewa; Clearwater; Clearwater-Elk; Coon-Yellow; Cottonwood; Crow; Crow Wing; Des Moines Headwaters; East Fork Des Moines; Eastern Wild Rice; Elk-Nokasippi; Hawk-Yellow Medicine; Kettle; La Crosse- Pine; Lac Qui Parle; Lake of the Woods; Lake Superior; Le Sueur; Leech Lake; Little Fork; Little Sioux; Long Prairie; Lower Big Sioux; Lower Minnesota; Lower Rainy; Lower Red; Lower St. Croix; Middle Minnesota; Minnesota; Mississippi Headwaters; Mustinka; Otter Tail; Pine; Platte- Minnesota 1833 2016 75 Spunk; Pomme De Terre; Prairie-Willow; Rainy Headwaters; Rainy Lake; Rapid; Red; Red Lake; Redeye; Redwood; Rock; Root; Roseau; Rum; Rush-Vermillion; Sandhill-Wilson; Sauk; Shell Rock; Snake; Snake; South Fork Crow; St. Croix; St. Louis; Thief; Twin Cities; Two Rivers; Upper Cedar; Upper Iowa; Upper Minnesota; Upper Mississippi-Black-Root; Upper Mississippi-Crow-Rum; Upper Red; Upper St. Croix; Vermilion; Watonwan; Winnebago; Zumbro
Bayou Pierre; Bear; Big Sunflower; BigBlack - Homochitto; Black Warrior-Tombigbee; Bogue Chitto; Chunky-Okatibbee; Coldwater; Coles Creek; Deer-Steele; Little Tallahatchie; Lower Big Black; Lower Chickasawhay; Lower Mississippi-Greenville; Lower Mississippi-Helena; Lower Mississippi 1902 2004 33 Mississippi-Memphis; Lower Mississippi-Natchez; Lower Pearl; Lower Yazoo; Middle Pearl- Strong; Middle Tombigbee-Lubbub; Noxubee; Pickwick Lake; Tallahatchie; Town; Upper Big Black; Upper Hatchie; Upper Leaf; Upper Pearl; Upper Tombigbee; Upper Yazoo; Yalobusha; Yazoo
Bear-Wyaconda; Big; Big Piney; Blackwater; Bourbeuse; Bull Shoals Lake; Cahokia-Joachim; Cuivre; Current; Eleven Point; Elk; Gasconade; Grand; Harry S. Truman Reservoir; Independence-Sugar; James; Keg-Weeping Water; Lake of the Ozarks; Lamine; Little Chariton; Little Osage; Little River Ditches; Lower Chariton; Lower Des Moines; Lower Gasconade; Lower Grand; Lower Marais Des Cygnes; Lower Missouri; Lower Missouri- Missouri 1879 2016 61 Blackwater; Lower Missouri-Crooked; Lower Missouri-Moreau; Lower Osage; Lower St. Francis; Marmaton; Meramec; Missouri-Nishnabotna; New Madrid-St. Johns; Niangua; Nodaway; North Fabius; North Fork White; Peruque-Piasa; Platte; Sac; Salt; South Fabius; South Fork Salt; South Grand; Spring; St. Francis; Tarkio-Wolf; The Sny; Thompson; Upper Black; Upper Chariton; Upper Gasconade; Upper Grand; Upper Mississippi-Cape Girardeau; Upper Mississippi -Salt; Upper St. Francis; Whitewater
Arrow; Battle; Beaver; Beaver; Beaverhead; Big Dry; Big Muddy; Bitterroot; Box Elder; Boxelder; Bullwhacker-Dog; Charlie-Little Muddy; Clarks Fork Yellowstone; Fisher; Flatwillow; Fort Peck Reservoir; Frenchman; Judith; Little Bighorn; Little Dry; Little Powder; Lodge; Lower Bighorn; Lower Milk; Lower Musselshell; Lower Powder; Lower Tongue; Lower Yellowstone; Lower Yellowstone; Lower Yellowstone-Sunday; Marias; Marias; Middle Clark Fork; Middle Milk; Montana 1876 2010 66 Middle Musselshell; Middle Powder; Milk; Missouri-Poplar; Mizpah; Musselshell; O'Fallon; Peoples; Poplar; Porcupine; Powder; Prairie Elk-Wolf; Pryor; Redwater; Rock; Rosebud; Sun; Teton; Tongue; Upper Clark Fork; Upper Little Missouri; Upper Missouri; Upper Missouri; Upper Missouri-Dearborn; Upper Musselshell; Upper Tongue; Upper Yellowstone; Upper Yellowstone- Lake Basin; Upper Yellowstone-Pompeys Pillar; West Fork Poplar; Whitewater; Willow
Beaver; Big Nemaha; Big Papillion-Mosquito; Blackbird-Soldier; Calamus; Cedar; Dismal; Elkhorn; Frenchman; Harlan County Reservoir; Horse; Keg-Weeping Water; Keya Paha; Lewis and Clark Lake; Little Nemaha; Logan; Loup; Loup; Lower Big Blue; Lower Elkhorn; Lower Little Blue; Lower Lodgepole; Lower Middle Loup; Lower Niobrara; Lower North Loup; Lower North Platte; Lower Platte; Lower Platte-Shell; Lower Sappa; Lower South Platte; Medicine; Nebraska 1901 2018 65 Middle Big Blue; Middle Niobrara; Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff; Middle Platte-Buffalo; Middle Platte-Prairie; Middle Republican; Missouri Region; Mud; Nishnabotna; North Fork Elkhorn; North Fork Republican; Ponca; Prairie Dog; Pumpkin; Red Willow; Republican; Salt; Snake; South Fork Big Nemaha; South Fork Republican; South Loup; Stinking Water; Tarkio-Wolf; Turkey; Upper Big Blue; Upper Elkhorn; Upper Little Blue; Upper Middle Loup; Upper Niobrara; Upper North Loup; Upper Republican; Upper White; West Fork Big Blue; Wood
Black Rock Desert-Humboldt; Carson Desert; Central Lahontan; Diamond-Monitor Valleys; Great Basin Region; Havasu-Mohave Lakes; Hot Creek-Railroad Valleys; Imperial Reservoir; Nevada 1833 2020 23 Lake Mead; Lower Humboldt; Lower Virgin; Meadow Valley Wash; Middle Humboldt; Muddy; North Fork Humboldt; Pacific Northwest; Pilot-Thousand Springs; Pyramid-Winnemucca Lakes; Truckee; Upper Carson; Walker Lake; West Walker; White
New 1880 2007 3 Black-Ottauquechee; Merrimack River; West Hampshire
Cohansey-Maurice; Crosswicks-Neshaminy; Great Egg Harbor; Hackensack-Passaic; Lower New Jersey 1890 2019 13 Delaware; Lower Hudson; Mid-Atlantic Region; Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead; Middle Delaware-Musconetcong; Mullica-Toms; Raritan; Rondout; Sandy Hook-Staten Island
Animas; Caballo; Chaco; Conchas; El Paso-Las Cruces; Elephant Butte Reservoir; Landreth- Monument Draws; Lower Pecos; Middle San Juan; Pecos Headwaters; Revuelto; Rio Chama; Rio Grande-Albuquerque; Rio Grande-Santa Fe; Rio San Jose; San Francisco; Upper Canadian; New Mexico 1964 2015 28 Upper Canadian; Upper Canadian-Ute Reservoir; Upper Gila; Upper Gila-Mangas; Upper Pecos; Upper Pecos; Upper Pecos-Black; Upper Pecos-Long Arroyo; Upper Rio Grande; Upper San Juan; Upper San Juan
Black; Bronx; Buffalo-Eighteenmile; Chateaugay-English; Chaumont-Perch; Chemung; Chenango; Conewango; Eastern Lake Erie; Grass; Hackensack-Passaic; Headwaters St. Lawrence River; Hudson-Hoosic; Hudson-Wappinger; Indian; Irondequoit-Ninemile; Lake Champlain; Lake Erie; Lake Ontario; Lower Genesee; Lower Hudson; Mettawee River; Middle New York 1830 2015 48 Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead; Middle Hudson; Mohawk; Niagara; Northern Long Island; Oak Orchard-Twelvemile; Oneida; Oswegatchie; Oswego; Owego-Wappasening; Raisin River-St. Lawrence River; Raquette; Rondout; Salmon; Salmon-Sandy; Sandy Hook-Staten Island; Schoharie; Seneca; Southern Long Island; Southwestern Lake Ontario; St. Regis; Tioga; Upper Allegheny; Upper Delaware; Upper Genesee; Upper Susquehanna
North Carolina 1940 2019 29
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4 6/7/2020 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - Species Profile Page 5 of 13
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Albemarle; Contentnea; Deep; Haw; Hiwassee; Lower Neuse; Lower Tar; Lower Yadkin; Lumber; Middle Neuse; Pamlico; Pamlico Sound; Pigeon; Roanoke; Roanoke Rapids; Santee; Seneca; South Fork Catawba; South Yadkin; Upper Broad; Upper Catawba; Upper Dan; Upper French Broad; Upper Little Tennessee; Upper Neuse; Upper New; Upper Yadkin; Waccamaw; Watauga
Cedar; Elm-Marsh; Forest; Goose; Grand Marais-Red; James Headwaters; Knife; Lake North Dakota 1929 2005 19 Sakakawea; Lower Pembina River; Lower Sheyenne; Maple; Painted Woods-Square Butte; Park; Red; Sandhill-Wilson; Turtle; Upper Heart; Upper Lake Oahe; Western Wild Rice
Ashtabula-Chagrin; Auglaize; Blanchard; Cedar-Portage; Chautauqua-Conneaut; Cuyahoga; Hocking; Lake Erie; Licking; Little Miami; Little Muskingum-Middle Island; Little Scioto-Tygarts; Lower Great Miami; Lower Maumee; Lower Scioto; Mohican; Muskingum; Muskingum; Ohio Ohio 1879 2019 37 Brush-Whiteoak; Paint; Raccoon-Symmes; Sandusky; Shenango; Southern Lake Erie; St. Joseph; Tuscarawas; Upper Great Miami; Upper Maumee; Upper Ohio; Upper Ohio-Beaver; Upper Ohio-Little Kanawha; Upper Ohio-Wheeling; Upper Scioto; Wabash; Walhonding; Western Lake Erie; Whitewater
Arkansas-White-Red Region; Bird; Black Bear-Red Rock; Blue-China; Bois D'arc-Island; Caney; Chikaskia; Cimarron Headwaters; Coldwater; Deep Fork; Dirty-Greenleaf; Elk; Elm Fork Red; Farmers-Mud; Groesbeck-Sandy; Illinois; Kiamichi; Lake O' The Cherokees; Lake Texoma; Little; Lower Beaver; Lower Canadian; Lower Canadian-Deer; Lower Canadian-Walnut; Lower Cimarron; Lower Cimarron-Eagle Chief; Lower Cimarron-Skeleton; Lower Neosho; Lower North Oklahoma 1882 2019 55 Canadian; Lower North Canadian; Lower North Fork Red; Lower Salt Fork Arkansas; Lower Salt Fork Red; Lower Verdigris; Lower Washita; Lower Wolf; Medicine Lodge; Middle Beaver; Middle North Canadian; Middle North Fork Red; Middle Verdigris; Middle Washita; Palo Duro; Pecan- Waterhole; Polecat-Snake; Poteau; Robert S. Kerr Reservoir; Spring; Upper Cimarron; Upper Cimarron; Upper Cimarron-Bluff; Upper Cimarron-Liberal; Upper Salt Fork Arkansas; Upper Washita; Washita
Brownlee Reservoir; Clackamas; Donner und Blitzen; Lower Columbia; Lower Columbia- Clatskanie; Lower Columbia-Sandy; Lower Malheur; Lower Willamette; Middle Columbia; Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Middle Snake-Payette; Middle Snake- Oregon 1880 2007 24 Succor; Middle Willamette; Oregon closed basins; Pacific Northwest; Pacific Northwest Region; Powder; South Santiam; Umatilla; Upper Grande Ronde; Upper Malheur; Upper Willamette; Willamette
Bald Eagle; Beaver; Brandywine-Christina; Chautauqua-Conneaut; Cheat; Chemung; Chenango; Chester-Sassafras; Clarion; Conemaugh; Conewango; Connoquenessing; Conococheague-Opequon; Crosswicks-Neshaminy; French; Kiskiminetas; Lackawaxen; Lake Erie; Lehigh; Lower Allegheny; Lower Delaware; Lower Juniata; Lower Monongahela; Lower Susquehanna; Lower Susquehanna; Lower Susquehanna-Penns; Lower Susquehanna-Swatara; Lower West Branch Susquehanna; Mahoning; Middle Allegheny-Redbank; Middle Allegheny- Pennsylvania 1958 2014 55 Tionesta; Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead; Middle Delaware-Musconetcong; Middle West Branch Susquehanna; North Branch Potomac; Owego-Wappasening; Pine; Raystown; Schuylkill; Shenango; Sinnemahoning; Susquehanna; Tioga; Upper Allegheny; Upper Delaware; Upper Juniata; Upper Monongahela; Upper Ohio; Upper Ohio-Wheeling; Upper Susquehanna; Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna; Upper Susquehanna-Tunkhannock; Upper West Branch Susquehanna; West Branch Susquehanna; Youghiogheny
Puerto Rico 2005 2007 3 Cibuco-Guajataca; Eastern Puerto Rico; Southern Puerto Rico
Rhode Island 1980 1992 3 Massachusetts-Rhode Island Coastal; Narragansett; New England Region
Black; Broad-St. Helena; Calibogue Sound-Wright River; Carolina Coastal-Sampit; Coastal Carolina; Congaree; Cooper; Edisto River; Enoree; Lake Marion; Lower Broad; Lower Catawba; South Carolina 1923 2019 30 Lower Pee Dee; Lower Savannah; Lumber; Lynches; Middle Savannah; Salkehatchie; Saluda; Santee; Santee; Seneca; South Fork Edisto; Tugaloo; Tyger; Upper Broad; Upper Catawba; Upper Savannah; Waccamaw; Wateree
Big Sioux; Bois De Sioux; Boxelder; Cheyenne; Crow; Fort Randall Reservoir; Keya Paha; Lac Qui Parle; Lake Thompson; Lewis and Clark Lake; Little White; Lower Belle Fourche; Lower Big South Dakota 1909 2009 28 Sioux; Lower James; Medicine Knoll; Middle Big Sioux; Middle James; Missouri Region; Ponca; Redwater; Snake; Turtle; Upper Big Sioux; Upper James; Upper Lake Oahe; Upper Little Missouri; Upper Minnesota; Vermillion
Buffalo; Caney; Conasauga; Emory; Forked Deer; French Broad-Holston; Harpeth; Hiwassee; Holston; Horn Lake-Nonconnah; Kentucky Lake; Loosahatchie; Lower Clinch; Lower Cumberland; Lower Cumberland; Lower Cumberland-Old Hickory Lake; Lower Cumberland- Sycamore; Lower Duck; Lower French Broad; Lower Hatchie; Lower Little Tennessee; Lower Tennessee 1939 2018 48 Mississippi-Memphis; Lower Tennessee-Beech; Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga; Middle Tennessee-Hiwassee; Nolichucky; North Fork Holston; Obey; Obion; Pickwick Lake; Pigeon; Powell; Red; South Fork Cumberland; South Fork Forked Deer; South Fork Holston; South Fork Obion; Stones; Upper Clinch; Upper Cumberland; Upper Duck; Upper Elk; Upper French Broad; Upper Hatchie; Upper Tennessee; Watauga; Watts Bar Lake; Wolf
Amistad Reservoir; Austin-Oyster; Austin-Travis Lakes; Big Cypress-Sulphur; Blue-China; Bois D'arc-Island; Brady; Buchanan-Lyndon B. Johnson Lakes; Buffalo-San Jacinto; Cedar; Colorado Headwaters; Denton; East Galveston Bay; East San Antonio Bay; El Paso-Las Cruces; Elm Fork Trinity; Elm-Sycamore; Farmers-Mud; Groesbeck-Sandy; Guadalupe; Hubbard; Jim Ned; Lake Fork; Lake Meredith; Lake O' the Pines; Lake O'the Pines; Lake Texoma; Leon; Little Wichita; Llano; Lower Angelina; Lower Brazos-Little Brazos; Lower Colorado-Cummins; Lower Frio; Lower Nueces; Lower Pecos-Red Bluff Reservoir; Lower Rio Grande; Lower Sulpher; Lower Trinity; Lower Trinity-Kickapoo; Lower West Fork Trinity; Medina; Middle Brazos-Lake Whitney; Texas 1880 2018 87 Middle Brazos-Millers; Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto; Middle Colorado; Middle Colorado-Concho; Middle Colorado-Elm; Middle Guadalupe; Middle Nueces; Middle Sabine; Navasota; North Concho; North Fork Double Mountain Fork Brazos; North Fork Red; Nueces; Palo Duro; Pecan- Waterhole; Pedernales; Richland; Rio Grande-Amistad; Rio Grande-Falcon; Rio Grande-Fort Quitman; Sabine; San Ambrosia-Santa Isabel; San Antonio; San Bernard; San Marcos; San Saba; South Concho; South Corpus Christi Bay; South Laguna Madre; Toyah; Tule; Upper Clear Fork Brazos; Upper Colorado; Upper Guadalupe; Upper Neches; Upper Salt Fork Red; Upper Trinity; Upper West Fork Trinity; West Fork San Jacinto; West Galveston Bay; White; White Oak Bayou; Wichita; Yegua
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4 6/7/2020 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - Species Profile Page 6 of 13
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Utah 1881 2015 20 Bear Lake; Dirty Devil; Duchesne; Great Salt Lake; Jordan; Lower Green; Lower Green- Desolation Canyon; Lower Green-Diamond; Lower Lake Powell; Lower San Juan; Lower White; McElmo; Price; Provo; San Rafael; Strawberry; Upper Colorado-Kane Springs; Upper Green- Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper Lake Powell; Utah Lake
Vermont 1833 1984 3 Missiquoi River; Richelieu; Richelieu River
Albemarle; Appomattox; Banister; Big Sandy; Blackwater; Chowan; Conococheague-Opequon; Hampton Roads; James; Lower Chesapeake Bay; Lower Dan; Lower James; Lower Potomac; Lynnhaven-Poquoson; Maury; Meherrin; Middle James-Buffalo; Middle James-Willis; Middle New; Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan; Middle Potomac-Catoctin; Middle Roanoke; North Virginia 1974 2010 41 Fork Holston; North Fork Shenandoah; Pamunkey; Potomac; Rapidan-Upper Rappahannock; Rivanna; Roanoke; Roanoke Rapids; Shenandoah; South Fork Holston; South Fork Shenandoah; Upper Clinch; Upper Dan; Upper James; Upper Levisa; Upper New; Upper Roanoke; Upper Tennessee; York
Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake; Lake Washington; Lower Columbia-Clatskanie; Lower Columbia- Sandy; Lower Crab; Lower Snake-Tucannon; Lower Spokane; Lower Yakima; Middle Columbia- Washington 1881 2017 23 Hood; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Pacific Northwest Region; Palouse; Pend Oreille; Puget Sound; Puget Sound; Similkameen; Upper Chehalis; Upper Columbia-Entiat; Upper Columbia- Priest Rapids; Upper Crab; Upper Spokane; Walla Walla; Yakima
Big Sandy; Cacapon-Town; Conococheague-Opequon; Kanawha; Little Kanawha; Little Muskingum-Middle Island; Lower Guyandotte; Middle New; Monongahela; Potomac; South West Virginia 1933 2010 18 Branch Potomac; Tug; Upper Guyandotte; Upper Kanawha; Upper Monongahela; Upper Ohio; Upper Ohio-Shade; Upper Ohio-Wheeling
Apple-Plum; Baraboo; Beartrap-Nemadji; Black; Black-Presque Isle; Brule; Buffalo- Whitewater; Castle Rock; Coon-Yellow; Des Plaines; Door-Kewaunee; Duck-Pensaukee; Eau Claire; Flambeau; Grant-Little Maquoketa; Jump; Kickapoo; La Crosse-Pine; Lake Dubay; Lake Michigan; Lake Superior; Lake Winnebago; Lower Chippewa; Lower Fox; Lower St. Croix; Wisconsin 1900 2016 47 Lower Wisconsin; Manitowoc-Sheboygan; Menominee; Middle Rock; Milwaukee; Namekagon; Oconto; Pecatonica; Peshtigo; Pike-Root; Red Cedar; Rush-Vermillion; St. Louis; Sugar; Trempealeau; Upper Chippewa; Upper Fox; Upper Fox; Upper Rock; Upper St. Croix; Upper Wisconsin; Wolf
Big Horn; Big Horn Lake; Bitter; Cheyenne; Clarks Fork Yellowstone; Clear; Crazy Woman; Crow; Dry; Glendo Reservoir; Great Divide Closed Basin; Greybull; Horse; Little Powder; Little Wind; Lower Laramie; Lower Wind; Medicine Bow; Middle North Platte-Casper; Middle North Wyoming 1970 2013 40 Platte-Scotts Bluff; Middle Powder; North Fork Shoshone; North Platte; Nowood; Pathfinder- Seminoe Reservoirs; Shoshone; South Fork Shoshone; South Platte; Upper Bear; Upper Belle Fourche; Upper Bighorn; Upper Green; Upper Green; Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper Green-Slate; Upper Laramie; Upper Powder; Upper Tongue; Upper Wind; White - Yampa
Table last updated 6/2/2020
† Populations may not be currently present.
Ecology: The species generally inhabits lakes, ponds, and the lower sections of rivers (usually with moderately flowing or standing water), but is also known from brackish-water estuaries, backwaters, and bays (Barus et al. 2001). In its native range, the species occurs in coastal areas of the Caspian and Aral Seas (Berg 1964; Barus et al., 2001) as well as the estuaries of large Ukrainian and Russian rivers. Crivelli (1981) reported that the common carp occurred in brackish-water marshes with salinities up to 14 ppt in southern France. In North America, the common carp inhabits brackish and saline coastal waters of several states bordering the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and Gulf of Mexico (Schwartz 1964; Moyle 2002) as well as the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada (McCrimmon 1968). It has been captured in U.S. waters with salinities as high as 17.6 ppt (Schwartz 1964). In the U.S., the common carp is more abundant in manmade impoundments, lakes, and turbid sluggish streams receiving sewage or agricultural runoff, and less abundant in clear waters or streams with a high gradient (Pflieger 1975; Trautman 1981; Ross 2001; Boschung and Mayden 2004). Pflieger (1975) noted that the common carp tends to concentrate in large numbers where cannery or slaughter-house wastes are emptied into streams.
Larval common carp feeds primarily on zooplankton. In its native range, juveniles and adults feed on benthic organisms (e.g., chironomids, gastropods and other larval insects), vegetation, detritus and plankton (e.g., cladocerans, copepods, amphipods, mysids). Feeding habits are similar in the U.S., where the diet is composed of organic detritus (primarily of plant origin), chironomids, small crustaceans, and gastropods (Summerfelt et al. 1971; Eder and Carlson 1977; Panek 1987). The common carp have shown to be an important seed dispersal vector for aquatic plants (VonBank 2018). The common carp is very active when feeding and its movements often disturb sediments and increase turbidity, causing serious problems in some regions especially where the species is abundant. The species also retards the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation by feeding on and uprooting plants (King and Hunt 1967). Silt resuspension and uprooting of aquatic plants caused by feeding activities can disturb spawning and nursery areas of native fishes (Ross 2001) as well as disrupt feeding of sight-oriented predators, such as bass and sunfish (Panek 1987).
Means of Introduction: There is some question as to when and where common carp was first introduced into the United States. DeKay (1842) reported that the species was first brought into the United States from France by Henry Robinson of Orange County, New York in 1831 and 1832. In a letter to DeKay, Robinson detailed that he kept the fish in ponds and for several years released one to two dozen carp during the spring in the Hudson River near his residence, thereby creating a commercial fishery for the species. S. F. Baird of the U.S. Fish Commission examined fish taken from the Hudson River, as well as area fish then being sold on the New York markets, and reported that they were goldfish or goldfish hybrids and not true common carp (Redding 1884; Cole 1905). Whitworth (1996) cited early literature indicating common carp had been introduced into Connecticut as early as the 1840s; however, we question the positive identity of the species. Smith (1896) reported that common carp first appeared in the United States in 1872 when J. A. Poppe of Sonoma, California, imported five specimens from Germany and propagated them in private ponds for commercial purposes, mainly distributing them to applicants as a food fish (Smith 1896; Lampman 1946). In 1877, the U.S. Fish Commission imported common carp from Germany and for the next two decades the agency began stocking and distributing the species as food fish throughout much of the United States and its territories (Smiley 1886; Smith 1896; Cole 1905). State fish commissions also were commonly involved in distributing the species (e.g., Johnson and Becker 1980). Records from the early 1880s indicate that common carp stocked in farm ponds frequently escaped into open waters as a result of dam breaks or flood events (Smiley 1886). By 1885, the U.S. Fish Commission was actively stocking lakes and rivers throughout the country, often the fish were released from railroad tank cars at bridge crossing directly into streams (e.g., McDonald 1886). As a result of subsequent population growth and dispersal, common carp spread even further. More recently introductions of common carp have resulted because of the use of juvenile carp as bait fish (e.g., Swift et al. 1977). Various unusual genetic strains of common carp have been introduced into open waters the United States. In addition to the normal scaled carp, the U.S. Fish Commission distributed both mirror carp and leather carp varieties in the late 1800s (Smiley 1886; Cole 1905). Colorful varieties of common carp (i.e., nishikigoi or koi) are kept as pets in garden ponds and some have been introduced to ponds and public water bodies (Balon 1995). However, only a small percentage of common carp records in U.S. open waters are based on koi. Another cultured variety occasionally found in open waters is the Israeli carp (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Their presence in South Florida is believed to be the result of released bait with this species as a contaminant.
Status: Recorded from all states except Alaska. In their summary table, Bailey and Smith (1981) indicated that Cyprinus carpio is widely distributed in the Great Lakes basin.
Carp is only established in the Florida panhandle. It does not appear to be established in South Florida.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4 6/7/2020 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - Species Profile Page 7 of 13
Impact of Introduction: The common carp is regarded as a pest fish because of its widespread abundance and because of its tendency to destroy vegetation and increase water turbidity by dislodging plants and rooting around in the substrate, causing a deterioration of habitat for species requiring vegetation and clean water (Cole 1905; Cahoon 1953; Bellrichard 1996; Laird and Page 1996). Available literature indicates common carp may destroy aquatic macrophytes directly by uprooting or consuming the plants, or indirectly by increasing turbidity and thereby reducing light for photosynthesis. Bellrichard (1996) found that alterations in macrophyte biomass are due more to direct effects of common carp. In their review of the literature, Richardson et al. (1995) concluded that common carp has had noted adverse effects on biological systems including destruction of vegetated breeding habitats used by both fish and birds, and an increase in turbidity. It stirs up the bottom during feeding, resulting in increased siltation and turbidity (Lee et al. 1980 et seq.). This feeding behavior also destroys rooted aquatic plants that provide habitat for native fish species and food for waterfowl (Dentler 1993). Bonneau and Scarnecchia (2015) found that carp eradication and exclusion from reservoir tributaries allowed for increased benthic invertebrate community diversity and abundance, and the return of submerged aquatic vegetation.
There is also evidence that common carp prey on the eggs of other fish species (Moyle 1976; Taylor et al. 1984; Miller and Beckman 1996). For this reason, it may be responsible for the decline of the razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus in the Colorado River basin (Taylor et al. 1984). In another case, Miller and Beckman (1996) documented white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus eggs in the stomachs of common carp in the Columbia River. In California, carp have been implicated in the decrease in water clarity in Clear Lake, Lake County, and in the gradual disappearance of native fishes (Moyle 1976). McCarraher and Gregory (1970) wrote that in 1894 there was documentation that Sacramento perch Archoplites interruptus were becoming more scarce because carp was destroying their spawning grounds. Laird and Page (1996) stated that common carp may compete with ecologically similar species such as carpsuckers and buffalos. Because this species has been present in many areas since the first surveys, its impacts on many of the native fishes are difficult to determine. Once established in a water body, common carp is difficult and expensive to eliminate (e.g., Cahoon 1953).
Remarks: Balon (1995) reviewed the origin and history of domestication of common carp in Europe and elsewhere. Several agents of the U.S. Fish Commission documented the early years of common carp propagation and stocking in the United States (e.g., Smiley 1886; Smith 1896; Cole 1905). Although this species was popular in the early 1870s as a food fish, common carp fell into wide disfavor soon after and is now considered a nuisance fish because of its abundance and detrimental effects on aquatic habitats. Trautman (1981) found common carp most abundant in streams enriched with sewage or with substantial runoff from agricultural land, but he reported it to be rare or absent in clear, cold waters, and streams of high gradient. Pflieger (1997) reported that the total weight and value of common carp taken by commercial fishermen in Missouri exceeded that of any other fish. Hartel et al. (1996) noted that more than 20,000 common carp were killed by a bacterial disease over a short period of time in the Merrimack River in the late 1970s. Because common carp have a higher salinity tolerance than most freshwater fishes, Swift et al. (1977) hypothesized that it may be spreading from one coastal stream to another through fresh or nearly fresh coastal waters in the Gulf area during periods of heavy rainfall and run-off, periods when salinities are greatly reduced.
DeVaney et al. (2009) performed ecological niche modeling to examine the invasion potential for common carp and three other invasive cyprinids (grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella, black carp Mylopharyngodon piceus, and tench Tinca tinca). The majority of the areas where common carp have been collected, stocked, or have become established had a high predicted ecological suitability for this species.
Voucher specimens: Alabama (UMMZ 103508, 115003, TU 48856, 51966, 130781), Arizona (TU 74792, 78489, 79742), Arkansas (TU 2194, 2204, 44759), Colorado (TU 47337), Florida (TU 22858, 22879, 23654, 34833), Georgia (UGAMNH), Illinois (TU 9944, 125802, 125825), Indiana (TU 19372, 101143), Kansas (TU 42664, 42681), Kentucky (TU 66289), Louisiana (TU 6281, 9202, 15805, 16781), Michigan (TU 15007), Mississippi (TU 32974, 57121, 69483, 85130), Missouri (TU 53843, 54574, 74298), Nevada (TU 47257, 47266), New Jersey (TU 36738), New Mexico (TCWC 0059.01, TU 35686, 38871, 42637, 42656), New York (TCWC 0077.01, TU 36674), North Carolina (TU 29401), North Dakota (UMMZ 94756, 94757), Ohio (TU 3299), Oklahoma (TU 12021, 13790, 141667, 141686), Oregon (TU 121816), South Carolina (TU 145144), South Dakota (TU 58222), Tennessee (TU 33470), Texas (TCWC 1074.01, 07780.03, TU 15777, 21969, 21995, 35583, 35634), Utah (TU 43659, 99064, 99122, 99150), Wisconsin (TU 15748, 173824), many others.
References:
Anonymous. 1892. Report of distribution of fish and eggs from July 1, 1888, to June 30, 1889. Pages 379-394 in Report of the Commissioner for 1888. Part XVI. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, D.C.
Anonymous. 2000. Northwestern Pa. waters. James's Northeastern Fishing Guide.
Anonymous. 2001. Common Carp. http://Floridagame.com
Anonymous. 2001. Fishing Records - Nevada. Insider Viewpoint Magazine. pp. 3.
Arlinghaus, R. and T Mehner. 2003. Socio-economic characterization of specialized common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) anglers in Germany, and implications for inland fisheries management and eutrophication control. Fisheries Research 61:19-33.
Badiou, P.H.J., and L.G. Goldsborough. 2010. Ecological impacts of an exotic benthivorous fish in large experimental wetlands, Delta Marsh, Canada. Wetlands 30:657-667.
Bailey, R.M., and M.O. Allum. 1962. Fishes of South Dakota. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 119:1 -131.
Bailey, R.M., and G.R. Smith. 1981. Origin and geography of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes basin. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 38:1539-1561.
Baird, S.F. 1887. Report of the Commissioner for 1885. Part XIII. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, D.C.
Baird, S.F. 1889. Report of the Commissioner for 1886. Part XIV. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, D.C.
Bajer, P.G., G. Sullivan, and P.W. Sorenson. 2009. Effects of a rapidly increasing population of common carp on vegetative cover and waterfowl in a recently restored Midwestern shallow lake. Hydrobiologia 632(1):235-245.
Balon, E.K. 1995. Origin and domestication of the wild carp, Cyprinus carpio: from Roman gourmets to the swimming flowers. Aquaculture 129:3-48.
Barus, V., M. Peaz, and K. Kohlmann. 2001. Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus, 1758), in Banarescu, P.M., and H.-J. Paepke (eds.). The freshwater fishes of Europe, v. 5/III; Cyprinidae 2/III, and Gasterosteidae: AULA-G GmbH Wiebelsheim, Germany, p. 85-179.
Baughman, J. L. 1950. Random notes on Texas fishes. Texas Journal of Science 2:117-138.
Baxter, G.T., and J.R. Simon. 1970. Wyoming fishes. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Bulletin 4, Cheyenne, WY. 168 pp.
Bean, T.H. 1896. Report on the propagation and distribution of food-fishes. Pages 20-80 in Report of the Commissioner for the year ending June 30, 1894, Part XX. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, D.C.
Bean, T.H. 1903. Catalogue of the Fishes of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 60, Zoology 9. University of the State of New York Bulletin 278. 784 pp.
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
Beecher, H.A., and R.F. Fernau. 1982. Fishes of Oxbow Lakes of Washington. Northwest Science 57(2): 125-131.
Bellrichard, S.J. 1996. Effects of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on submerged macrophytes and water quality in a backwater lake on the upper Mississippi River. Master's thesis, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. Reprinted by the National Biological Service, Environmental Management Technical Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin. LTRMP 96-R008. 44 pp.
Berg, L.S. 1964. Freshwater fishes in the U.S.S.R. and neighboring countries, Vol. 2 (4th ed.). IPST Catalog no. 742, 496 p. [Translated from Russian by Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem.]
Blatchley, W.S. 1938. The Fishes of Indiana: with Descriptions, Notes on Habits and Distribution in the State. The Nature Publishing Co., Indianapolis, IN.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4 6/7/2020 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - Species Profile Page 8 of 13
Bond, C.E. 1994. Keys to Oregon freshwater fishes. Oregon State University Bookstores, Inc., Corvallis. 58:1-42, revised.
Bonneau, J.L., and D.L. Scarnecchia. 2015. Response of benthic macroinvertebrates to carp (Cyprinus carpio) biomanipulation in three tributaries of a eutrophic, Great Plains reservoir, USA. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 118:13-26. http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1660/062.118.0103
Boschung, H.T., Jr., and R.L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington, DC.
Boschung, H.T. 1992. Catalogue of freshwater and marine fishes of Alabama. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin 14:1-266.
Bozeman, L., and P. Charp. 2001. Army Materials Technology Lab, Watertown, Middlesex, MA.
Bradley, W.G., and J.E. Deacon. 1967. The biotic communities of southern Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 13, Part 4. 201-273.
Breukelman, J. 1946. A review of Kansas ichthyology. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 49:51-70.
Brock, V.E. 1960. The introduction of aquatic animals into Hawaiian waters. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie 454:463-480.
Brown, C.J.D. 1971. Fishes of Montana. Montana State University Bozeman, MT. 207 pp.
Brown, R.W., M. Ebener, and T. Gorenflo. 1999. Great Lakes commercial fisheries: historical overview and prognosis for the future. In Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective. Taylor, W.W., and C.P. Ferreri (Eds.). Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI, pp. 307-354.
Burkhead, N.M., S.J. Walsh, B.J. Freeman, and J.D. Williams. 1997. Status and restoration of the Etowah River, an imperiled southern Appalachian ecosystem, p 375-444, In: G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (eds). Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design & Communications, Decatur, Ga.
Burr, B.M., and L.M. Page. 1986. Zoogeography of fishes of the lower Ohio-upper Mississippi basin. Pages 287-324 in C.H. Hocutt, and E.O. Wiley, editors. The Zoogeography of North American Freshwater Fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Burr, B.M., and M.L. Warren, Jr. 1986. A Distributional Atlas of Kentucky Fishes. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series 4. 398 pp.
Cahoon, W.G. 1953. Commercial carp removal at Lake Mattamuskeet, North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 17(3):312-317.
Call, L.E. 1961. Agricultural research at Kansas State Agricultural College (KSU) before enactment of the Health Act (1887). Agricultural Experimental Station, Kansas State University, Bulletin 441:1-43.
Chapman, W.M. 1942. Alien fishes in the waters of the Pacific northwest. California Fish and Game 28:9-15.
Clay, W.M. 1962. Aquatic-life resources of the Ohio River. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, Cincinnati, OH.
Clay, W.M. 1975. The Fishes of Kentucky. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Frankfort, KY. 416 pp.
Cleary, R.E. 1956. The distribution of the fishes of Iowa. Pages 267-324 in J.R. Harlan and E.B. Speaker, editors. Iowa fish and fishing. Iowa Conservation Commission, Des Moines, IA.
Cobb, J.N. 1902. Commercial fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands. Pages 381-499 in Report of the Commissioner for the year ending June 30, 1901. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Cole, L.J. 1905. The German carp in the United States. Pages 523-641 in Report of the Bureau of Fisheries for 1904. U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Conner, J.V., and R.D. Suttkus. 1986. Zoogeography of freshwater fishes of the western Gulf Slope of North America. Pages 413-456 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, editors. The Zoogeography of North American Freshwater Fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Cook, F.A. 1959. Freshwater Fishes of Mississippi. Mississippi Game and Fish Commission Jackson, MS. 239 pp.
Cooper, E.L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania and the Northeastern United States. Pennsylvania State University Press University Park, PA. 243 pp.
Countryman, W.D. 1975. Checklist of the recent fishes of Vermont. Norwich University, Northfield, Vermont. Unpublished mimeograph (revised version, October 1975).
Courtenay, W.R., Jr. 1970. Florida's walking catfish. Ward's Natural Science Bulletin 10(69):1, 4, 6.
Courtenay, W.R., Jr. 1985. Florida Atlantic University Quarterly Reports for 1985 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, FL.
Courtenay, W.R., Jr., H.F. Sahlman, W.W. Miley, II, and D.J. Herrema. 1974. Exotic fishes in fresh and brackish waters of Florida. Biological Conservation 6 (4):292-302.
Crivelli, A.J. 1981. The biology of the common carp, Cyprinus carpio L. in Camargue, southern France. Journal of Fish Biology 18: 271-290.
Cross, F.B. 1967. Handbook of Fishes of Kansas. State Biological Survey and University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous Publication 45, Topeka, KS.
Cross, F.B. and J.T. Collins. 1995. Fishes in Kansas. University of Kansas Natural History Museum.
Cudmore-Vokey, B., and E.J. Crossman. 2000. Checklists of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes and their connecting channels. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2500: v + 39 pp.
Dahlberg, M.D., and D.C. Scott. 1971a. The freshwater fishes of Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science 29:1-64.
Dahlberg, M.D., and D.C. Scott. 1971b. Introductions of freshwater fishes in Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science 29:245-252.
Dann, S.L., and B.C. Schroeder. 2003. The Life of the Lakes: A Guide to the Great Lakes Fishery. Michigan Sea Grant, 56 pp.
Deacon, J.E., and J.E. Williams. 1984. Annotated list of the fishes of Nevada. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 97(1):103-118.
DeKay, J.E. 1842. Zoology of New-York, or the New-York fauna. Part IV. Fishes. W. and A. White and J. Visscher, Albany, NY.
Dentler, J.L. 1993. Noah's farce: The regulation and control of exotic fish and wildlife. University of Puget Sound Law Review 17:191-242.
DeVaney, S.C., K.M. McNyset, J.B. Williams, A.T. Peterson, and E.O. Wiley. 2009. A tale of four "carp": invasion potential and ecological niche modeling. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5451.
Devick, W.S. 1991. Patterns of introductions of aquatic organisms to Hawaiian freshwater habitats. Pages 189-213 in new directions in research, management and conservation of Hawaiian freshwater stream ecosystems. Proceedings of the 1990 symposium on freshwater stream biology and fisheries management, Division of Aquatic Resources, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.
Douglas, N.H., and J.T. Davis. 1967. A checklist of the freshwater fishes of Louisiana. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. 29 pp.
Douglas, N.H. 1974. Freshwater Fishes of Louisiana. Claitor's Publishing Division, Baton Rouge, LA.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4 6/7/2020 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - Species Profile Page 9 of 13
Dyche, L.L. 1914. Ponds, pond fish and pond fish culture. Kansas Department of Fish and Game, Bulletin 1:1-208.
Eder, S. and C.A. Carlson. 1977. Food habits of carp and white suckers in the South Platte and St. Vrain Rivers and Goosequill Pond, Weld County, Colorado. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106: 339-349.
Eddy, S., and J.C. Underhill. 1974. Northern fishes, with special reference to the upper Mississippi Valley. 3rd Edition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 414 pp.
Ellis, M.M. 1974. Fishes of Colorado. University of Colorado Studies, Boulder, CO 11(1):1-136.
Emery, L. 1985. Review of fish introduced into the Great Lakes, 1819-1974. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Technical Report. 45: 1-31.
Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.
Evermann, B.W., and C. Rutter. 1895. The fishes of the Colorado Basin. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission for 1894, 14:473-486.
Everhart, W.H. 1976. Fishes of Maine. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Augusta, ME. 96 pp.
Fago, D. 1992. Distribution and relative abundance of fishes in Wisconsin. VIII. Summary Report. Technical Bulletin, Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. 175 pp.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2005. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme: Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus, 1758). Text by Peteri, A. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 12 July 2005. Accessed 24 September 2010. Available: http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Cyprinus_carpio/en
Ferguson, T.B. 1876. Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries of Maryland to the General Assembly. 1 January 1876. John F. Wiley, Annapolis, MD.]
Four Seasons Campground and Resort. 2003. Fishing Information. http://www.fourseasonscampground.com/fishinginfo.asp
Fowler, H.W. 1906. The fishes of New Jersey. Pages 35-477 in Annual Report of the New Jersey State Museum (1905), part II. MacCrellish and Quigley, State Province, Trenton, NJ.
Fowler, H.W. 1952. A list of the fishes of New Jersey, with off-shore species. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia CIV:89-151.
Fretwell, S. 2004. Thousands of carp dying in lakes. The State.com. May 26, 2004.
Gerking, S.D. 1945. Distribution of the fishes of Indiana. Investigations of Indiana Lakes and Streams 3:1-137.
Gewurtz, S.B., S.P. Bhavsar, D.A. Jackson, R. Fletcher, E. Awad, R. Moody, and R.J. Reiner. 2010. Temporal and spatial trends of organochlorides and mercury in fishes from the St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair corridor, Canada. Journal of Great Lakes Research 36(1):100-112.
Gilbert, C.H., and N.B. Scofield. 1898. Notes of a collection of fishes from the Colorado Basin in Arizona. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum 20:487-499.
Grana, F. - Department of Natural and Environmental Resources of Puerto Rico.
Hall, G.E. 1956. Additions to the fish fauna of Oklahoma with a summary of introduced species. Southwestern Naturalist 1(1):16-26.
Hänfling, B., P. Bolton, M. Harley, and G.R. Carvalho. 2005. A molecular approach to detect hybridization between crucian carp (Carassius carassius) and non- indigenous carp species (Carassius spp. and Cyprinus carpio). Freshwater Biology 50(3):403-417.
Harlan, J.R., E.B. Speaker, and J. Mayhew. 1987. Iowa fish and fishing. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA. 323 pp.
Hartel, K.E. 1992. Non-native fishes known from Massachusetts freshwaters. Occasional Reports of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Fish Department, Cambridge, MA. 2. September. pp. 1-9.
Hartel, K.E., D.B. Halliwell, and A.E. Launer. 1996. An annotated working list of the inland fishes of Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts, Cambridge, MA (Available from http://www.mcz.harvard.edu/fish/ma_fam.htm. Page accessed March 5, 1998).
Hay, O.P. 1894. The lampreys and fishes of Indiana. Report of the State Geologist.
Hendricks, M.L., J.R. Stauffer, Jr., C.H. Hocutt, and C.R. Gilbert. 1979. A preliminary checklist of the fishes of the Youghiogheny River. Chicago Academy of Sciences, Natural History Miscellanea 203:1-15.
Hildebrand, S.F. 1923. Annotated list of fishes collected in the vicinity of Augusta, Georgia, with a description of a new darter. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries 39:1-8.
Hinojosa-Garro, D., and L. Zambrano. 2004. Interactions of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) with benthic decapods in shallow ponds. Hydrobiologia 515(1- 3):115-122.
Holton, G.D. 1990. A Field Guide to Montana Fishes. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Helena, MT. 104 pp.
Howells, R.G. 1992. Annotated list of introduced non-native fishes, mollusks, crustaceans and aquatic plants in Texas waters. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Management Data Series 78, Austin, TX. 19 pp.
Hubbs, C.L., and G.P. Cooper. 1936. Minnows of Michigan. Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 8.
Hubbs, C.L., and K.F. Lagler. 1958. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Idaho Fish and Game. 1990. Fisheries Management Plan 1991-1995. Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
Illinois Natural History Survey. 2004. Illinois Natural History Survey Fish Collection Database Search Results.
Jackson, Z.J. M.C. Quist, J.A. Downing, and J.G. Larscheid. 2010. Common carp (Cyprinus carpio), sport fishes, and water quality: ecological thresholds in agriculturally eutrophic lakes. Lake and Reservoir Management 26(1):14-22.
Jansen, C. 2003. Barrier to keep carp out of Big Muskego Lake. JS Online. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. October 7, 2003.
Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Johnson, M., and G.C. Becker. 1980. Annotated list of the fishes of Wisconsin. Papers of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 58:265-300.
Jordan, D.S. 1882. Report on the fishes of Ohio. Report of the Geological Survey of Ohio 4(1):735-1002.
Jordan, D.S., and B.W. Evermann. 1902. Preliminary report on an investigation of the fishes and fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands. Pages 353-380 in Report of the Commissioner for the year ending June 30, 1901. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Jordan, D.S., and B.W. Evermann. 1905. The aquatic resources of the Hawaiian Islands. Part I. The shore fishes. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission for 1903, 23:1-574.
King, D.R. and G.S. Hunt. 1967. Effect of carp on vegetation in a Lake Erie marsh. Journal of Wildlife Management 31: 181-188.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4 6/7/2020 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - Species Profile Page 10 of 13
Koehn, J., Brumley, A. and Gehrke, P. (2000) Managing the Impacts of Carp. Bureau of Rural Sciences (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia), Canberra.
Koster, W.J. 1957. Guide to the Fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.
Kuhne, E.R. 1939. A guide to the fishes of Tennessee and the mid-South. Tennessee Department of Conservation, Nashville, TN. 124 pp.
Laird, C.A., and L.M. Page. 1996. Non-native fishes inhabiting the streams and lakes of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 35(1):1-51.
Lampman, B.H. 1946. The coming of the pond fishes. Binfords and Mort, Portland, Oregon.
Lapin, W.J. - Dept. of Environmental Management, Division of Fish and Wildlife, West Kingston, Rhode Island. Response to USGS/BRD-G nonindigenous questionnaire. 1992.
La Rivers, I. 1962. Fishes and Fisheries of Nevada. Nevada State Print Office, Carson City, Nevada. 782 pp.
Lee, D.S., A. Norden, C.R. Gilbert, and R. Franz. 1976. A list of the freshwater fishes of Maryland and Delaware. Chesapeake Science 17(3):205-211.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980 et seq. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC. (Cited as a work rather than as individual accounts in the interest of space).
Linder, A.D. 1963. Idaho's alien fishes. Tebiwa 6(2):12-15.
Linfield R.S.J. (1980) Catchability and stock density of common carp, Cyprinus carpio L. in a lake fishery. FisheriesManagement 11, 11–22.Logan, D., E.L. Bibles, and D.F. Markle. 1996. Recent collections of continental exotic aquarium fishes in Oregon and thermal tolerance of Misgurnus anguillicaudatus and Piaractus brachypomus. California Fish and Game. 82(2): 66-80.
Lougheed, V. L., and P. Chow-Fraser. 2001. Spatial variability in the response of lower trophic levels after carp exclusion from a freshwater marsh. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 9:21-34.
Lougheed, V.L., T. Theÿsmeÿer, T. Smith, and P. Chow-Fraser. 2004. Carp exclusion, food-web interactions, and the restoration of Cootes Paradise Marsh. Journal of Great Lakes Research 30(1):44-57.
Loyacano, H.A., Jr. 1975. A list of freshwater fishes of South Carolina. Bulletin of the South Carolina Experimental Station 580:1-8.
Maciolek, J.A. 1984. Exotic fishes in Hawaii and other islands of Oceania. Pages 131-161 in W. R. Courtenay, Jr., and J. R. Stauffer, Jr., editors. Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fishes. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Matern, S.A., P.B. Moyle, and L.C. Pierce. 2002. Native and alien fishes in a California estuarine marsh: twenty-one years of changing assemblages. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 131: 797-816.
McCarraher, D.B., and R.W. Gregory. 1970. Adaptability and status of introductions of Sacramento perch, Archoplites interruptus, in North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99(4):700-707.
McCrimmon, H.R. 1968. Carp in Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 165: 1-93.
McDonald, M. 1886. Report on distribution of fish and eggs by the U.S. Fish Commission for the season of 1885-'86. Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission 6(1886):385-394.
McDonald, M. 1893. Report of the Commissioner for 1889 to 1891. Part XVII. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, DC.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 227 pp.
Mettee, M.F., E. O'Neil, R.D. Suttkus, and J.M. Pierson. 1987. Fishes of the Lower Tombigbee River System in Alabama and Mississippi. Geological Survey of Alabama Bulletin 107. 186 pp.
Mettee, M.F., P.E. O'Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Inc. Birmingham, AL. 820 pp.
Miller, R.R. 1952. Bait fishes of the lower Colorado River, from Lake Mead, Nevada, to Yuma, Arizona, with a key for identification. California Fish and Game. 38: 7-42.
Miller, R.R., and J.R. Alcorn. 1946. The introduced fishes of Nevada, with a history of their introduction. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 73:173- 193.
Miller, S.A., and T.A. Crowl. 2006. Effects of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on macrophytes and invertebrate communities in a shallow lake. Freshwater Biology 51:85-94.
Miller, R.R., and C.H. Lowe. 1967. Part 2. Fishes of Arizona, p 133-151, In: C.H. Lowe, ed. The Vertebrates of Arizona. University of Arizona Press. Tucson.
Miller, R.J., and H.W. Robison. 1973. The Fishes of Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University Press, Stillwater, OK.
Miller, A.I., and L.G. Beckman. 1996. First record of predation on white sturgeon eggs by sympatric fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:338-340.
Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Fish and Game Department. Sims Printing Company, Inc., Phoenix, AZ. Minnesota Sea Grant. 2004. Dumping of aquarium fish causing trouble in Duluth (or Something's fishing in Rock Pond). Available at URL http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/news/2004/may11.html.
Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 2004. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science Nonindigenous Fish Records.
Moore, H.H., and R.A. Bream. 1965. Distribution of fishes in U.S. streams tributary to Lake Superior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Science Report 516.
Morris, J., L. Morris, and L. Witt. 1974. The Fishes of Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Lincoln, NE. 98 pp.
Moyle, P.B. 1976. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Second Edition. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles,CA. 502 pp.
Moyle, J.B., and W.D. Clothier. 1959. Effects of management and winter oxygen levels on the fish population of a prairie lake. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 88:178-185.
Moyle, P.B., F.W. Fisher, and H. Li. 1974. Mississippi silversides and logperch in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. California Department of Fish and Game. 60(2): 145-147.
Moyle, P.B., and R.A. Daniels. 1982. Fishes of the Pit River System, McCloud River System, and Surprise Valley Region. University of California Publications, Zoology 115:1-82.
Mundy, B.C. 2005. Fishes of the Hawaiian Archipelago. Bishop Museum Bulletins in Zoology, Number 6.
Myers, J. 2004. Drain a pond, save a stream. DuluthNewsTribune.com. May 10, 2004.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4 6/7/2020 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - Species Profile Page 11 of 13
Nelson, J. 1890. Descriptive catalogue of the vertebrates of New Jersey. Geological Survey of New Jersey 1890:489-824.
Nelson, J.S., and S.D. Gerking. 1968. Annotated key to the fishes of Indiana. Project 342-303-815. Department of Zoology, Indiana Aquatic Research Unit, Indiana State University, Bloomington, IN.
New Mexico Game and Fish. 2000. Biota Information System of New Mexico BISON: Common carp, Cyprinus carpio. http://www.fw.vt.edu/fishesex/nmex_main/species/010080.htm
Nico, L. G. 2005. Changes in the fish fauna of the Kissimmee River Basin, peninsular Florida: nonnative additions. in J. N. Rinne, R. M. Hughes, and B. Calamusso (eds.). Historical changes in large river fish assemblages of the Americas. American Fisheries Society Symposium 45, Bethesda, MD. 523-556.
Owen, J.B., D.S. Elsen, and G.W. Russell. 1981. Distribution of Fishes in North and South Dakota Basins Affected by the Garrison Diversion Unit. Fisheries Research Unit, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND.
Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. The Peterson Field Guide Series, volume 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Panek, F.M. 1987. Biology and ecology of carp in: Cooper E.L. (ed.) Carp in North America. Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries Society, p. 1-15.
Parkos, J.J., V.J. Santucci, and D.H. Wahl. 2003. Effects of adult common carp (Cyprinus carpio) on multiple trophic levels in shallow mesocosms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 60:182-192.
Paukert, C. P., W. Stancill, T. J. DeBates, and D. W. Willis. 2003. Predatory effects of northern pike and largemouth bass: bioenergetic modeling and ten years of fish community sampling. Journal of Freshwater Ecology. 18:13-24.
Pearson, W.D., and L.A. Krumholz. 1984. Distribution and status of Ohio River fishes. ORNL/sub/79-7831/1. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
Pérez-Fuentetaja, A., S. Lupton, M. Clapsadl, F. Samara, L. Gatto, R. Biniakewitz, and D.S. Aga. 2010. PCB and PBDE levels in wild common carp (Cyprinus carpio) from eastern Lake Erie. Chemosphere 81(4):541-547.
Pflieger, W.L. 1971. A distributional study of Missouri fishes. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 20(3):225-570.
Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. 343 pp.
Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 372 pp.
Phillips, G.L., W.D. Schmid, and J.C. Underhill. 1982. Fishes of the Minnesota Region. University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis, MN.
Pinto, L., N. Chandrasena, J. Pera, P. Hawkins, D. Eccles, and R. Sim. 2005. Managing invasive carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) for habitat enhancement at Botany Wetlands, Australia. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15:447-462.
Platania, S.P. 1991. Fishes of the Rio Chama and upper Rio Grande, New Mexico, with preliminary comments on their longitudinal distribution. Southwestern Naturalist 36(2):186-193.
Power, G.J. and F. Ryckman. 1998. North Dakota Fisheries Investigations: status of North Dakota's fishes. (Available from http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/fish/fshries/index.htm).
Powers, S.L. and P.A. Ceas. 2000. Ichthyofauna and biogeography of Russell Fork (Big Sandy River - Ohio River). Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings. 41: 1-12.
Raasch, M.S., and V.L. Altemus, Sr. 1991. Delaware's freshwater and brackish water fishes - a popular account. Delaware State College for the Study of Del- Mar-Va Habitats and the Society of Natural History of Delaware. 166 pp.
Rasmussen, J.L. - Natural Resource Management Associates, Le Claire, IA.
Rasmussen, J.L. 1998. Aquatic nuisance species of the Mississippi River basin. 60th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Aquatic Nuisance Species Symposium, Dec. 7, 1998, Cincinnati, OH.
Ravenel, W.C. 1896. Report on the propagation and distribution of food-fishes. Pages 6-72 in Report of the Commissioner for the year ending June 30, 1895, Part XXI. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, D.C.
Ravenel, W.C. 1898. Report on the propagation and distribution of food-fishes. Pages 11-92 in Report of the Commissioner for the year ending June 30, 1896, Part XXII. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, D.C.
Red River Authority of Texas. 2001. Red and Canadian Basins Fish Inventory: Grayson County. Red River Authority of Texas.
Redding, J.D. 1884. Character of the carp introduced by Capt. Henry Robinson about 1830. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission 4(1884):266-267.
Richardson, M.J., F.G. Whoriskey, and L.H. Roy. 1995. Turbidity generation and biological impacts of an exotic fish Carassius auratus, introduced into shallow seasonally anoxic ponds. Journal of Fish Biology 47:576-585.
Ritz. A. W. 1987. Commercial fishing for carp. Pages 17-30 In E. L. cooper, editor. Carp in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Rixon, C.A.M., I.C. Duggan, N.M.N. Bergeron, A. Ricciardi, and H.J. MacIssac. 2005. Invasion risks posed by the aquarium and live fish markets on the Laurentian Great Lakes. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:1365-1381.
Robison, H.W., and T.M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press. Fayetteville, AR. 536 pp.
Ross, S. 2001. The Inland Fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi. 624 pp.
Ross, S.T., and W.M. Brenneman. 1991. Distribution of freshwater fishes in Mississippi. Manuscript. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Jackson, MS. 548 pp.
Rule, R. 1885. Southern Region. Pages 10-15 in J. H. Taggart, editor. Annual Report of the Arizona Fish Commission, 1883-1884, to Frederick A. Tritle, Governor of the Territory of Arizona.
Ryon, M.G., and J.M. Loar. 1988. Checklist of fishes on the Department of Energy Oak Ridge Reservation. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Sciences 63:97 -102.
Scarola, J.F. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Division of Inland and Marine Fisheries. 131 pp.
Schrage, L.J. and J.A. Downing. 2004. Pathways of increased water clarity after fish removal from Ventura Marsh; a shallow, eutrophic wetland. Hydrobiologia 511:215-231.
Schramm, H. L., Jr. and M. C. Basler. 2004. Evaluation of capture methods and distribution of black carp in Mississippi. Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, 12 pp.
Schwartz, F. 1963. The fresh-water minnows of Maryland. Maryland Conservationist 40(2):19-29.
Schwartz, F.J. 1964. Natural salinity tolerances of some freshwater fishes. Underwater Naturalist Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 13-15.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4 6/7/2020 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - Species Profile Page 12 of 13
Scoppettone, G.G., P.H. Rissler, M.B. Nielsen, and J.E. Harvey. 1998. The status of Moapa coriacea and Gila seminuda and status information on other fishes of the Muddy River, Clark County, Nevada. Southwestern Naturalist 43(2):115-122.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa. Bulletin 184. 966 pp.
Shafland, P.L. 1996. Exotic fishes of Florida – 1994. Reviews in Fisheries Science 4(2):101-122.
Shebley, W.H. 1917. History of the introduction of food and game fishes into the waters of California. California Fish and Game 3(1):3-10.
Shields, J.T. 1958a. Experimental control of carp reproduction through water drawdowns in Fort Randall Reservoir, South Dakota. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 87(1957):23-33.
Shields, J.T. 1958b. Fish management problems of large impoundments on the Missouri River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 87(1957):356- 362.
Sigler, W.F., and R.R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah Department of Fish and Game, Salt Lake City, UT. 203 pp.
Sigler, W.F., and J.W. Sigler. 1996. Fishes of Utah. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT. 375 pp.
Simpson, J., and R. Wallace. 1978. Fishes of Idaho. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID.
Smiley, C.W. 1886. Some results of carp culture in the United States. Pages 657-890 in Report of the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1884, Part XII. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, D.C.
Smith, P.W. 1979. The Fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
Smith, J.J. 1982. Fishes of the Pajaro River System. Pages 83-170 in P. B. Moyle, J. J. Smith, R. A. Daniels, T. L. Price, and D. M. Baltz, editors. Distribution and ecology of stream fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage system, California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Smith, H.M. 1896. A review of the history and results of the attempts to acclimatize fish and other water animals in the Pacific states. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission for 1895, 40:379-472.
Smith, C.L. 1985. The Inland Fishes of New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 522 pp.
Smith-Vaniz, W.F. 1968. Freshwater fishes of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, AL. 211 pp.
Sommer, T., B. Harrell, M. Nobriga, R. Brown, P. Moyle, W. Kimmerer, and L. Schemel. 2001. California's Yolo Bypass: Evidence that flood control can be compatible with fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, and agriculture. Fisheries. American Fisheries Society. 26 (8): 6-16.
Sorensen, PW and NE Stacey. 2004. Brief review of fish pheromones and discussion of their possible uses in the control of non-indigenous teleost fishes. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38:399-417. http://carpbusters.com/documents/Sorensen_Stacey[1].2004.NZJfinal.pdf
Spencer, S.L., W.E. Swingle, and T. Scott, Jr. 1964. Commercial fishing in the Mobile Delta, Alabama, during the period of July 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964. Alabama Department of Conservation 1:17. (Multilithed)
Starnes, W.C., J. Odenkirk, and M.J. Ashton. 2011. Update and analysis of fish occurrences in the lower Potomac River drainage in the vicinity of Plummers Island, Maryland—Contribution XXXI to the natural history of Plummers Island, Maryland. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 124(4):280-309.
Stauffer, J.R., Jr., J.M. Boltz, and L.R. White. 1995. The Fishes of West Virginia. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. 389 pp.
Stiles, E.W. 1978. Vertebrates of New Jersey. Edmund W. Stiles, Somerset, NJ.
Stone, M.D. 1995. Fish stocking programs in Wyoming: a balanced perspective. Pages 47-51 in H.L. Schramm, Jr., and R.G. Piper, editors. Uses and effects of cultured fishes in aquatic ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15.
Stuart, IG, A Williams, J McKenzie and T Holt. 2011. Managing a migratory pest species: a selective trap for common carp. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Accessed 11/1/13. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1577/M05-205.1
Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The Fishes of New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. 393 pp.
Summerfelt, R. C. 1999. Lake and reservoir management. Pages 285-320 in C.C. Kolhler and W. A. Hubert, editors. Inland Fisheries Management in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Summerfelt, R.C., P.E. Mauck, and G. Mensinger. 1971. Food habits of the carp, Cyprinus carpio L. in five Oklahoma reservoirs. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissions 24: 352-377.
Sweeney, Z.T. 1902. Biennial Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries and Game for Indiana. Indianapolis, IN.
Swift, C., R.W. Yerger, and P.R. Parrish. 1977. Distribution and natural history of the fresh and brackish water fishes of the Ochlockonee River, Florida and Georgia. Bulletin of Tall Timbers Research Station 20.
Taggart, J.H. 1885. Annual Report of the Arizona Fish Commission, 1883-1884, to Frederick A. Tritle, Governor of the Territory of Arizona. 15 pp.
Tanner, V.M. 1936. A study of the fishes of Utah. Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 13:155-183.
Taylor, J.N., W.R. Courtenay, Jr., and J.A. McCann. 1984. Known impact of exotic fishes in the continental United States. Pages 322-373 in W.R. Courtenay, Jr., and J.R. Stauffer, editors. Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fish. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD.
Taylor, J., and R. Mahon. 1977. Hybridization of Cyprinus carpio and Carassius auratus, the first two exotic species in the lower Laurentian Great Lakes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 1(2):205-208.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1993. State Record Listing. May 21, 1993:19-21.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2001. Fish Records: Water Body - All Tackle. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. April 24, 2001.
Texas System of Natural Laboratories, Inc. 1996. Fish of Colorado River Basin, Texas. Texas System of Natural Laboratories, Inc.
Texas System of Natural Laboratories, Inc. and USGS. 1994. Fish collected in streams of the South-Central Texas study unit, Texas. USGS.
Tilmant, J.T. 1999. Management of nonindigenous aquatic fish in the U.S. National Park System. National Park Service. 50 pp.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH.
Truitt, R.V., B.A. Bean, and H.W. Fowler. 1929. The Fishes of Maryland. Maryland Conservation Department, Conservation Bulletin 3, Annapolis.
Underhill, J.C. 1959. Fishes of the Vermillion River, South Dakota. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science 38:96-102.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4 6/7/2020 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) - Species Profile Page 13 of 13
University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. 2004. Michigan Fish Atlas Maps. http://www.michigan.gov/cgi/0,1607,7-158-12540_13085_13553-30538-- ,00.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species. http://www.nwrinvasives.com/index.asp (Last accessed 2006)
Vacha F. (1998) Information on Czech Republic fisheries. In: P. Hickley & H. Tompkins (eds) Recreational Fisheries: Social, Economic and Management Aspects . Oxford, UK: Fishing News Books, pp. 48–57.
VonBank, J. A., DeBoer, J. A., Casper, A. F., and H. M. Hagy. 2018. Ichthyochory in a temperate river system by common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Journal of Freshwater Ecology 33(1):83–96.
Vanicek, C.D., R.H. Kramer, and D.R. Franklin. 1970. Distribution of Green River fishes in Utah and Colorado following closure of Flaming Gorge Dam. The Southwestern Naturalist 14(3):297-315.
Vinyard, G.L. 2001. Fish Species Recorded from Nevada. Biological Resources Research Center 5. http://www.brrc.unr.edu/data/animal/vertebrates/fishlist.htm
Walters, D.M. 1997. The distribution, status, and ecology of the fishes of the Conasauga River system. Master's Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Wanner et al 2009. Common carp abundance, biomass, and removal from Dewey and Clear lakes on the Valentine National Wildlife Refuge: Does trapping and removing carp payoff? USFWS. Accessed 11/1/2013. http://www.fws.gov/greatplainsfishandwildlife/documents/CommonCarpinDeweyLakeFinalReportDecember2009_000.pdf
Webster, D.A. 1941. The life histories of some Connecticut fishes. Pages 122-227 in State Board of Fisheries and Game. A fishery survey of important Connecticut lakes. Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey 63.
Wedekind, H., Hilge, V., Steffens, W., 2001. Present status, and social and economic significance of inland fisheries in Germany, and social and economic significance of inland fisheries in Germany. Fish. Manage. Ecol. 8, 405–414.
Werner, R.G. 1980. Freshwater fishes of New York state: a field guide. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY.
Wheeler, A. 1978. Key to the Fishes of Northern Europe. Frederick Warne Ltd., London, England.
Whitworth, W.R. 1996. Freshwater Fishes of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Bulletin 114.
Wiltzius, W.J. 1981. Compendium of introduction date and state and federal annual stocking of various fishes in Colorado, 1972-1978. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Unpublished report.
Wolfe, M.D., V.J. Santucci Jr., L.M. Einfalt, and D.H. Wahl. 2009. Effects of Common Carp on Reproduction, Growth, and Survival of Largemouth Bass and Bluegills. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 138, 975-983.
Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado's little fish: a guide to the minnows and other lesser known fishes in the state of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. 77 pp.
Worth, S.G. 1895. Report on the propagation and distribution of food-fishes. Pages 78-138 in Report of the Commissioner for the year ending June 30, 1893, Part XIX. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, D.C.
Wydoski, R.S., and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 2003. Inland Fishes of Washington. Second Edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD in association with University of Washington Press, Seattle. 322 pp.
Young, B.A., T.L. Welker, M.L. Wildhaber, C.R. Berry, and D. Scarnecchia, editors. 1997. Population structure and habitat use of benthic fishes along the Missouri and lower Yellowstone rivers. Annual Report of Missouri River Benthic Fish Study PD-95-5832. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 207 pp.
Zuckerman, L.D. and R.J. Behnke. 1986. Introduced fishes in the San Luis Valley, Colorado. IN Stroud, R.H., ed. Fish Culture In Fisheries Management. Proceedings of a symposium on the role of fish culture in fisheries management at Ozark, MO. Amer. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, MD. March 31-April 3, 1985: 435- 453.
Other Resources: Distribution in Illinois - ILNHS
Cyprinus carpio (Global Invasive Species Database)
Fishes of Wisconsin (Becker)
Great Lakes Waterlife
Author: Nico, L., E. Maynard, P.J. Schofield, M. Cannister, J. Larson, A. Fusaro, and M. Neilson
Revision Date: 9/12/2019
Peer Review Date: 7/15/2015
Citation Information: Nico, L., E. Maynard, P.J. Schofield, M. Cannister, J. Larson, A. Fusaro, and M. Neilson, 2020, Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4, Revision Date: 9/12/2019, Peer Review Date: 7/15/2015, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=4 6/7/2020
Gasterosteidae
Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) - Species Profile Page 1 of 8
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Gasterosteus aculeatus (Threespine Stickleback) Fishes Native Transplant
< Image 1 of 2 >
Ryan Hagerty, US Fish and Wildlife Service Gasterosteus aculeatus Linnaeus, 1758
Common name: Threespine Stickleback
Synonyms and Other Names: Alaskan stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni Girard, 1854, Gasterosteus argyropomus Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1829, Gasterosteus biaculeatus Mitchill, 1815, Gasterosteus bispinosus Walbaum, 1792, Gasterosteus brachycentrus Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1829, Gasterosteus cataphractus (Pallas, 1814), Gasterosteus cuvieri Girard in Storer, 1850, Gasterosteus gymnurus Cuvier, 1829, Gasterosteus islandicus Sauvage, 1874, Gasterosteus leiurus Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1829, Gasterosteus noveboracensis Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1829, Gasterosteus obolarius Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1829, Gasterosteus ponticus Nordmann, 1840, Gasterosteus semiarmatus Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1829, Gasterosteus semiloricatus Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1829, Gasterosteus spinulosus Yarrell, 1835, Gasterosteus teraculeatus Lacepède, 1801, Gasterosteus tetracanthus Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1829, Gasterosteus trachurus Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1829, Leiurus aculeatus (Linnaeus, 1758)
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=702 6/7/2020 Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) - Species Profile Page 2 of 8
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Small, streamlined torpedo shaped fish. Its common name is derived from the presence of three (occasionally 2-4) sharp spines on the back forward of the dorsal fin. Dorsal fin is broad and has 10-14 soft rays; caudal fin contains 10 rays. Freshwater populations vary in body shape depending on the type of habitat it occupies. Fish inhabiting surface waters (limnetic form) tend to exhibit slender bodies with narrow mouths, long snouts, and large eyes. Benthic fish are deep bodied with a small eye and a wide, terminal gape. Pelvic fin is reduced to a sharp spine and a small ray. Gill rakers are long and slender, with 17 to 25 on the first arch for freshwater forms. While the oceanic form of G. aculeatus has up to 30 or more lateral bony plates on each side of the body as well as a pelvic girdle and lateral line with microscopic pores, these features tend to be reduced in freshwater forms. This species can be differentiated from other species in the genus by a crenulated posterior edge of scutes and by a set of scutes forming a lateral keel on the caudal peduncle. In populations that co-occur with predatory fishes, dorsal and pelvic fins tend to be longer, and other anti-predatory features such as dorsal spines, the lateral plate, and the pelvic girdle tend to be more prominent (Grand 2000, Marchinko 2008, Reimchen 2000). Coloration is generally cryptic, with mottled brown-green barring on the upper side of the body and a white, silvery, or yellow underside. Sides are pale and fins are often spotted with dark dots. Breeding males develop a vivid blue-green coloration with blue or green eyes and the breast region develops an intense red-orange coloration (Baker et. al 1995, Bell et al. 1994, Cresko et al. 2007, Day et al. 1994, Morrow 1980).
Size: Usually between 3 and 8 cm long, average length about 5 cm (Scott and Crosman 1973). Maximum reported length 11 cm (Muus and Nielsen 1999).
Native Range: Range in North America extends from Cape Fear Estuary north to Hudson Bay and Baffin Island, and along the west coast from Alaska and British Columbia to southern California (Scott and Crossman 1973). This species also occurs in Europe, Iceland, Greenland, and along the Pacific coast of Asia. Freshwater populations are distributed along the coast of the Mediterranean and in inland waters across Eastern Europe to the Baltic Sea (Page and Burr 1991). Gasterosteus aculeatus is native to the Lake Ontario basin, below Niagara Falls (Stedman and Bowen 1985).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=702 6/7/2020 Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) - Species Profile Page 3 of 8
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Gasterosteus aculeatus are found here.
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs with HUCs with observations† earliest observation observations† observation
Alaska 1969 1969 1 Kodiak-Afognak Islands
Antelope-Fremont Valleys; Crowley Lake; California 1940 1993 9 Cuyama; Mojave; Mono Lake; Salinas; San Diego; Santa Ana; Santa Barbara Coastal
Illinois 1988 1989 2 Chicago; Lake Michigan
Indiana 1998 1999 2 Lake Michigan; Little Calumet-Galien
Massachusetts 1940 1940 1Charles
Michigan 1982 2017 13 Betsie-Platte; Betsy-Chocolay; Black- Presque Isle; Brevoort-Millecoquins; Great Lakes Region; Keweenaw Peninsula; Lake
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=702 6/7/2020 Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) - Species Profile Page 4 of 8
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs with HUCs with observations† earliest observation observations† observation Huron; Lake Michigan; Lake St. Clair; Lake Superior; Ontonagon; St. Marys; Tittabawassee
Minnesota 1987 2006 3 Baptism-Brule; Lake Superior; St. Louis
Ohio 1990 1994 1Lake Erie
Oregon 1995 2001 1 Upper Deschutes
Apple-Plum; Beartrap-Nemadji; Door- Kewaunee; Duck-Pensaukee; Lake Michigan; Wisconsin 1984 2014 14 Lake Superior; Lower St. Croix; Lower Wisconsin; Menominee; Milwaukee; Pecatonica; Pike-Root; St. Louis; Upper Fox
Table last updated 9/30/2019
† Populations may not be currently present.
Ecology: An enormous range of morphological variation is present within the threespine stickleback. There are two distinct varieties of the species, with one form having an anadromous existence and another form inhabiting strictly freshwater. The anadromous form spends most of its adult life in the ocean feeding on plankton and returns to freshwater to breed. The freshwater form inhabits a wide variety of lakes and streams, ranging from small, ephemeral streams, to large, permanently flowing water bodies, however it cannot exist in high gradient streams and is rarely found more than a few hundred meters above sea level. These freshwater populations are thought to have evolved from anadromous forms that were trapped in freshwater lakes during the last glacial melt (Bell et al. 1994). Within the freshwater variety, two morphological variations occur. One of these variations is known as the limnetic type, which is adapted to live in the water column of oligotrophic lakes and feed on surface plankton, and the other form is the benthic type, which inhabits the bottom of shallow eutrophic lakes or the littoral zone of deeper lakes and feeds from the lakebed (Bell et al. 1994, Mattern et al. 2007, Shaw et al. 2007).
Breeding occurs annually from late April to July in ponds, rivers, lakes, drainage canals, marshes, sloughs, tidal creeks, and sublittoral zones of the sea (Bell et al. 1994, Mattern et al. 2007). Males are polygamous and attract several females into the nesting territory with zig-zag courtship dances over a 1- to 4-day period. The male will then fertilize all of the deposited eggs at one time and remain to guard them from predators and to ensure an ample oxygen supply (by fanning; Bell et al. 1994, Mattern et al. 2007). The eggs hatch 5 to 10 days after fertilization, and males stay with the newly hatched individuals for up to 2 weeks (Bell et al. 1994, Huntingford and Wright 1993). Individuals reach sexual maturity between 1 and 2 years of age. The average lifespan of this species is ranges is only about 1 to 3 years (Wootton 1976), with a maximum documented age of about 8 years in captivity (Bell et al. 1994).
Gasterosteus aculeatus is a generalist carnivore, feeding on benthic invertebrates, including crustaceans and larval insects (benthic form), and zooplankton (limnetic form). It exhibits a predation cycle that consists of search, pursuit, attack, and capture. As the threespine stickleback is small, abundant, and a slow swimmer, it serves as a suitable prey for a wide variety of species. Natural predators include fish in the families Percidae, Esocidae, and Salmonidae, as well as avian piscivores such as loons, herons, and kingfishers. Macroinvertebrates, such as dragonfly naiads and beetles feed on eggs, fry, and juvenile individuals, and leeches are known to feed on eggs and adult individuals that are stuck in traps (Bell et al. 1994, Messler et al. 2007). To counteract predation, the stickleback exhibits shoaling behavior and relies heavily on chemical and olfactory pathways to detect predators and control shoal size and foraging activity (Mattern et al. 2007, Peuhkuri 1998).
Means of Introduction: According to Miller and Hubbs (1969), the threespine stickleback was introduced into the Mohave River drainage of California between 1938 and 1940. The species was presumably introduced due to escape or release of baitfish brought in by anglers from southern California coastal area. In addition to the earlier releases, it was probably introduced into the Mohave River with trout from the Fillmore Hatchery in 1947 (Miller and Hubbs 1969). Gasterosteus aculeatus was believed to have been introduced into Gull and June lakes by anglers, probably from the Ventura River drainage, and it was introduced into the Santa Maria River system along with trout from the Santa Ynez River in 1940 (Miller and Hubbs 1969). A population in Holcomb Creek in the Mojave River drainage may have been introduced with trout in the late 1800s (Bell 1982, Sigler and Sigler 1987). According to Hartel et al. (1996), the population in Boston's Olmsted Park may have been introduced as part of a museum exhibit. The park contains a pool that Fredrick Law Olmsted had designated for a stickleback exhibit.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=702 6/7/2020 Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) - Species Profile Page 5 of 8
Great Lakes The threespine stickleback was not known from above Niagara Falls before 1979. The first specimens collected from above the falls were taken in 1980 from South Bay in Lake Huron (Stedman and Bowman 1985). Smith (1985) stated that the threespine stickleback gained access to the Upper Great Lakes from the Ottawa River and Lake Ontario through the artificial Nipissing Canal. However, Stedman and Bowman (1985) presented the possibility that it was transported by bait dealers and subsequently released by anglers. Mandrak and Crossman (1992) recorded it from Thunder Bay, Lake Superior (Canada) and attributed its presence there to a ballast water introduction.
Status: Reported in Ohio and Wisconsin, established in California, Massachusetts, and Michigan. A single fish was collected from the stomach of a lake trout taken in 150 feet of water southwest of Knife River in May 1996 (S. Geving, Natural Resource Specialist, Minnesota Department of Environmental Resources, pers. comm.). Also in May, two were collected in a commercial pound net in the St. Louis estuary under the Blatnik Interstate Bridge (S. Geving, Natural Resource Specialist, Minnesota Department of Environmental Resources, pers. comm.).
Great Lakes First recorded in Lake Huron in 1982, where it apparently gained access through the Nipissing Canal from the Ottawa River (Smith 1985). During recent years, this species is reported as spreading rapidly throughout the upper Great Lakes (Burr 1991, Smith 1985). In June 1994 , this species was reported from Taconite Harbor, Lake Superior, Minnesota, where eight specimens were taken from cooling tower intakes (J. Gunderson, Sea Grant Extension Program, pers. comm., Hirsh 1998). It also has been reported from the Canadian side of Lake Superior (J. Gunderson, Sea Grant Extension Program, pers. comm.) It is now considered introduced and established in Lakes Erie, Michigan, Huron, and Superior (Roth et al. 2011).
Impact of Introduction: Miller and Hubbs (1969) reported the stockings of armoured threespine stickleback G. a. microcephalus into the native range of the unarmoured threespine stickleback G. a. williamsoni in certain California drainages. One consequence has been extensive hybridization between the two subspecies (Miller and Hubbs 1969; Moyle 1976b). The three-spined stickleback is known to prey on eggs of other species (Page and Laird 1993).
Remarks: The unarmored threespine stickleback G. a. williamsoni has been on the decline in California and has been listed as federally endangered since 1971. The population in Boston, Massachusetts is unique in several ways. It is the southernmost freshwater population, contains 3 distinct lateral-plate morphs, and it represents only the fourth record of low plate individuals. Its urban location is another factor in support of an introduction (Hartel et al. 1996). Hubbs (1919) advocated the stocking of G.aculeatus in natural and artificial water bodies in California as a biological control against mosquitoes.
Gasterosteus aculeatus actually may represent a complex of two or more distinct species; subspecies have been proposed but their ranges are poorly defined (Miller and Hubbs 1969, Page and Burr 1991). Because the taxonomy of this group is so complex, it is probably irresolvable (Gilbert, personal communication). The potential for rapid evolution in G.aculeatus was exhibited following a 1982 chemical eradication program at Loberg Lake, Alaska, whereby the entire freshwater stickleback population was killed off with the intention of increasing lake resources for the trout and salmon populations. Following eradication, anadromous sticklebacks made their way back into the lake through the Cook Inlet. Within the next 12 years, the frequency of the armored (oceanic) form in this stickleback population dropped from 100% to 11%, replaced by an unarmored (freshwater) form which increased to a frequency of 75%, with some intermediate forms making up the remainder (Bell et al. 2004).
Voucher specimens: Illinois (INHS 64211, 64481, 64482, 59309), Michigan (UWZM 8269), Minnesota (USGS- Biological Resources center, Ashland, WI; JFBM), Ohio (OSM), Wisconsin (UWZM 9093, 9094, 9727).
References:
Arme, C., and R.W. Owen. 1967. Infections of the three-spined stickleback, Gasterostelus aculeatis L., with the plerocercoid larvae of Schistocephalus solidus (Muller, 1776), with special reference to pathological effects. Parasitology 57: 301-314.
Bailey, R. M., and G. R. Smith. 1991. Names of Michigan fishes. Unpublished mimeograph. 7 pp.
Baker, J., S. Foster, and M. Bell. 1995. Armor morphology and reproductive output in threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 44: 225-233.
Bell, M.A. 1982. Melanism in a high elevation population of Gasterosteus aculeatus. Copeia 1982: 829-835.
Bell, M., et al. 1994. The Evolutionary Biology of the Threespine Stickleback. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, M.A., W.E. Aquirre, and N.J. Buck. 2004. Twelve years of contemporary armor evolution in a threespine stickleback population. Evolution 58(4): 814-824.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=702 6/7/2020 Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) - Species Profile Page 6 of 8
Burr, B. M. 1991. The fishes of Illinois: an overview of a dynamic fauna. Proceedings of our living heritage symposium. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 34(4):417-427.
Cavender, T. - Ohio State University, Museum of Biological Diversity, Columbus, OH.
Chappell, L.H. 1969. The parasites of the three-spined stickleback Gasterosteuis aculeatus L. from a Yorkshire pond. I. Seasonal variation of parasite fauna. Journal of Fish Biology 1: 137-152.
Cooper, A.R. 1918. North American Pseudophyllidean cestodes from fishes. Biological Monographs 4: 288-541.
Cresko, W., K. McGuigan, P. Phillips, and J. Postlethwait. 2007. Studies of threespine stickleback developmental evolution: progress and promise. Genetica 129: 105-126.
Cudmore-Vokey, B. and E.J. Crossman. 2000. Checklists of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes and their connecting channels. Can. MS Rpt. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2500: v + 39p.
Czypinski, G. D., A. K. Hintz, M. T. Weimer, A. Dextrase. 1999. Surveillance for ruffe in the Great Lakes, 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ashland, WI. 29 pp.
Czypinski, G. D., A. K. Bowen, M. T. Weimer, A. Dextrase. 2001. Surveillance for ruffe in the Great Lakes, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ashland, WI. 36 pp.
Day, T., J. Pritchard, and D. Schluter. 1994. A comparison of two sticklebacks. Evolution 48(5): 1723-1734. Ensembl. 2011. Genome browser 63: Gasterosteus aculeatus. (http://www.ensembl.org/Gasterosteus_aculeatus/Info/Index) Accessed: June 30, 2011.
Geving, S.A. - Natural Resource Specialist, Minnesota Department of Environmental Resources, Duluth, MN. Letter to K. Schmidt dated June 6, 1996.
Giles, N. 1983. Behavioural effects of the parasite Schistocephalus solidus (Cestoda) on an intermediate host, the three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Animal Behaviour 31: 1192-1194.
Godin, J.G.J., and C.D. Sproul. 1988. Risk taking in parasitized sticklebacks under threat of predation: effects of energetic need and food availability. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66: 2360-2367.
Gunderson, J. L. - Sea Grant Extension Program, Duluth, MN. Memo dated 7 July 1994 to Aquatic Nuisance Species Outreach Contacts.
Hartel, K.E., D.B. Halliwell, and A.E. Launer. 1996. An annotated working list of the inland fishes of Massachusetts. (http://www.mcz.harvard.edu/fish/ma_fam.htm) Accessed June 28, 2011.
Hirsch, J. 1998. Nonindigenous fish in inland waters: response plan to new introductions. Minn. DNR Special Publication. 152: 1-21.
Huntingford, F., and P. Wright. 1993. Behavioral Ecology of Fishes. Switzerland: Harwood Academic Press.
Johnston, C. E. 1991. Discovery of the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) (Pisces: Gasterosteidae) in the Lake Michigan drainage, Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 84(3&4):173-174.
Latta, W.C. - Fisheries Scientist Emeritus, Michigan DNR. Response to NBS-G nonindigenous questionaire. 1992.
Lester, R.J.G. 1971. The influence of Schistocephalus plerocercoids on the respiration of Gasterosteus aculeatus and a possible resulting effect on the behavior of the fish. Canadian Journal of Zoology 49: 361-366.
LoBue, C.P., and M.A. Bell. 1993. Phenotypic manipulation by the cestode parasite Schistocephalus solidus of its intermediate host, Gasterosteus aculeatus, the threespine stickleback. American Naturalist 142: 725-735.
Mandrak, N.E., and E.J. Crossman. 1992. Postglacial dispersal of freshwater fishes in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70: 2247-2259.
Mattern, M., D. Kingsley, C. Peichel, J. Boughman, F. Huntingford, S. Coyle, S. Ostlund-Nilsson, D. McLennan, B. Borg, I. Mayer, M. Pall, I. Barber, and I. Katsiadaki. 2007. Biology of the three-spined stickleback. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
McPhail, J.D., and S.D. Peacock. 1983. Some effects of the cestode (Schistocephalus solidus) on the reproduction in the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus): evolutionary aspects of a host-parasite interaction. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61: 901-908.
Meakins, R.H. 1974. A quantitative approach to the effects of the plerocercoid of Schistocephalus solidus Müller 1776 on the ovarian maturation of the threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Zeitschrift fur Parasitenkunde 44: 73-79.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=702 6/7/2020 Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) - Species Profile Page 7 of 8
Meakins, R.H., and M. Walkey. 1975. The effects of parasitism by the plerocercoid of Schistocephalus solidus Muller 1776 (Pseudophyllidea) on the respiration of the threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Journal of Fish Biology 7: 817-824.
Messler, A., M. Wund, B. John, and S. Foster. 2007. The effects of relaxed and reversed selection by predators on the antipredator behavior of the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Ethology 113: 853-863.
Milinski, M. 1985. Risk of predation of parasitized sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) under competition for food. Behaviour 93: 203-216.
Milinski, M. 1990. Parasites and host decision-making. Pages 95-116 in C.J. Barnard and J.M. Behnke, editors. Parasitism and host behaviour. Taylor and Francis, London.
Miller R. R., and C. L. Hubbs. 1969. Systematics of Gasterosteus aculeatus with particular reference to intergradation and introgression along the Pacific Coast of North America: a commentary on a recent contribution. Copeia 1969(1):52-69.
Morrow, J.E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. University of British Columbia Animal Resources Ecology Library. 248p.
Moyle, P.B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press Berkeley, CA. http://books.google.com/books? id=8ZCStnV581kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fishes+of+california&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t0dOT-P- Nsna0QH88rS7Ag&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=fishes%20of%20california&f=false.
Moyle, P.B. 1976b. Fish introduction in California: history and impact on native fishes. Biological Conservation 9:101-118.
Muus, B.J., and J.G. Nielsen. 1999. Sea fish. Scandinavian Fishing Year Book, Hedehusene, Denmark. 340 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. The Peterson Field Guide Series, volume 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Page, L. M., and C. A. Laird. 1993. The identification of the nonnative fishes inhabiting Illinois waters. Report prepared by Center for Biodiversity, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, for Illinois Department of Conservation, Springfield. Center for Biodiversity Technical Report 1993(4). 39 pp.
Pascoe, D., and D. Mattey. 1977. Dietary stress in parasitized and non-parasitized Gasterosteus aculeatus L. Zeitschrift fur Parasitenkunde 51: 179-186.
Peuhkuri, N. 1998. Shoal composition, body size and foraging in sticklebacks. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 43: 333-337.
Reimchen, T.E. 1982. Incidence and intensity of Cyanthocephalus truncatus and Schistocephalus solidus infection in Gasterosteus aculeatus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60: 1091-1095.
Ridler, K. 2004. Foreign fish invading reservoir. (statesmanjournal.com) April 19, 2004.
Robins, C. R., G. C. Ray, and J. Douglass. 1986. A field guide to Atlantic Coast fishes of North America. The Peterson Guide Series, volume 32. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Scheidegger, K. - Bureau of Fisheries Management, Madison, WI. Response to NBS-G non-indigenous questionaire. 1992.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 184: 1-966.
Shaw, K., M. Scotti, and S. Foster. 2007. Ancestral plasticity and the evolutionary diversification of courtship behavior in threespine sticklebacks. Animal Behaviour 73: 415-422.
Sigler, W.F., and J.W. Sigler. 1987. Fishes of the Great Basin: a natural history. University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV. 425 pp.
Smith, C. L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York state. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 522 pp.
Smith, R.S., and D.L. Kramer. 1987. Effects of cestode (Schistocephalus sp.) on the response of ninespine sticklebacks (Pungitius pungitius) to aquatic hypoxia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65: 1862-1865.
Smyth, J.D. 1962. Introduction to animal parasitology. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=702 6/7/2020 Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) - Species Profile Page 8 of 8
Stedman, R.M., and C.A. Bowen. 1985. Introduction and spread of the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) in Lakes Huron and Michigan. Journal of the Great Lakes Research 11: 508-511.
Swift, C.C., T.R. Haglund, M. Ruiz, and R.N. Fisher. 1993. The status and distribution of the freshwater fishes of southern California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Science 92(3): 101-167.
Tilmant, J.T. 1999. Management of nonindigenous aquatic fish in the U.S. National Park System. National Park Service. 50 pp.
Walkey, M., and R.H. Meakins. 1970. An attempt to balance the energy budget of a host-parasite system. Journal of Fish Biology 2: 361-372.
Wedekind, C. 1997. The infectivity, growth, and virulence of the cestode Schistocephalus solidus in its first intermediate host, the copepod Macrocyclops albidus. Parasitology 115: 317-324.
Wootton, R.J. 1976. The Biology of the Sticklebacks. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Wootton, R.J. 1984. A Functional Biology of Sticklebacks. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Other Resources: Distribution in Illinois - ILNHS
GLIFWC-Maps
Fish Base
Animal Diversity Web
ARKive
ENSEMBL Genome
Great Lakes Waterlife
Author: Fuller, P., K. Dettloff, and R. Sturtevant
Revision Date: 9/12/2019
Peer Review Date: 2/6/2015
Citation Information: Fuller, P., K. Dettloff, and R. Sturtevant, 2020, Gasterosteus aculeatus Linnaeus, 1758: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx? SpeciesID=702, Revision Date: 9/12/2019, Peer Review Date: 2/6/2015, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=702 6/7/2020
Ictaluridae
Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) - Species Profile Page 1 of 9
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Ictalurus punctatus (Channel Catfish) Fishes Native Transplant
< Image 1 of 2 >
Sam Stukel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque, 1818)
Common name: Channel Catfish
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Becker (1983); Page and Burr (1991); Etnier and Starnes (1993); Jenkins and Burkhead (1994).
Size: Maximum size: 127 cm.
Native Range: St. Lawrence-Great Lakes, Hudson Bay (Red River drainage), and Missouri-Mississippi River basins from southern Quebec to southern Manitoba and Montana south to the Gulf. Possibly also native on Atlantic and Gulf slopes from the Susquehanna River to the Neuse River, and from the Savannah River to Lake Okeechobee, Florida, and west to northern Mexico and eastern New Mexico (Page and Burr 1991).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=2341 6/7/2020 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) - Species Profile Page 2 of 9
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Ictalurus punctatus are found here.
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations†
Arizona 1880 2013 37 Aqua Fria; Big Chino-Williamson Valley; Bill Williams; Bouse Wash; Brawley Wash; Canyon Diablo; Centennial Wash; Detrital Wash; Grand Canyon; Grand Wash; Havasu Canyon; Havasu- Mohave Lakes; Imperial Reservoir; Lake Mead; Little Colorado Headwaters; Lower Colorado; Lower Colorado Region; Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon; Lower Gila; Lower Lake Powell; Lower Little Colorado; Lower Salt; Lower San Pedro; Lower Verde; Middle Gila; Middle Gila; Middle Little Colorado; San Francisco; Silver; Tonto; Upper Gila-San Carlos Reservoir; Upper Little Colorado; Upper Salt; Upper San Pedro; Upper Santa Cruz; Upper Verde; Yuma Desert
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=2341 6/7/2020 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) - Species Profile Page 3 of 9
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations†
California Region; Honcut Headwaters-Lower Feather; Imperial Reservoir; Los Angeles; Lower Colorado; Lower Pit; Lower Sacramento; Middle San Joaquin-Lower Chowchilla; Mojave; Owens Lake; Russian; Sacramento-Stone Corral; Salton Sea; San Diego; San Gabriel; San Joaquin; San California 1874 2014 34 Joaquin Delta; San Luis Rey-Escondido; San Pablo Bay; Santa Ana; Santa Clara; Santa Margarita; Santa Maria; Seal Beach; Suisun Bay; Tulare Lake Bed; Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes; Upper Cache; Upper Coon-Upper Auburn; Upper Mokelumne; Upper Pit; Upper Sacramento; Upper Yuba; Whitewater River
Animas; Colorado Headwaters; Colorado Headwaters-Plateau; Gunnison; Lower Dolores; Lower Green-Diamond; Lower Gunnison; Lower San Juan-Four Corners; Lower White; Lower Colorado 1880 2019 20 Yampa; McElmo; Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek; Piedra; Republican; Rio Grande Headwaters; San Luis; Upper Dolores; Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper San Juan; Upper White
Housatonic; Lower Connecticut; New England Connecticut 1960 1996 3 Region
Brandywine-Christina; Broadkill-Smyrna; Delaware 1976 2007 7 Chincoteague; Delaware Bay; Mid Atlantic Region; Nanticoke; Upper Chesapeake
District of 2010 2010 1 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan Columbia
Altamaha; Altamaha; Savannah; South Atlantic- Georgia 1971 2018 6 Gulf Region; Upper Ocmulgee; Upper Oconee
Hawaii 1953 2005 5 Hawaii; Hawaii Region; Kauai; Maui; Oahu
American Falls; Bear Lake; Beaver-Camas; Big Wood; Brownlee Reservoir; C.J. Strike Reservoir; Clearwater; Coeur d'Alene Lake; Goose; Hells Canyon; Idaho Falls; Kootenai; Lake Walcott; Little Wood; Lower Bear; Lower Bear-Malad; Lower Boise; Lower Kootenai; Lower Salmon; Idaho 1890 2011 35 Lower Snake-Asotin; Middle Bear; Middle Kootenai; Middle Snake-Succor; North Fork Payette; Pacific Northwest Region; Payette; Pend Oreille; Pend Oreille Lake; Priest; Salmon Falls; Spokane; St. Joe; Upper Snake-Rock; Upper Spokane; Weiser
Maine 2001 2001 1 St. George-Sheepscot
Cacapon-Town; Chincoteague; Conococheague- Opequon; Lower Susquehanna; Middle Potomac- Maryland 1949 2010 9 Catoctin; Monocacy; Potomac; Tangier; Upper Chesapeake
Massachusetts 1978 2005 2 Charles; Middle Connecticut
Crow; Elk-Nokasippi; Sauk; South Fork Crow; Minnesota 2000 2012 6 Twin Cities; Upper Mississippi-Crow-Rum
Montana 1988 1988 1 Flathead Lake
Nevada 1937 2008 12
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=2341 6/7/2020 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) - Species Profile Page 4 of 9
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Carson Desert; Central Lahontan; Havasu- Mohave Lakes; Imperial Reservoir; Lake Mead; Little Humboldt; Lower Humboldt; Lower Virgin; Middle Carson; Muddy; Pyramid-Winnemucca Lakes; Truckee
Cohansey-Maurice; Crosswicks-Neshaminy; Hackensack-Passaic; Mid Atlantic Region; Mid- New Jersey 1905 2018 7 Atlantic Region; Middle Delaware-Musconetcong; Raritan
Chaco; Cimarron Headwaters; Mimbres; Rio Grande-Albuquerque; Rio Grande-Santa Fe; San New Mexico 1957 2015 13 Francisco; Upper Gila; Upper Gila-Mangas; Upper Pecos; Upper Pecos-Long Arroyo; Upper San Juan; Upper San Juan; Zuni
New York 1986 2005 3 Chenango; Hudson-Wappinger; Lower Hudson
Albemarle; Black; Cape Fear; Chowan; Contentnea; Deep; Fishing; Haw; Lower Cape Fear; Lower Catawba; Lower Dan; Lower Neuse; Lower Pee Dee; Lower Roanoke; Lower Tar; Lower Yadkin; Lumber; Middle Neuse; Neuse; North Carolina 1920 2019 36 Northeast Cape Fear; Pamlico; Pamlico Sound; Roanoke; Roanoke Rapids; Rocky; South Yadkin; Upper Broad; Upper Cape Fear; Upper Catawba; Upper Dan; Upper Neuse; Upper Pee Dee; Upper Pee Dee; Upper Tar; Upper Yadkin; Waccamaw
Beaver-South Fork; Brownlee Reservoir; Bully; Goose Lake; Lower Deschutes; Lower John Day; Lower Malheur; Lower Owyhee; Lower Willamette; Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Middle Snake-Payette; Oregon 1889 2013 26 Middle Willamette; Molalla-Pudding; Pacific Northwest; Siletz-Yaquina; Tualatin; Umatilla; Umpqua; Upper Grande Ronde; Upper Klamath Lake; Upper Malheur; Upper Rogue; Upper Willamette; Walla Walla; Willamette
Lower Susquehanna; Lower Susquehanna; Pennsylvania 1966 1986 4 Susquehanna; West Branch Susquehanna
Cibuco-Guajataca; Culebrinas-Guanajibo; Puerto Rico 1938 2007 5 Eastern Puerto Rico; Puerto Rico; Southern Puerto Rico
Broad-St. Helena; Carolina Coastal-Sampit; Congaree; Cooper; Lake Marion; Little Pee Dee; Lower Broad; Lower Catawba; Lower Pee Dee; South Carolina 1951 2019 24 Lumber; Lynches; Middle Savannah; North Fork Edisto; Salkehatchie; Saluda; Santee; Santee; Seneca; Stevens; Tyger; Upper Broad; Upper Savannah; Waccamaw; Wateree
Utah 1880 2015 29 Duchesne; Escalante Desert-Sevier Lake; Hamlin -Snake Valleys; Jordan; Lower Bear-Malad; Lower Dolores; Lower Green; Lower Green- Desolation Canyon; Lower Green-Diamond; Lower Lake Powell; Lower San Juan; Lower San Juan-Four Corners; Lower Sevier; Lower Weber; Lower White; McElmo; Middle Bear; Middle Sevier; Price; San Pitch; Upper Bear; Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil; Upper Colorado-Kane Springs; Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir;
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=2341 6/7/2020 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) - Species Profile Page 5 of 9
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Upper Lake Powell; Upper Virgin; Upper Weber; Utah Lake; Westwater Canyon
Albemarle; Appomattox; Chowan; Hampton Roads; James; Kanawha; Lower Chesapeake; Lower Dan; Lower James; Lower Potomac; Lower Rappahannock; Mattaponi; Middle James- Buffalo; Middle James-Willis; Middle Potomac- Virginia 1969 2014 30 Anacostia-Occoquan; Middle Potomac-Catoctin; Middle Roanoke; North Fork Shenandoah; Pamunkey; Potomac; Rapidan-Upper Rappahannock; Rivanna; Roanoke; Roanoke Rapids; Shenandoah; South Fork Shenandoah; Upper Dan; Upper James; Upper Roanoke; York
Banks Lake; Chief Joseph; Colville; Duwamish; Lake Chelan; Lake Washington; Lewis; Lower Columbia-Clatskanie; Lower Columbia-Sandy; Lower Cowlitz; Lower Crab; Lower Grande Ronde; Lower Skagit; Lower Snake; Lower Snake; Lower Snake-Tucannon; Lower Yakima; Washington 1892 2018 32 Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Nisqually; Nooksack; Okanogan; Pacific Northwest Region; Palouse; Puget Sound; San Juan Islands; Snohomish; Strait of Georgia; Upper Columbia-Entiat; Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids; Upper Yakima; Walla Walla
West Virginia 1993 1993 1 Potomac
Wisconsin 1954 1983 3 Manitowoc-Sheboygan; Upper Rock; Wolf
Big Horn; Blacks Fork; Little Snake; North Platte; Wyoming 1880 1995 7 Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper Green-Slate; White - Yampa
Table last updated 10/24/2019
† Populations may not be currently present.
Means of Introduction: Intentionally stocked for sport fishing and food. The first introductions in the Colorado River took place in 1892-1893 or in 1906 (Miller and Alcorn 1946). They had become established throughout the Colorado basin by the early 1900s (Holden and Stalnaker 1975). The earliest stocking record for the Yampa River is from 1944 and involved 34,200 fingerling catfish (Tyus 1998). The introductions into Silver Lake and the Charles River in Massachusetts involved albino fish from the aquarium trade (Cardoza et al. 1993).
Status: Established in most waters where introduced.
Impact of Introduction: The Channel Catfish hybridizes with the threatened Yaqui catfish I. pricei in Mexico (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius, an endangered species, have been documented to choke on introduced Channel Catfish when attempting to eat them (McAda 1983; Pimental et al. 1985; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) speculated that introduced Channel Catfish may have contributed to the demise of an isolated population of trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus in the Potomac River in Virginia and Maryland. Introduced Channel Catfish may exert a major negative effect on populations of various endangered species. For instance, this species is known to prey on small and large endangered humpback chub Gila cypha in the Little Colorado River thereby limiting recruitment and also increasing adult mortality (Marsh and Douglas 1997). There is also evidence that this introduced catfish preys heavily on juveniles of razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus that had been reintroduced into the Gila River of Arizona (Marsh and Brooks 1989). Introduced predatory fishes, including the Channel Catfish, may be partially responsible for the decline of the Chiricahua leopard frog Rana chiricahuensis in southeastern Arizona (Rosen et al. 1995) and have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of native prey species in several Pacific Northwest rivers (Hughes and Herlihy 2012).
Channel Catfish predation on crayfish resulted in a great loss of crayfish density in mesocosm experiments, and is likely the cause of native crayfish population decline in natural habitats where the Channel Catfish has been introduced (Adams 2007).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=2341 6/7/2020 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) - Species Profile Page 6 of 9
Remarks: Tyus et al. (1982) gave a distribution map for this species in the upper Colorado basin. Channel Catfish have also been stocked in many native areas including Arkansas (Robison and Buchanan 1988); Illinois (Burr, personal communication); Nebraska (Jones 1963). Harlan et al. (1987) stated that stocking in Iowa has widened this species' distribution. Cross and Collins (1995) mapped the species in every county in Kansas. Cross (1967) indicated a much more restricted distribution in the state and did not include every county. Presumably the more recent map indicates the species had been introduced to new locations since the 1967 publication. Cross (1967) also stated that it had been stocked in many lakes and ponds in the state. Griffiths (1939) reported that the Channel Catfish was found in the ladders of the Bonneville Dam but no specimens were obtained. If introduction did occur it is though that they were unsuccessful.
According to Springsteen (2010), the Channel Catfish was the first species to be raised in commercial aquaculture for food purposes in the US. Before that point, other species including tilapia and carp were raised in Egypt and China for sport. The species was farmed in the Mississippi Delta region during the 1950s.
References:
Adams, S.B. 2007. Direct and indirect effects of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) on native crayfishes (Cambaridae) in experimental tanks. American Midland Naturalist 158: 85-96.
Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
Bradley, W. G. and J. E. Deacon. 1967. The biotic communities of southern Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 13, Part 4. 201-273.
Burr, B. - Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, IL. 1995.
Cross, F. B. 1967. Handbook of Fishes of Kansas. State Biological Survey and University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous Publication 45, Topeka, KS.
Dahlberg, M. D., and D. C. Scott. 1971a. The freshwater fishes of Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science 29:1--64.
Dahlberg, M. D., and D. C. Scott. 1971b. Introductions of freshwater fishes in Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science 29:245--252.
Deacon, J. E., and J. E. Williams. 1984. Annotated list of the fishes of Nevada. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 97(1):103--118.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.
Everhart, W. H., and W. R. Seaman. 1971. Fishes of Colorado. Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Division, Denver, CO. 75 pp.
Fowler, H. W. 1906. The fishes of New Jersey. Pages 35--477 in Annual Report of the New Jersey State Museum (1905), part II. MacCrellish and Quigley, State Province, Trenton, NJ.
Fowler, H. W. 1952. A list of the fishes of New Jersey, with off-shore species. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia CIV:89--151.
Griffiths, F. P. 1939. Considerations of the Introduction and Distribution of Exotic Fishes in Oregon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 69: 240-273.
Harlan, J. R., E. B. Speaker, and J. Mayhew. 1987. Iowa fish and fishing. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA. 323 pp.
Hartel, K. E. 1992. Non-native fishes known from Massachusetts freshwaters. Occasional Reports of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Fish Department, Cambridge, MA. 2. September. pp. 1--9.
Hocutt, C.H., R.E. Jenkins, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1986. Zoogeography of the fishes of the central Appalachians and central Atlantic Coastal Plain. 161-212 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, eds. The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Holden, P. B., and C. B. Stalnaker. 1975. Distribution and abundance of mainstream fishes of the middle and upper Colorado River basins, 1967--1973. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104(2):217--231.
Howells, R. G., and J. A. Prentice. 1991. Performance of Florida largemouth bass from Cuba in Texas waters. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Management Data Series 59, Austin, TX. 13 pp.
Hubert, W. 1994. Exotic fish. Pages 158--174 in T. L. Parrish, and S. H. Anderson, editors. Exotic species manual. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Laramie, WY.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=2341 6/7/2020 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) - Species Profile Page 7 of 9
Hughes, R.M. and A.T. Herlihy. 2012. Patterns in catch per unit effort of native prey fish and alien piscivorous fish in 7 Pacific Northwest USA rivers. Fisheries 37(5):201-211.
Lanigan, S. H. and C. R. Berry. 1981. Distribution of fishes in the White River, Utah. The Southwestern Naturalist 26(4): 389-393.
Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Koster, W. J. 1957. Guide to the fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM.
Kraai, J. E., W. P. Provine, and J. A. Prentice. 1983. Case histories of three walleye stocking techniques with cost -to-benefit considerations. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 37 (1983):395--400.
Lampman, B. H. 1946. The coming of the pond fishes. Binfords and Mort, Portland, OR.
La Rivers, I. 1962. Fishes and fisheries of Nevada. Nevada State Print Office, Carson City, NV.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980 et seq. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, D. S., A. Norden, C. R. Gilbert, and R. Franz. 1976. A list of the freshwater fishes of Maryland and Delaware. Chesapeake Science 17(3):205--211.
Linder, A. D. 1963. Idaho's alien fishes. Tebiwa 6(2):12--15.
Loyacano, H. A. Jr. 1975. A List of Freshwater Fishes of South Carolina. Bulletin of the South Carolina Experimental Station. Bulletin 580, 9 pp.
Luebke, R. W. 1978. Evaluation of a multi-predator introduction. Federal Aid Project F-31-R-4.
Maciolek, J. A. 1984. Exotic fishes in Hawaii and other islands of Oceania. Pages 131--161 in W. R. Courtenay, Jr., and J. R. Stauffer, Jr., editors. Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fishes. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Marsh, P.C. and J.E. Brooks. 1989. Predation by Ictalurid catfishes as a deterrent to re-establishment of hatchery -reared razorback suckers.. Southwestern Naturalist 34(2):188-195. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3671728.
Marsh, P. C., and M. E. Douglas. 1997. Predation by introduced fishes on endangered humpback chub and other native species in the Little Colorado RIver, Arizona. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:343-346.
Matern, S.A., P.B. Moyle, and L.C. Pierce. 2002. Native and alien fishes in a California estuarine marsh: twenty- one years of changing assemblages. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 131: 797-816.
McAda, C. W. 1983. Colorado squawfish, Ptychocheilus lucius (Cyprinidae), with a channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus (Ictaluridae), lodged in its throat. Southwestern Naturalist 28(1):119--120.
Menhinick, E. F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 227 pp.
Minckley, W. L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Fish and Game Department. Sims Printing Company, Inc., Phoenix, AZ.
Morris, J., L. Morris, and L. Witt. 1974. The fishes of Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE. 98 pp.
Morse, S. R. 1905. Fresh and salt water fish found in the waters of New Jersey, part I. Annual Report of the New Jersey State Museum. MacCrellish and Quigley, State Province, Trenton, NJ.
Moyle, P. B. 1976a. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Moyle, P. B., and R. A. Daniels. 1982. Fishes of the Pit River System, McCloud River System, and Surprise Valley Region. University of California Publications, Zoology 115:1--82.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. The Peterson Field Guide Series, volume 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Pflieger, W. - Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO.
Phillips, G. L., W. D. Schmid, J. C. Underhill. 1982. Fishes of the Minnesota region. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=2341 6/7/2020 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) - Species Profile Page 8 of 9
Pimental, R., R. V. Bulkley, and H. H. Tyus. 1985. Choking of Colorado squawfish, Ptychocheilus lucius (Cyprinidae), on a channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus (Ictaluridae), as a cause of mortality. Southwestern Naturalist 30:154--158.
Platania, S. P. 1991. Fishes of the Rio Chama and upper Rio Grande, New Mexico, with preliminary comments on their longitudinal distribution. Southwestern Naturalist 36(2):186--193.
Prentice, J. A. 1977. Texas statewide walleye stocking evaluation. Federal Aid Project F-31-R-3.
Prentice, J. A. 1985. Texas statewide walleye fishery management program. Federal Aid Project F-31-R-11.
Pritchard, D. L., O. D. May, Jr., and L. Rider. 1976. Stocking of predators in the predator-stocking-evaluation reservoirs. Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners 30(1976):108--113.
Raasch, M. S., and V. L. Altemus, Sr. 1991. Delaware's freshwater and brackish water fishes -- a popular account. Delaware State College for the Study of Del-Mar-Va Habitats and the Society of Natural History of Delaware. 166 pp.
Reilly, S. 2000. Rotonda fish population jumps. Sun Herald. Available online at URL http://www.sun-herald.com.
Richardson, W.M., J.A. St. Amant, L.J. Bottroff, and W.L. Parker. 1970. Introduction of blue catfish into California. California Fish and Game. 70: 311-312.
Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, J. W. Foltz, and J. W. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. 430 pp.
Rosen, P.C., C.R. Schwalbe, D.A. Parizek, Jr., P.A. Holm, and C.H. Lowe. 1995. Introduced aquatic vertebrates in the Chiricahua region: effects on declining native ranid frogs. Pages 251-261 in DeBano, L.H., P.H. Folliott, A. Ortega-Rubio, G.J. Gottfried, R.H. Hamre, and C.B. Edminster, eds. Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago: the sky islands of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO.
Schmidt, B. - Chief Fisheries Mangement, Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. Response to NBS-G non-indigenous questionaire. 1992.
Shebley, W. H. 1917. History of the introduction of food and game fishes into the waters of California. California Fish and Game 3(1):3-10.
Sigler, W. F., and R. R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah Department of Fish and Game, Salt Lake City, UT. 203 pp.
Simpson, J., and R. Wallace. 1978. Fishes of Idaho. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID.
Smith, H. M. 1896. A review of the history and results of the attempts to acclimatize fish and other water animals in the Pacific states. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission for 1895, 40:379--472.
Springer, C. 2005. Catfish removal benefits San Juan River. ESPN Outdoors. Available online at URL http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/s/2005/0202/1982675.html
Springsteen, Elizabeth R. 2010. Aquaculture and the Lacey Act. An Agricultural Law Research Project published by the National Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas, 1-5.
Starnes, W.C., J. Odenkirk, and M.J. Ashton. 2011. Update and analysis of fish occurrences in the lower Potomac River drainage in the vicinity of Plummers Island, Maryland—Contribution XXXI to the natural history of Plummers Island, Maryland. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 124(4):280-309.
Stauffer, J. R., Jr., J. M. Boltz, and L. R. White. 1995. The fishes of West Virginia. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. 389 pp.
Stiles, E. W. 1978. Vertebrates of New Jersey. Edmund W. Stiles, Somerset, NJ.
Sublette, J. E., M. D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. 393 pp.
Tilmant, J.T. 1999. Management of nonindigenous aquatic fish in the U.S. National Park System. National Park Service. 50 pp.
Trautman, M. B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=2341 6/7/2020 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) - Species Profile Page 9 of 9
Tyus, H. M., B. D. Burdick, R. A. Valdez, C. M. Haynes, T. A. Lytle, and C. R. Berry. 1982. Fishes of the upper Colorado River basin: distribution, abundance, and status. Pages 12--70 in W. H. Miller, H. M. Tyus, and C. A. Carlson, editors. Fishes of the upper Colorado River system: present and future, Western Division, American Fisheries Society.
Sakamoto, M. 2002. Deadly nymphs. Hawaii Fishing News. 25(5): 16-17.
Sommer, T, B. Harrell, M. Nobriga, R. Brown, P. Moyle, W. Kimmerer, and L. Schemel. 2001. California's Yolo Bypass: Evidence that flood control can be compatible with fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, and agriculture. Fisheries. American Fisheries Society. 26 (8): 6-16.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Colorado squawfish recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 56 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Yaqui fishes recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 48 pp.
Vinyard, G.L. 2001. Fish Species Recorded from Nevada. Biological Resources Research Center. University of Nevada, Reno. 5 pp.
Waldrip, L. 1993a. 1992 fish stocking report. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. January 8, 1993. 1993: 9-12.
Waldrip, L. 1993b. Fish Stocking Report. Texas Parks and Wildlife News. March 5, 1993. 1993: 7-8.
Whitworth, W. R. 1996. Freshwater Fishes of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Bulletin 114.
Wydoski, R. S., and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Other Resources: Author: Pam Fuller, and Matt Neilson
Revision Date: 10/4/2019
Peer Review Date: 5/29/2012
Citation Information: Pam Fuller, and Matt Neilson, 2020, Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque, 1818): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=2341, Revision Date: 10/4/2019, Peer Review Date: 5/29/2012, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=2341 6/7/2020
Percidae
Yellow perch Page 1 of 6
(https://www.fws.gov) (https://www.fws.gov) Fish and Aquatic Conservation
Search USFWS
You Are Here: Fisheries Home (https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/index.html) » Freshwater Fish of America (../freshwater-fish-of-america.html) » Yellow perch
Yellow perch Perca flavescens ( Mitchill, 1814)
Cool Facts Yellow perch spawn between February and July in the northern hemispheres and between August and October in the southern hemisphere. The oldest reported age for a yellow perch is 11 years. The heaviest reported weight for a yellow perch is 1.9 kg (4.2 lbs.)
SIZE: The common length for yellow perch is 19.1 cm (7.5 inches) with the longest reported length for yellow perch being 50 cm (19.7 inches).
https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of-america/yellow_perch.html 6/7/2020 Yellow perch Page 2 of 6
RANGE: Yellow perch are found in the drainages of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin. In the United States, yellow perch range southward into Ohio, Illinois, and throughout the majority of the northeast. They are also considered native to the Atlantic slope basin, extending south into the Savannah River into South Carolina.
HABITAT: Yellow perch are found in ponds, lakes, the pools of creeks and slow flowing rivers. They are most commonly found in clear water near vegetation and tend to school near the shore during the spring. They can also be found in brackish water.
DIET: Yellow perch consume a wide variety of invertebrates and small fish species.
Natural History Yellow perch spawning occurs during the spring as water temperatures rise along the shorelines. Yellow perch eggs are extruded in long ribbons along submerged vegetation, dead branches and trees. When female yellow perch extrude their eggs, groups of male yellow perch will follow the females and fertilize their eggs by extruding milt.
Larval perch emerge from these fertilized eggs. Survival rates of juvenile yellow perch are low because many fish utilize yellow perch as their natural forage species. Yellow perch are also easy prey for non‐native species.
In order to compensate for the low survival rates of their eggs and juveniles, yellow perch produce large quantities of eggs. This strategy enables small populations of yellow perch to rebound if favorable habitat conditions occur. Conservation Yellow perch are an important commercial species as well as recreational fish species.. Commercial and recreational fishing regulations are used to manage yellow perch populations.
The combination of protecting both shoreline and submerged aquatic vegetation and riparian buffer zones will also help to stabilize yellow perch populations.
https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of-america/yellow_perch.html 6/7/2020 Yellow perch Page 3 of 6
Fish Guide
Fish Glossary (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/fishguide_glossary.html)
Alligator gar (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/alligator_gar.html)
American eel (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/american_eel.html)
American shad (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/american_shad.html)
Apache trout (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/apache_trout.html)
Arctic grayling (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/arctic_grayling.html)
Atlantic salmon (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/atlantic_salmon.html)
Atlantic sturgeon (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/atlantic_sturgeon.html)
Black crappie (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/black_crappie.html)
Bloater (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of-america/bloater.html)
Blueback herring (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/blueback_herring.html)
Bluegill (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of-america/bluegill.html)
Brook trout (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/brook_trout.html)
https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of-america/yellow_perch.html 6/7/2020 Yellow perch Page 4 of 6
Bull trout (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/bull_trout.html)
Channel catfish (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/channel_catfish.html)
Chinook salmon (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/chinook_salmon.html)
Chum salmon (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/chum_salmon.html)
Coho salmon (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/coho_salmon.html)
Colorado pikeminnow (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/colorado_pikeminnow.html)
Comanche Springs pupfish (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/comanche_springs_pupfish.html)
Devils Hole pupfish (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/devils_hole_pupfish.html)
Humpback chub (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/humpback_chub.html)
Lahontan cutthroat trout (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/lahontan_cutthroat_trout.html)
Lake herring (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/lake_herring.html)
Lake sturgeon (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/lake_sturgeon.html)
Lake trout (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/lake_trout.html)
Largemouth bass (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/largemouth_bass.html)
https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of-america/yellow_perch.html 6/7/2020 Yellow perch Page 5 of 6
Moapa dace (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/moapa_dace.html)
Muskellunge (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/muskellunge.html)
Northern pike (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/northern_pike.html)
Pacific lamprey (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/pacific_lamprey.html)
Paddlefish (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/paddlefish.html)
Pallid sturgeon (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/pallid_sturgeon.html)
Razorback sucker (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/razorback_sucker.html)
Rio Grande Silvery minnow (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/rio_grande_silvery_minnow.html)
Shortnose sucker (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/shortnose_sucker.html)
Smallmouth bass (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/smallmouth_bass.html)
Steelhead trout (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/steelhead_trout.html)
Striped bass (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/striped_bass.html)
Walleye (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of-america/walleye.html)
West slope cutthroat trout (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/westslope_cutthroat_trout.html)
https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of-america/yellow_perch.html 6/7/2020 Yellow perch Page 6 of 6
White bass (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/white_bass.html)
Yellow perch (/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of- america/yellow_perch.html)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home Page (https://www.fws.gov) | Department of the Interior (http://www.doi.gov/) | USA.gov (http://www.usa.gov/) | About the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (https://www.fws.gov/help/about_us.html) | Accessibility (https://www.fws.gov/help/accessibility.html) | Privacy (https://www.fws.gov/help/policies.html) | Notices (https://www.fws.gov/help/notices.html) | Disclaimer (https://www.fws.gov/help/disclaimer.html) | FOIA (https://www.fws.gov/irm/bpim/foia.html)
https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of-america/yellow_perch.html 6/7/2020 Walleye (Sander vitreus) - Species Profile Page 1 of 8
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Sander vitreus (Walleye) Fishes Native Transplant
< Image 1 of 3 >
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sander vitreus (Mitchill, 1818)
Common name: Walleye
Synonyms and Other Names: (walleyed pike); Stizostedion vitreum
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Becker (1983); Page and Burr (1991); Etnier and Starnes (1993); Jenkins and Burkhead (1994).
Size: 91 cm.
Native Range: St. Lawrence-Great Lakes, Arctic, and Mississippi River basins from Quebec to Northwest Territories, and south to Alabama and Arkansas (Page and Burr 1991).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=831 6/7/2020 Walleye (Sander vitreus) - Species Profile Page 2 of 8
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Sander vitreus are found here.
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations†
Alabama 1953 1981 2 Middle Tallapoosa; Mulberry
Canyon Diablo; Grand Canyon; Lake Mead; Little Arizona 1880 2004 9 Colorado Headwaters; Lower Colorado Region; Lower Lake Powell; Lower Salt; Silver; Upper Verde
Beaver Reservoir; Bull Shoals Lake; Dardanelle Reservoir; Fourche La Fave; Frog-Mulberry; Little Arkansas 1950 1988 13 Missouri; Lower Little Arkansas; Lower Saline; Ouachita Headwaters; Petit Jean; Robert S. Kerr Reservoir; Upper Ouachita; Upper Saline
California 1874 1950 2 Lower Sacramento; Upper Coon-Upper Auburn
Colorado 1880 2009 33 Alamosa-Trinchera; Big Thompson; Cache La Poudre; Clear; Colorado Headwaters; Colorado Headwaters- Plateau; Fountain; Horse; Huerfano; Lower Gunnison; Lower San Juan-Four Corners; Lower White; Lower
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=831 6/7/2020 Walleye (Sander vitreus) - Species Profile Page 3 of 8
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Yampa; McElmo; Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek; North Platte; Piedra; Purgatoire; Republican; Rio Grande Headwaters; San Luis; South Fork Republican; South Platte; St. Vrain; Two Butte; Upper Arkansas; Upper Arkansas-John Martin Reservoir; Upper Arkansas -Lake Meredith; Upper Dolores; Upper Gunnison; Upper San Juan; Upper South Platte; Upper Yampa
Housatonic; Lower Connecticut; New England Region; Connecticut 1940 1999 5 Quinnipiac; Thames
Delaware 1974 1995 2 Brandywine-Christina; Delaware Bay
Florida 1960 1982 3 Florida Southeast Coast; Kissimmee; Vero Beach
Altamaha; Apalachicola Basin; Lower Chattahoochee; Lower Oconee; Lower Savannah; Middle Chattahoochee Georgia 1971 1998 12 -Lake Harding; Savannah; South Atlantic-Gulf Region; Tugaloo; Upper Chattahoochee; Upper Oconee; Upper Savannah
Bear Lake; Beaver-Camas; Goose; Lower Bear; Lower Snake-Asotin; Middle Bear; North Fork Payette; Pend Idaho 1951 2011 12 Oreille Lake; Salmon Falls; Upper Snake-Rock; Upper Spokane; Weiser
Indiana 1893 1938 *
Iowa 2001 2001 1 Missouri-Little Sioux
Delaware; Fall; Lower Big Blue; Middle Neosho; Middle Smoky Hill; Neosho Headwaters; Prairie Dog; South Fork Ninnescah; Upper Cimarron-Bluff; Upper Kansas 1865 2012 16 Cottonwood; Upper Neosho; Upper North Fork Solomon; Upper Saline; Upper Smoky Hill; Upper South Fork Solomon; Upper Verdigris
Middle Fork Kentucky; Red; Rough; Upper Cumberland; Kentucky 1986 2009 5 Upper Kentucky
Bayou D'Arbonne; Lower Mississippi-Baton Rouge; Louisiana 1974 1997 4 Lower Ouachita-Bayou De Loutre; Toledo Bend Reservoir
Maine 1914 2010 3 Lower Kennebec; New England Region; St. Croix
Conococheague-Opequon; Gunpowder-Patapsco; Lower Susquehanna; Mid Atlantic Region; Middle Potomac- Maryland 1969 2007 9 Catoctin; North Branch Potomac; Patuxent; Upper Chesapeake; Youghiogheny
Merrimack; Middle Connecticut; Narragansett; New Massachusetts 1980 2005 4 England Region
Mississippi 1936 1976 3 Middle Pearl-Silver; Middle Pearl-Strong; Yocona
Missouri 1988 1988 1 Bull Shoals Lake
Montana 1933 2015 56 Arrow; Battle; Beaver; Beaver; Beaverhead; Big Dry; Big Horn; Big Horn Lake; Big Muddy; Big Sandy; Bullwhacker-Dog; Charlie-Little Muddy; Clarks Fork Yellowstone; Flathead Lake; Flatwillow; Fort Peck Reservoir; Frenchman; Judith; Lodge; Lower Bighorn; Lower Clark Fork; Lower Flathead; Lower Milk; Lower Musselshell; Lower Powder; Lower Tongue; Lower Yellowstone; Lower Yellowstone-Sunday; Marias; Middle Milk; Middle Musselshell; Milk; Musselshell; O'Fallon; Peoples; Poplar; Prairie Elk-Wolf; Redwater; Rosebud; Sage; Sun; Swan; Teton; Upper Little Missouri; Upper Milk; Upper Missouri; Upper Missouri; Upper Missouri- Dearborn; Upper Musselshell; Upper Tongue; Upper Yellowstone; Upper Yellowstone; Upper Yellowstone-
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=831 6/7/2020 Walleye (Sander vitreus) - Species Profile Page 4 of 8
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Lake Basin; Upper Yellowstone-Pompeys Pillar; West Fork Poplar; Willow
Nebraska 1884 2017 2 Missouri Region; Red Willow
Havasu-Mohave Lakes; Lake Mead; Little Humboldt; Nevada 1984 2001 7 Lower Humboldt; Middle Carson; Middle Humboldt; Truckee
Black-Ottauquechee; Contoocook; Merrimack River; New Middle Connecticut; Piscataqua-Salmon Falls; Saco; 1927 2001 10 Hampshire Upper Connecticut; Upper Connecticut-Mascoma; Waits; West
Crosswicks-Neshaminy; Hackensack-Passaic; Lower New Jersey 1890 2002 7 Hudson; Mid-Atlantic Region; Middle Delaware-Mongaup -Brodhead; Middle Delaware-Musconetcong; Raritan
Caballo; Conchas; Elephant Butte Reservoir; Pecos Headwaters; Rio Chama; Rio Grande-Albuquerque; Rio New Mexico 1957 2000 12 Grande-Santa Fe; Upper Beaver; Upper Canadian; Upper Canadian-Ute Reservoir; Upper Pecos; Upper Pecos-Black
Chenango; East Branch Delaware; Lower Hudson; Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead; Mohawk; Owego- New York 1815 2005 10 Wappasening; Southern Long Island; Upper Delaware; Upper Hudson; Upper Susquehanna
North Carolina 1950 1995 3 Roanoke Rapids; Upper Catawba; Upper Neuse
North Dakota 1994 2005 2 Lake Sakakawea; Painted Woods-Square Butte
Ohio 1939 2013 3 Hocking; Licking; Paint
Black Bear-Red Rock; Coldwater; Deep Fork; Dirty- Greenleaf; Illinois; Kaw Lake; Lake O' The Cherokees; Lake Texoma; Lower Cimarron; Lower Cimarron- Oklahoma 1950 1999 16 Skeleton; Lower Neosho; Lower Washita; Middle Beaver; Middle North Canadian; Middle Washita; Upper Cimarron
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie; Lower Columbia-Sandy; Oregon 1967 2013 6 Lower Deschutes; Middle Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Upper Willamette
Bald Eagle; Brandywine-Christina; Lackawaxen; Lehigh; Lower Juniata; Lower Susquehanna; Lower Susquehanna-Swatara; Lower West Branch Susquehanna; Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead; Pennsylvania 1889 1999 16 Middle Delaware-Musconetcong; Schuylkill; Susquehanna; Upper Juniata; Upper Susquehanna; Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna; Upper Susquehanna- Tunkhannock
South Lower Savannah; Middle Savannah; Seneca; Tugaloo; 1971 2009 5 Carolina Upper Savannah
Angostura Reservoir; Lower Belle Fourche; Lower South Dakota 1950 2003 6 Cheyenne; South Fork Grand; Upper Big Sioux; Vermillion
Tennessee 1993 1993 1 Upper Elk
Texas 1953 2016 58 Amistad Reservoir; Atascosa; Austin-Travis Lakes; Blackwater Draw; Bosque; Buchanan-Lyndon B. Johnson Lakes; Cedar; Colorado Headwaters; Denton; East Fork Trinity; El Paso-Las Cruces; Elm Fork Trinity; Farmers-Mud; Hubbard; International Falcon Reservoir; Jim Ned; Lake Meredith; Lake O'the Pines; Lake Texoma; Lampasas; Leon; Lower Angelina; Lower Brazos; Lower Brazos-Little Brazos; Lower Devils;
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=831 6/7/2020 Walleye (Sander vitreus) - Species Profile Page 5 of 8
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Lower Neches; Lower Nueces; Lower Sulpher; Lower West Fork Trinity; Medina; Middle Brazos-Lake Whitney; Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto; Middle Canadian; Middle Colorado; Middle Colorado-Elm; Middle Guadalupe; Middle Sabine; North Bosque; North Concho; North Fork Double Mountain Fork Brazos; Paint; Palo Duro; Pecan Bayou; San Ambrosia-Santa Isabel; San Gabriel; South Concho; Tule; Upper Clear Fork Brazos; Upper Guadalupe; Upper Neches; Upper Sabine; Upper Salt Fork Red; Upper Trinity; Upper West Fork Trinity; West Fork San Jacinto; White; Wichita; Yegua
Duchesne; Jordan; Little Bear-Logan; Lower Bear- Malad; Lower Green-Desolation Canyon; Lower Green- Diamond; Lower Lake Powell; Lower San Juan; Lower Utah 1880 2017 19 Sevier; Lower Weber; Middle Sevier; Provo; San Pitch; Strawberry; Upper Bear; Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil; Upper Colorado-Kane Springs; Upper Lake Powell; Utah Lake
Black-Ottauquechee; Lamoille River; Mettawee River; Missiquoi River; St. Francois; St. Francois River; Upper Vermont 1972 2000 11 Connecticut; Upper Connecticut; Waits; West; Winooski River
Appomattox; Banister; Chowan; Hampton Roads; James; Kanawha; Lower Dan; Lower James; Lower Potomac; Lynnhaven-Poquoson; Mattaponi; Maury; Meherrin; Middle James-Willis; Middle New; Middle Virginia 1962 1995 29 Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan; Middle Potomac- Catoctin; Middle Roanoke; Nottoway; Pamunkey; Potomac; Rivanna; Roanoke; Roanoke Rapids; South Fork Shenandoah; Upper Dan; Upper New; Upper Roanoke; York
Banks Lake; Chief Joseph; Dungeness-Elwha; Duwamish; Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake; Hood Canal; Lake Washington; Lower Columbia-Clatskanie; Lower Cowlitz; Lower Crab; Lower Snake; Lower Snake- Asotin; Lower Snake-Tucannon; Lower Spokane; Middle Washington 1950 2016 30 Columbia-Hood; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Nisqually; Okanogan; Pacific Northwest Region; Palouse; Pend Oreille; Puget Sound; Skykomish; Snohomish; Strait of Georgia; Upper Chehalis; Upper Columbia-Entiat; Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids; Upper Crab; Upper Spokane
Gauley; Lower New; Middle New; Potomac; Tygart West Virginia 1984 1995 5 Valley
Belle Fourche; Big Horn; Big Horn Lake; Clear; Glendo Reservoir; Horse; Lower Laramie; Lower Wind; Middle Wyoming 1970 2018 16 North Platte-Casper; North Fork Shoshone; North Platte; Pathfinder-Seminoe Reservoirs; South Platte; Upper Belle Fourche; Upper Bighorn; Upper Wind
Table last updated 10/18/2019
† Populations may not be currently present.
* HUCs are not listed for states where the observation(s) cannot be approximated to a HUC (e.g. state centroids or Canadian provinces).
Means of Introduction: Intentionally stocked as a food fish and for sportfishing. One of the earliest introductions occurred in 1874 when Livingston Stone gathered a small number of adult Walleye captured in Vermont and transported them to California where the fish were released into the Sacramento River (Smith 1896). According to Dill and Cordone (1997), in the 1890s the California Fish Commission applied to the U.S. Fish Commission for shipments of Walleye for use in controlling carp in Clear and Blue lakes; however, no Walleye were imported at the time. These same authors also noted that the state received Walleye eggs from Minnesota in 1959 and that these fish were to be used to control bluegill and
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=831 6/7/2020 Walleye (Sander vitreus) - Species Profile Page 6 of 8
support other sport fish in southern California reservoirs. In Idaho, Walleye may have been stocked accidentally with yellow perch Perca flavescens (Linder 1963). McMahon and Bennett (1996) state the first introduction into southern Idaho reservoirs was in 1974. The person or agency responsible for introducing the species into Washington is uncertain. The federal government may have introduced them in the early 1960s (Dentler 1993). A sport fishery had developed in Lake Roosevelt, Washington, by the 1960s (McMahon and Bennett 1996). Walleye was first reported in Wyoming in 1961 from Seminoe Reservoir in the upper North Platte River. The fish were swept downstream and are now established in a 450-km stretch of river (McMahon and Bennett 1996). Herke (1969) performed experimental stocking into private ponds to examine the survivability of this species in peninsular Florida. The Walleye was stocked illegally in Canyon Ferry Reservoir, Montana, and was found first circa 1991 (White, personal communication). More recently, the species also was illegally stocked in Noxon Reservoir on the Clark Fork of the Columbia River, Montana (McMahon and Bennett 1996). Illegal introductions seem to be a growing problem in western states (McMahon and Bennett 1996).
Status: Many states have had some success in establishing reproducing populations. Other states have maintained populations with annual stocking. Occurrences in Delaware are due to strays from Pennsylvania stockings (Raasch, personal communication). Extirpated in California (Hubbs et al. 1979; Dill and Cordone 1997). Dentler (1993) indicated that Walleye populations were spreading throughout the Columbia River basin. Walleye abundance in the Clark Fork and Pend Oreille rivers, and Lake Pend Oreille, doubled between 2011 and 2014 (Anonymous 2014).
Impact of Introduction: McMahon and Bennett (1996) recently reviewed the literature and presented a summary of impacts of Walleye in the Northwest. Overall, the effects of its introduction were considered complex and varied. The Walleye has been shown to prey on smolts of Pacific salmon, and therefore pose a threat to these already declining species in the Columbia River (Dentler 1993; McMahon and Bennett 1996). For instance, it is estimated that Walleye consume two million smolts annually in the Columbia River, about one third of total predation loss (McMahon and Bennett 1996). A study in Seminoe Reservoir, Wyoming, found Walleye stocking to result in a sharp decline in native minnows Hybognathus spp., darters Etheostoma spp., suckers Catostomus spp., rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, and crayfish Orconectes obscurus. For instance, most of the 500,000 trout fingerlings stocked annually were eaten within a few weeks. Consequently, there was a need to stock larger rainbow trout to avoid predation, an action that increased hatchery operation costs (McMahon and Bennett 1996). In their native eastern habitat, Walleye and salmonids are able to limit interaction by living at different water temperatures (depths) and in different habitats (McLean and Magnuson 1977). However, in western reservoirs the lack of a strong thermocline and a small littoral area does not permit this separation (McMahon and Bennett 1996). Numbers and health of brown trout Salmo trutta were found to decrease after introduced Walleyes consumed a large portion of the crayfish population, the brown trout's favorite food (McMahon and Bennett 1996). When the Walleye initially was introduced into Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir, Idaho, yellow perch Perca flavescens comprised 80% of the sport fish. However, 12 years later, Walleye made up 80% and perch only 1% of the fish in the reservoir (McMahon and Bennett 1996). Similar perch collapses also have happened at two other reservoirs in Wyoming (McMahon and Bennett 1996). A crash in the yellow perch population in Canyon Ferry Reservoir may be related to past Walleye introduction; studies are being conducted to look at the problem; in addition, it has been predicted that Walleye will have a large impact on the trout fishery in the reservoir (White, personal communication). In many cases introduced Walleye deplete the forage base. As a consequence, the surviving Walleye population consists of stunted individuals and the species no longer serves as a valuable fishery (McMahon and Bennett 1996). Some states now prohibit the introduction of Walleye into certain waters. For instance, Walleye introductions are banned in the Snake River drainage in Idaho because of concern about predation on anadromous salmonids (McMahon and Bennett 1996). Further introductions in Oregon also are forbidden due to concern about predation on salmonid smolts in the Columbia River (McMahon and Bennett 1996). Although 40 million Walleye are stocked annually to maintain an important sport fishery in eastern Montana, the species has been banned from waters west of the Continental Divide in that state due to concern for important native and nonindigenous salmonid stocks (McMahon and Bennett 1996).
Remarks: The Walleye is a desirable sport and food fish. Although the species was thought to be native to a few drainages flowing into the Atlantic, Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) reviewed and evaluated the literature on the distribution of eastern populations and concluded that the populations on the Atlantic slope south of the St. Lawrence probably are introduced. As with many of the Virginia species, Jenkins and Burkhead provided extensive detail on the introduction history of Walleye in waters of Virginia and surrounding states. McMahon and Bennett (1996) provided a map and a table of Walleye introductions in the northwest. The species' distribution in Alabama south of the Tennessee drainage was discussed by Brown (1962), who speculated that they are native to that region. Lee et al. (1980 et seq.) reported them as introduced. Billington and Maceina (1997) investigated the genetic status of Walleyes in Alabama, where the southern Walleyes are native but northern Walleyes from Ohio and Pennsylvania have been stocked. They concluded that transplanted female northern Walleyes did not survive to reproduce. However, because of the type of analysis done (mtDNA) they could not tell if any of the transplanted males survived.
One especially problematic record comes from the Escambia drainage in Alabama (Brown 1962; Mettee et al. 1996). Only a single individual has ever been collected from the drainage. None have been taken downstream in the Florida portion of the drainage. Swift et al. (1986) reported it as introduced into the drainage. In discussions with Gilbert (personal communication), he believes the species was introduced to the Escambia based on the fact that only one specimen has been collected, the apparent lack of suitable habitat, and the fact that this sport-fish is more likely to be introduced than less desirable species. He also pointed out that Bailey et al. (1954) failed to include this species in their paper on the Escambia and that Mettee et al. (1996) did not find it in their survey work. He also believes that if the Walleye were native to the Escambia, it would be present in the lowermost (Florida) section because that is the stretch with the most suitable habitat. He likens the Walleye to Crystallaria asprella, which is found only in the lower section of the drainage (Gilbert 1992). However, JDW (author) believes it is native to the drainage because of the presence of several other native large-river fish and mussel species; the collection was before the state began stocking this species, the drainage has never been extensively sampled, and some sections do contain suitable habitat. Much
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=831 6/7/2020 Walleye (Sander vitreus) - Species Profile Page 7 of 8
habitat was lost when two dams were constructed on the river in the 1940s. Many large-river mussels suffered from these impoundments (JDW, personal observation) and Walleye could have done the same.
Although Walleye have been introduced widely into the region, Starnes et al. (2011) discuss zooarcheological evidence suggesting that this species may actually be native to some mid-Atlantic Slope drainages (south to Albemarle Sound and Chesapeake Bay, including the Potomac River).
References:
Anonymous. 1994. Fish Stocking Report. Texas Parks & Wildlife News. February 25, 1994. 18 pp.
Anonymous. 2001. Oregon's Warm Water Fishing with Public Access. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/warm_water_fishing/index.asp.
Anonymous. 2014. Non-native walleye numbers double in Clark Fork Delta in three years, elimination not possible. The Columbia Basin Bulletin. Bend, OR. http://www.cbbulletin.com/432721.aspx. Created on 12/05/2014. Accessed on 01/08/2015.
Brown, B. E. 1962. Occurrence of the Walleye, Stizostedion vitreum, in Alabama South of the Tennessee Valley. Copeia, 2: 469-471.
DeLorme. 1992a. Idaho Atlas and Gazatteer.DeLorme, Freeport, ME. 63 pp.
DeLorme. 1992b. Washington Atlas & Gazatteer. DeLorme, Yarmouth, ME.
DeLorme. 1992c. Wyoming Atlas and Gazatteer. DeLorme, Freeport, ME. 72 pp.
DeLorme. 1993. Maryland and Delaware Atlas and Gazatteer. DeLorme, Freeport, ME. 80 pp.
DeLorme. 1995. Virginia Atlas and Gazatteer. DeLorme, Yamouth, ME.
DeLorme. 1996a. Arizona Atlas and Gazetteer. DeLorme, Freeport, Maine. 76 pp.
DeLorme. 1996b. Nevada Atlas and Gazetteer. DeLorme, Freeport, Maine. 72 pp.
DeLorme. 1996c. Vermont Atlas & Gazatteer. DeLorme, Yarmouth, ME.
DeLorme. 1997. Colorado Atlas and Gazatteer. DeLorme, Yarmouth, ME. 102 pp.
DeLorme. 1998a. Georgia Atlas & Gazatteer. DeLorme, Yarmouth, ME.
DeLorme. 1998b. New Mexico Atlas and Gazatteer. DeLorme, Yarmouth, ME.
DeLorme. 1998c. Utah Atlas and Gazetteer. DeLorme, Freeport, Maine. 64 pp.
DeLorme. 1999. Connecticut/Rhode Island Atlas & Gazatteer. DeLorme, Yarmouth, ME.
Dentler, J.L. 1993. Noah's farce: the regulation and control of exotic fish and wildlife. University of Puget Sound Law Review 17:191-242.
Halliwell, D.B. 2003. Introduced Fish in Maine. MABP series: Focus on Freshwater Biodiversity. Available online at URL http://mainebiodiversity.org/introduced.fish.pdf
Herke, H.W. 1969. Florida Walleye? Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 23:648-650.
Hocutt, C.H., R.E. Jenkins, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1986 . Zoogeography of the Fishes of the Central Appalachians and Central Atlantic Coastal Plain. 161-212 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, eds. The Zoogeography of North American Freshwater Fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Holton, G.D. 1990. A Field Guide to Montana Fishes. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, MT. 104 pp.
Insider Viewpoint. 2001. Fishing Records – Nevada. Insider Viewpoint Magazine. 3 pp.
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. 12: 1-854.
Linder, A. D. 1963. Idaho's Alien Fishes. TEBIWA, 6(2), 12-15.
Loyacano, H. A. Jr. 1975. A List of the Freshwater Fishes of South Carolina. Bulletin of the South Carolina Experimental Station. Bulletin 580, 9 pp.
Madison, D. 2003. Outlaw Introductions. Montana Outdoors. July/August 2003: 26-35.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=831 6/7/2020 Walleye (Sander vitreus) - Species Profile Page 8 of 8
McLean, J., and J.J. Magnuson. 1977. Species interactions in percid communities. Journal ofthe Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:1941-1951.
McMahon, T.E., and D.H. Bennett. 1996. Walleye and northern pike: boost or bane to northwest fisheries? Fisheries 21 (8):6-13.
Nico, L.G. 2005. Changes in the fish fauna of the Kissimmee River Basin, peninsular Florida: nonnative additions. Pages 523-556 in Rinne, J.N., R.M. Hughes, and B. Calamusso, eds. Historical changes in large river fish assemblages of the Americas. American Fisheries Society Symposium 45. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.
Rasmussen, J.L. 1998. Aquatic nuisance species of the Mississippi River basin. 60th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Aquatic Nuisance Species Symposium, Dec. 7, 1998, Cincinnati, OH.
Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, J. W. Foltz, and J. M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. 430 pp.
Starnes, W.C., J. Odenkirk, and M.J. Ashton. 2011. Update and analysis of fish occurrences in the lower Potomac River drainage in the vicinity of Plummers Island, Maryland—Contribution XXXI to the natural history of Plummers Island, Maryland. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 124(4):280-309.
State of Oregon. 2000. Warm Water Game Fish Records. 7 pp.
Tilmant, J.T. 1999. Management of nonindigenous aquatic fish in the U.S. National Park System. National Park Service. 50 pp.
Other Resources: Author: Pam Fuller, and Matt Neilson
Revision Date: 8/15/2019
Peer Review Date: 5/26/2015
Citation Information: Pam Fuller, and Matt Neilson, 2020, Sander vitreus (Mitchill, 1818): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=831, Revision Date: 8/15/2019, Peer Review Date: 5/26/2015, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=831 6/7/2020
Petromyzontidae
ADW: Lampetra tridentata: INFORMATION Page 1 of 12
University of Michigan Museum Animal Diversity of Zoology Web ADW Lampetra tridentata Pocket Guides on Pacific lamprey the iOS App Store! Facebook Twitter The Animal Diversity Web By Sophie("Zosia") Lynch team is excited to announce Geographic Range Behavior Economic ADW Pocket Importance for Habitat Communication Guides! Humans: Physical and Perception Negative Description Food Habits Read more... Conservation Development Predation Status Reproduction Ecosystem Roles Contributors Lifespan/Longevity Economic Connect References Importance for with us Humans: Help us Positive improve the site by taking our survey. Geographic Range The Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata, is an anadro- mous species. They spend the middle of their lives in the Pacific Ocean and their first and last years in freshwater habitats. Pacific lampreys are found throughout the Pa- cific Rim, from Hokkaido Island, Japan to Baja California, Mexico. They have been captured up to 100 miles off the West Coast of North America. Within their range, they inhabit most major river systems that flow into the Pa- cific Ocean. (Close, et al., 2002; Streif, 2007)
Biogeographic Regions: nearctic ( native ) ; palearctic ( native ) ; pacific ocean ( native )
Habitat
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lampetra_tridentata/ 6/7/2020 ADW: Lampetra tridentata: INFORMATION Page 2 of 12
Lampetra tridentata spawns in the shallow, fast-moving Classification headwaters of gravel-bottomed streams, at depths of Kingdom 0.3-4 meters. The larvae, called ammocoetes, drift down- Animalia stream after hatching and burrow into fine sediments. animals Ammocoetes are most successful in slow-moving reaches with an open riparian canopy. After reaching their adult Phylum stage, they migrate to the open ocean, where they have Chordata been found at depths of 90-800 meters. (Mayfield, et al., chordates 2014; Stone and Barndt, 2005; Streif, 2007)
Habitat Regions: saltwater or marine ; freshwater Subphylum Vertebrata Aquatic Biomes: pelagic ; rivers and streams vertebrates
Range depth Class 0.3 to 800 m Cephalaspidomorphi lampreys 0.98 to 2624.67 ft
Order Physical Description Petromyzontiformes lampreys Lampetra tridentata is distinguished from other lamprey species by its three large, sharp anterior teeth, located on the supraoral bar. Like all lampreys, they have seven Family breathing pores on each side of their body and a large Petromyzontidae lampreys sucking disc as a mouth. They are usually 381-635 mil- limeters long by the time they migrate to the ocean. Once in the ocean, they can grow up to 700 millimeters long. Genus On average, they weigh one pound, or 453 grams. How- Lampetra ever, individuals in coastal populations tend to be
smaller than those that spawn further inland. They are Species dark blue on top and silver or white underneath. During Lampetra breeding season, Pacific lampreys turn reddish-brown, tridentata Pacific lamprey and the sexes begin to differ in appearance as a pseudo- anal fin develops on the female. Their larvae are difficult to distinguish from those of other lamprey species. (Amiotte, 2013; McPhail, 2007; Morrow, 1980; Streif, 2007)
Other Physical Features: ectothermic ; bilateral symmetry Sexual Dimorphism: sexes alike
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lampetra_tridentata/ 6/7/2020 ADW: Lampetra tridentata: INFORMATION Page 3 of 12
Average mass Range length 453 g 381 to 700 mm 15.96 oz 15.00 to 27.56 in
Development Pacific lamprey ammocoetes have no eyes, teeth, or swimming ability. After 4-7 years, they enter metamor- phosis, or macropthalmia. In addition to developing eyes and teeth, their fins become more defined, and their heads and naso-pineal organs enlarge. ("Oregon Lam- preys: Natural History, Status, and Analysis of Manage- ment Issues", 2002; Close, et al., 2002)
Development - Life Cycle: metamorphosis
Reproduction Lampetra tridentata ammocoetes produce at least three different bile acid compounds. Adult Lampetra tridentata can smell these compounds and are attracted to the odor, which guides them upstream to their spawning grounds. Males and females cooperate to construct a shallow nest out of pebbles, which the female positions herself across. The male coils around her, and they release their eggs and sperm simultaneously. Pacific lampreys often con- struct multiple nests and spawn several times during the breeding season, and several pairs may spawn in the same nest. (Mayfield, et al., 2014; Stone, 2006; Yun, et al., 2011)
Mating System: polygynandrous (promiscuous)
Pacific lampreys spend 3-7 years as larvae before enter- ing macropthalmia, or metamorphosis, from July to No- vember. During macropthalmia, Pacific lampreys grow into their free-swimming, parasitic adult form over the course of several months. Sometime between fall and spring, when macropthalmia has been completed, they begin their migration to the Pacific Ocean. Pacific lam- preys spend 1-3 years in their marine life stage before re- turning to freshwater between February and June. They
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lampetra_tridentata/ 6/7/2020 ADW: Lampetra tridentata: INFORMATION Page 4 of 12
remain in freshwater habitat for approximately one year before spawning and die 3-36 days after reproduction. (Close, et al., 2002; Streif, 2007)
Key Reproductive Features: semelparous ; seasonal breeding ; gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate) ; sexual ; fertilization ( external ) ; oviparous
Breeding interval Breeding season Range number of Pacific lampreys Pacific lampreys offspring breed once during breed from March 98,000 (low) their lifetime and through July, with die soon the specific time afterwards. depending on their geographic region.
Average number Average gestation Average time to of offspring period independence 238,400 19 days 0 minutes
Range age at Range age at sexual or sexual or reproductive reproductive maturity (female) maturity (male) 5 to 11 years 5 to 11 years
Pacific lampreys construct their nests, called redds, by moving small stones with their mouthparts. A male and female cooperate to build a redd. The redd may be any- where from 29-80 cm long and 30-85 cm wide, and is usu- ally located 24-99 cm below the water’s surface. Individ- ual Pacific lampreys will usually construct multiple redds. After spawning, adults have no involvement with their eggs or larvae. (Mayfield, et al., 2014; Streif, 2007)
Parental Investment: no parental involvement ; pre- fertilization ( provisioning , protecting : male , female )
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lampetra_tridentata/ 6/7/2020 ADW: Lampetra tridentata: INFORMATION Page 5 of 12
Lifespan/Longevity
Typical lifespan Average lifespan Status: wild Status: wild 5 (low) years 11 years
Behavior Pacific lamprey ammocoetes often cluster together at high densities. Until metamorphosis, they are unable to swim. However, they can detach from the stream bed and drift downstream, usually when the current is at high ve- locity. Larger ammocoetes typically drift during fall, and smaller ammocoetes typically drift during spring. In freshwater habitats, Pacific lampreys are generally noc- turnal. Adults are solitary outside of spawning season. During spawning season, either the male or the female may initiate courtship by rubbing up and down a poten- tial mate's body. ("Oregon Lampreys: Natural History, Status, and Analysis of Management Issues", 2002; Stone and Barndt, 2005)
Key Behaviors: natatorial ; nocturnal ; parasite ; motile ; migratory ; solitary
Home Range Lampetra tridentata does not have a fixed home range and is not territorial. (Close, et al., 2002)
Communication and Perception Pacific lampreys rely most heavily on their olfactory and visual systems. Adults navigate to their spawning grounds by following the trail of pheromones released by ammocoetes. (Braun, 1996; Yun, et al., 2011)
Communication Channels: tactile ; chemical Other Communication Modes: pheromones Perception Channels: visual ; tactile ; chemical
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lampetra_tridentata/ 6/7/2020 ADW: Lampetra tridentata: INFORMATION Page 6 of 12
Food Habits During their larval stage, Pacific lampreys are filter feed- ers, consuming algae and detritus. Adults are parasitic, latching onto prey with their oral discs and consuming their blood and other bodily fluids. They feed on salmonids and a variety of other fishes, as well as several species of whale. ("Oregon Lampreys: Natural History, Status, and Analysis of Management Issues", 2002; Close, et al., 2002)
Primary Diet: carnivore ( piscivore , eats body fluids ) ; herbivore ( algivore ) ; detritivore Animal Foods: mammals ; fish ; blood ; body fluids Plant Foods: algae Other Foods: detritus Foraging Behavior: filter-feeding
Predation Ammocoetes stay hidden from predators by sheltering under substrate and only emerging at night. As they grow, they develop tougher skin that makes them less palatable. Adult cryptic coloration- dark on their dorsal side, light on their ventral side- disguises them from predators. (Close, et al., 2002; McPhail, 2007; "Oregon Lampreys: Natural History, Status, and Analysis of Man- agement Issues", 2002)
Pacific lamprey are prey for many species of fish, birds, and mammals. Eggs that overflow the nest are eaten by fish. Ammocoetes are particularly vulnerable to preda- tors when emerging from their burrows and when dis- lodged by runoff. Adult Pacific lamprey are heavily preyed upon during the migration to their spawning grounds. After spawning, their carcasses also provide food for many species. (Close, et al., 2002)
Anti-predator Adaptations: cryptic
Known Predators ◾ Great blue heron (Ardea herodias)
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lampetra_tridentata/ 6/7/2020 ADW: Lampetra tridentata: INFORMATION Page 7 of 12
◾ Steller's sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) ◾ Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) ◾ California gull (Larus californicus) ◾ Ringbill gull (Larus delawarensis) ◾ Western gull (Larus occidentalis) ◾ Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) ◾ Northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) ◾ Foster's tern (Sterna forsteri) ◾ California sea lion (Zalophus californianus)
Ecosystem Roles The burrowing of Pacific lamprey ammocoetes aerates the streambed and softens the substrate. Ammocoetes may digest less than half of the food they consume, ex- creting the rest as fine particles that can be consumed by aquatic insects and other species. Pacific lampreys are higher in fats and calories than salmon, making them a valuable food source. Steller sea lions, Eumetopias jubatus, harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, and California sea lions, Zalo- phus californianus, have been found to consume more Pa- cific lamprey than salmon when both are available. This suggests Pacific lampreys may reduce the impact of pre- dation on salmon. They supply high-calorie meals for many additional species, and their decomposing bodies provide nutrients to the freshwater and riparian ecosys- tems in which they spawn. (Close, et al., 2002; Roffe and Mate, 1984; Shirakawa, et al., 2012)
Ecosystem Impact: soil aeration ; parasite
Species Used as Host • Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) • Arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias) • Kamchatka flounder (Atheresthes evermanni) • Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) • Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) • Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) • Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis)
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lampetra_tridentata/ 6/7/2020 ADW: Lampetra tridentata: INFORMATION Page 8 of 12
• Humpback whale (Megaptera nodosa) • Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) • Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) • Steelhead trout Onchorhynchus mykiss) • Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) • Chinook salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha) • Sperm whale (Physeter catodon) • Greenland turbot (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) • Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus)
Economic Importance for Humans: Positive Pacific lampreys were historically a major food source for indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest. Oil har- vested from Pacific lampreys was used as food, hair con- ditioner, and treatment for ear aches. Pacific lampreys still hold great cultural and religious significance to many native peoples, and are harvested on special occa- sions. During the 1800's, Pacific lampreys were used to feed livestock and farmed fish. By potentially acting as a buffer between salmon and their natural predators, Pa- cific lampreys may increase the available harvest for fishermen. The anticoagulants in their saliva have made them a subject of medical research. ("Oregon Lampreys: Natural History, Status, and Analysis of Management Is- sues", 2002; Close, et al., 2002)
Positive Impacts: food ; source of medicine or drug ; research and education
Economic Importance for Humans: Negative While Pacific lampreys may kill their hosts on rare occa- sions, there is no evidence that they have a significant negative impact on salmon populations. Pacific lampreys are often viewed negatively because they are mistakenly associated with sea lampreys, a pest species in the Great Lakes region. Unlike sea lampreys, which are an invasive species in the Great Lakes, Pacific lampreys are native to northwestern America and play an important role in its ecosystems. (Close, et al., 2002)
Conservation Status
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lampetra_tridentata/ 6/7/2020 ADW: Lampetra tridentata: INFORMATION Page 9 of 12
Dams and other artificial barriers have restricted Pacific lampreys' access to large portions of their freshwater range, contributing to their decline in river systems such as the upper Columbia Basin. Pacific lampreys are not strong swimmers and are unable to jump. These traits make it difficult for them to use the conventional fish ladders that help other fishes traverse dams. Dams with gratings appear to be especially difficult, since they im- pede Pacific lampreys' climbing ability. Adding rough surfaces to fish ladders could make climbing easier and increase the number of Pacific lampreys that cross the dams successfully. Although lampreys generally have a high tolerance for pollutants, chemical spills in river sys- tems can kill large numbers of lampreys. Lamprey am- mocoetes are especially vulnerable to pollution, since the sediments they inhabit can easily accumulate chemicals. Dredging also threatens ammocoetes. Among river lam- preys (a close relative of Pacific lampreys), less than a third survived a dredging event. Pacific lamprey adults rely on the pheromones released by ammocoetes to find their way to their spawning grounds. If the ammocoete population near a spawning ground decreases enough, adults will not be able to locate the habitat and will dis- appear entirely from that area. Scientists are attempting to create synthetic versions of these pheromones, which could be used to guide Pacific lampreys to suitable spawning habitat. ("Oregon Lampreys: Natural History, Status, and Analysis of Management Issues", 2002; Yun, et al., 2011)
IUCN Red List US Federal List CITES Not Evaluated No special status No special status
State of Michigan List No special status
Contributors
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lampetra_tridentata/ 6/7/2020 ADW: Lampetra tridentata: INFORMATION Page 10 of 12
Sophie("Zosia") Lynch (author), Colorado State Univer- sity, Peter Leipzig (editor), Colorado State University, Tanya Dewey (editor), University of Michigan-Ann Arbor.
References Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Oregon Lam- preys: Natural History, Status, and Analysis of Manage- ment Issues. 635000. Portland, Oregon: Fish Division, Ore- gon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002.
Amiotte, L. 2013. ""Pacific Lamprey- Lampetra Triden- tata"" (On-line). Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Accessed February 22, 2018 at http:// file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/em_fs13_ 018.pdf.
Braun, C. 1996. The Sensory Biology of the Jawless Fishes: a Phylogenetic Assessment. Brain Behavior and Evolution, Volume 48, Issue 5: 262-276.
Clemens, B., L. Wyss, R. McCoun, I. Courter, L. Schwabe, C. Peery, C. Schreck, E. Spice, M. Docker. 2017. Temporal genetic population structure and interannual variation in migration behavior of Pacific Lamprey, Entosphenus tridentatus. Hydrobiologia: The International Journal of Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 794, Issue 1: 223-240.
Clemens, B., S. van de Wetering, S. Sower, C. Schreck. 2013. Maturation characteristics and life-history strate- gies of the Pacific lamprey, Entosphenus tridentatus. Canadian Journal of Zoology, Vol. 91, Issue 11: 775-788.
Close, D., M. Fitzpatrick, H. Li. 2002. The Ecological and Cultural Importance of a Species at Risk of Extinction, Pa- cific Lamprey. North American Journal of Fisheries Manage- ment, Vol. 27, Issue 7: 19-25.
Mayfield, M., L. Schultz, L. Wyss, B. Clemens, C. Schreck. 2014. Spawning Patterns of Pacific Lamprey in Tribu- taries to the Willamette River, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol. 143, Issue 6: 1544-1554.
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lampetra_tridentata/ 6/7/2020 ADW: Lampetra tridentata: INFORMATION Page 11 of 12
McPhail, J. 2007. The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta.
Morrow, J. 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. Anchor- age, Alaska: Alaska Northwest Publishing Company.
Murasakas, J., A. Orlov, K. Siwicke. 2013. Relationships between the Abundance of Pacific Lamprey in the Colum- bia River and their Common Hosts in the Marine Envi- ronment. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol. 142, Issue 1: 143-155.
Roffe, T., B. Mate. 1984. Abundances and Feeding Habits of Pinnipeds in the Rogue River, Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management, Volume 48, Issue 4: 1262-1274.
Shirakawa, H., A. Goto, S. Yanai. 2012. Lamprey larvae as ecosystem engineers: Physical and geochemical impact on the streambed by their burrowing behavior. Hydrobi- ologia: The International Journal of Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 701, Issue 1: 313-322.
Stone, J. 2006. Observations on Nest Characteristics, Spawning Habitat, and Spawning Behavior of Pacific and Western Brook Lamprey in a Washington Stream. North- west Naturalist, Volume 87, Issue 3: 225-232.
Stone, J., S. Barndt. 2005. Spatial Distribution and Habitat Use of Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) Ammo- coetes in a Western Washington Stream. Journal of Fresh- water Ecology, Vol. 20, Issue 1: 171-185.
Streif, B. 2007. "Pacific Lamprey- Lampetra triden- tata" (On-line). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed February 08, 2018 at https://www.fws.gov/ pacificlamprey/Documents/Fact%20Sheets/ 111407%20PL%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.
Yun, S., A. Wildbill, A. Dittman, S. Corbett, W. Li, D. Close. 2011. Identification of putative migratory pheromones from Pacific lamprey(Lampetra tridentata). Canadian
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lampetra_tridentata/ 6/7/2020 ADW: Lampetra tridentata: INFORMATION Page 12 of 12
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 68, Issue 12: 2194-2203.
To cite this page: Lynch, S. 2019. "Lampetra tridentata" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed June 07, 2020 at https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lampetra_tridentata/
Disclaimer: The Animal Diversity Web is an educational resource written largely by and for college students. ADW doesn't cover all species in the world, nor does it include all the latest scientific information about organisms we describe. Though we edit our accounts for accuracy, we cannot guarantee all information in those accounts. While ADW staff and contributors provide references to books and websites that we believe are reputable, we cannot necessarily endorse the contents of references beyond our control.
U-M Gateway | U-M Museum of Zoology This material U-M Ecology and Evolutionary Biology is based upon work © 2020 Regents of the University of supported by Michigan the National Report Error / Comment Science Foundation Grants DRL 0089283, DRL 0628151, DUE 0633095, DRL 0918590, and DUE 1122742. Additional support has come from the Marisla Foundation, UM College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, Museum of Zoology, and Information and Technology Services. The ADW Team gratefully acknowledges their support.
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lampetra_tridentata/ 6/7/2020 Species Fact Sheet River lamprey Lampetra ayresii
STATUS: SPECIES OF River lamprey potentially occur in these Washington counties: Douglas, CONCERN Okanogan, Chelan, Grant, Kittitas, Yakima, Benton, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, Asotin, Klickitat, Skamania, Cowlitz, Wahkiakum, Pacific
(Map may reflect historical as well as recent sightings)
On January 27, 2003, USFWS received a petition to federally list river lamprey, Lampetra ayresii in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and California as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. In 2004, the USFWS found that the petition did not provide the required information to indicate that listing the species may be warranted and therefore a status review was not initiated.
Current and Historical Status
River lampreys are found from just north of Juneau, Alaska, to San Francisco Bay in California. However, detailed information on their distribution and abundance is lacking. River lampreys are associated with large river systems such as the Fraser, Columbia, Klamath, Eel, and Sacramento Rivers. Beamish (1980) and others have noted that river lamprey appear to be concentrated only in particular rivers, and only in the lower portions of these large rivers. The river lamprey is genetically and morphologically similar to western brook lamprey (L. richardsoni), which overlaps in range and is an exclusively freshwater nonparasitic form. Available information on the abundance of river lamprey indicates some potential local declines, but data are lacking to substantiate a significant decline in abundance or distribution of river lampreys.
In Washington this species probably historically occurred in most major rivers. Morrow (1980) stated, without documentation, that the river lamprey ‘‘does not appear to be particularly abundant anywhere within its range.’’ The current distribution of river lamprey includes rivers and streams along the coast from the mouth of the Columbia River to the mouth of the Hoh River, throughout Puget Sound, and in the Lake Washington basin, but not on the Olympic Peninsula. Two records (1931 and 1959) of river lamprey in Lake Cushman suggest this lake may have once supported an adfluvial (lake dwelling) population. River lampreys occur in the Columbia River and have been documented in the Yakima River basin. Description and Life History
Lampreys are a primitive group of fishes that are eel-like in form but lack jaws and paired fins. These species have a round sucker-like mouth (oral disc), no scales, and breathing holes instead of gills. Adult river lamprey have two teeth (cusps) and no posterior teeth on the oral disc. They average between 7 and 12 inches in length and are dark on the back and sides with silvery yellow on the belly and dark pigmentation on the tail. Pacific, river, and western brook lamprey ammocoetes (larvae) are nearly indistinguishable from each other.
Little information is available on river lamprey life history. According to Moyle (2002), their life span is 6 to 7 years. Adult lampreys spawn in gravel bottomed streams, at the upstream end of riffle habitat. Both sexes construct the nests, often moving stones with their mouths. River lampreys lay 11,400 to 37,300 eggs per adult female. Adults typically die after the eggs are deposited and fertilized. After the eggs hatch, young ammocoetes drift downstream to areas of low velocity and silt or sand substrate. They remain burrowed in the stream bottom, living as filter feeders on algae and detritus for 2 to 7 years. Metamorphosis from the ammocoete to macropthalmia life stage occurs between July and April. At this time, macropthalmia are thought to live deep in the river channel, which may explain why they are rarely observed. As adults, their oral disc develops just before they enter the ocean between May and July. During the approximately 10 weeks they are at sea in the parasitic phase, they remain close to shore, feeding primarily on smelt and herring near the surface. After the adult feeding phase, river lamprey migrate to spawning areas and cease feeding. Their degree of fidelity to their natal streams is unknown. Habitat
Riffle and side channel habitats are important for spawning and for ammocoete rearing. Because lamprey ammocoetes colonize areas and are relatively immobile in the stream substrates, good water quality is essential for rearing. Adults feed in nearshore marine and estuarine habitat. Reasons for Decline
Potential threats to river lampreys include artificial barriers to migration, poor water quality, harvest, predation by nonnative species, stream and floodplain degradation, loss of estuarine habitat, decline in prey, ocean conditions, dredging, and dewatering. Conservation Efforts
Many Tribes, State, and Federal agencies are now beginning to incorporate the needs of lampreys into management and monitoring plans. For example, the Army Corps of Engineers has funded many studies to improve lamprey passage at dams. Currently there is little systematic monitoring of abundance and distribution of this species.
The USFWS encourages interested parties to continue gathering information to increase our understanding of the status of this species on such topics as:
(1) River lamprey biology and ecology, their current and historical distribution and abundance, and habitat needs during all life stages;
(2) The range, status, and trends of this species;
(3) Specific threats to this species or its habitats;
(4) Techniques for improving identification of lamprey ammocoetes to species;
(5) Any other information that would aid in determining population status, trends, and structure;
(6) The adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect or conserve lampreys and their habitat.
References and Links
90 Day Finding 2004 Pacific Lamprey Conservation and Information
Salmonidae
Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) - Species Profile Page 1 of 3
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Prosopium williamsoni (Mountain Whitefish) Fishes Native Transplant
USGS photo © Prosopium williamsoni (Girard, 1856)
Common name: Mountain Whitefish
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Scott and Crossman (1973); Wydoski and Whitney (1979); Sigler and Sigler (1987); Page and Burr (1991).
Size: 57 cm.
Native Range: Mackenzie River drainage (Arctic basin), Northern Territories, south through western Canada and northwestern United States in Pacific, Hudson Bay, and upper Missouri River basins, to Truckee River drainage, Nevada, and Sevier River drainage, Utah (Page and Burr 1991).
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=924 6/7/2020 Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) - Species Profile Page 2 of 3
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Prosopium williamsoni are found here.
State Year of earliest Year of last Total HUCs with HUCs with observations† observation observation observations†
Cache La Poudre; Colorado Headwaters; Colorado 1955 2009 4 Colorado Headwaters-Plateau; Roaring Fork
Michigan 1920 1920 1 Manistee
Table last updated 9/30/2019
† Populations may not be currently present.
Ecology: As with many western North American salmonids, Mountain Whitefish generally inhabit clear, cool waters (< 20° C) of high elevation streams, rivers, and lakes (Moyle 2002). Spawning occurs during late fall to early winter (October - December) in shallow areas of small tributaries or shoreline areas of lakes, primarily over gravel, rubble,
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=924 6/7/2020 Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) - Species Profile Page 3 of 3
or cobble bottoms (McAffee 1966; Moyle 2002). Mountain Whitefish are demersal feeders, consuming a range of benthic invertebrates, including insect larva, gastropods, and small crustaceans(McAffee; Ellison 1980; Moyle 2002).
Means of Introduction: Stocked for sportfishing in Colorado and as a game and food fish in Michigan.
Status: Established in Colorado. Extirpated in Michigan.
Remarks: Mountain Whitefish were thought to compete with juvenile and adult trout (McAffee 1966), but the diets of the two species are significant different and brook trout consume whitefish fry (Ellison 1980).
References:
Ellison, J.P. 1980. Diets of mountain whitefish, Prosopium williamsoni (Girard), and brook trout, Salvelins fontinalis (Mitchell), in the Little Walker River, Mono County, California. California Fish and Game 66(2):96-104.
Emery, L. 1985. Review of fish introduced into the Great Lakes, 1819-1974. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Technical Report, volume 45.
McAffee, W. R. 1966. Mountain whitefish. 299-303 in A. Calhoun, ed. Inland Fisheries Management. California Department of Fish and Game.
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. 2nd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. The Peterson Guide Series, vol. 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Sigler, W.F., and J.W. Sigler. 1987. Fishes of the Great Basin: a natural history. University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 184. Ottawa.
Wiltzius, W.J. 1985. Fish culture and stocking in Colorado, 1872-1978. Division Report 12. Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Wydoski, R.S., and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Other Resources: Author: Pam Fuller, and Matt Neilson
Revision Date: 4/10/2012
Peer Review Date: 4/10/2012
Citation Information: Pam Fuller, and Matt Neilson, 2020, Prosopium williamsoni (Girard, 1856): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=924, Revision Date: 4/10/2012, Peer Review Date: 4/10/2012, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=924 6/7/2020 Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - Species Profile Page 1 of 10
NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow Trout) Fishes Native Transplant
< Image 1 of 3 >
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792)
Common name: Rainbow Trout
Synonyms and Other Names: steelhead [anadromous form], coastal rainbow
Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov
Identification: Rainbow trout are a deep-bodied, compressed species with a typical trout body shape, a moderately large head, and a mouth that extends back behind the eyes. Rainbow trout have highly variable coloration: those that live in lakes are silvery with a dark olive-green colour on the back, though the dorsal coloration is sometimes a deep steely blue, mostly in fish that live offshore in deep lakes or in small fish that have not yet spawned. Numerous spots are present on the back and extend about two-thirds of the way to the lateral line down the sides. The sides are silvery and largely free of spots, the belly and ventral surface of the head are whitish, and sometimes a soft metallic-pink color is present along the sides of the body and the head (GISD, 2019).
When rainbow trout leave lakes to spawn, their coloration becomes more intense: the pinkish stripe that is present on the sides of lake fish, along with the fins, turn a rich crimson color, and there is sometimes a red slash in the folds below the lower jaw. The belly and the lower sides turn gray, and spots on the sides and upper fins become bolder and more clearly delineated. Juvenile trout are olive-green along their back and silvery olive high on their sides. There are 8-13 oval-shaped marks along the sides, which may also have smaller dark spots along them. Blush-pink to yellowish markings occur along the lateral lines between the oval marks (McDowall, 1990).
For further identification guides, see Moyle (1976a); Scott and Crossman (1973); Wydoski and Whitney (1979); Morrow (1980); Eschmeyer et al. (1983); Page and Burr (1991); Behnke (1992). Behnke (1992) gave accounts and drawings for several subspecies. A commonly used named for this species is Salmo gairdnerii, sometimes given as S. gairdneri.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=910 6/7/2020 Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - Species Profile Page 2 of 10
Size: 114 cm
Native Range: Pacific Slope from Kuskokwim River, Alaska, to (at least) Rio Santa Domingo, Baja California; upper Mackenzie River drainage (Arctic basin), Alberta and British Columbia; endorheic basins of southern Oregon (Page and Burr 1991).
Puerto Rico & Alaska Hawaii Guam Saipan Virgin Islands
Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe
Nonindigenous Occurrences:
Table 1. States with nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Oncorhynchus mykiss are found here.
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations†
Guntersville Lake; Locust; Middle Tennessee-Elk; Mobile Bay; Mobile- Alabama 1962 2001 8 Tombigbee; Pickwick Lake; Sipsey Fork; Upper Tallapoosa
Chena River; Healy Lake-Tanana River; Middle Copper River; Tanana Alaska 1952 1980 4 Flats-Tanana River
Aqua Fria; Bill Williams; Black; Canyon Diablo; Chevelon Canyon; Detrital Wash; Grand Canyon; Havasu Canyon; Havasu-Mohave Lakes; Lake Mead; Little Colorado Headwaters; Lower Colorado Region; Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon; Lower Lake Powell; Lower Arizona 1880 2014 33 Little Colorado; Lower Salt; Lower Verde; Lower Virgin; Middle Gila; Middle Little Colorado; Paria; Rillito; San Francisco; Santa Maria; Silver; Tonto; Upper Gila-San Carlos Reservoir; Upper Little Colorado; Upper Salt; Upper Santa Cruz; Upper Verde; Whitewater Draw; Willcox Playa
Beaver Reservoir; Bull Shoals Lake; Dardanelle Reservoir; Elk; Illinois; Lake Conway-Point Remove; Little Missouri; Little Red; Lower Arkansas 1950 2018 17 Neosho; Lower White; Middle White; North Fork White; Ouachita Headwaters; Robert S. Kerr Reservoir; Spring; Strawberry; Upper Ouachita
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=910 6/7/2020 Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - Species Profile Page 3 of 10
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† California 1930 2014 47 Antelope-Fremont Valleys; Clear Creek-Sacramento River; Cottonwood-Tijuana; Coyote; Death Valley-Lower Amargosa; East Branch North Fork Feather; East Walker; Imperial Reservoir; Lake Tahoe; Lower Klamath; Lower Pit; McCloud; Middle Fork Feather; Newport Bay; North Fork American; North Fork Feather; Pajaro; Sacramento Headwaters; Salmon; San Diego; San Pablo Bay; Santa Barbara Coastal; Santa Clara; Santa Margarita; Santa Monica Bay; Scott; South Fork American; South Fork Kern; Suisun Bay; Surprise Valley; Tomales-Drake Bays; Trinity; Truckee; Upper Bear; Upper Cache; Upper Carson; Upper Cosumnes; Upper Kern; Upper King; Upper Mokelumne; Upper Putah; Upper Stanislaus; Upper Stony; Upper Yuba; Ventura; Warner Lakes; West Walker
Alamosa-Trinchera; Animas; Arkansas Headwaters; Big Thompson; Blue; Cache La Poudre; Clear; Colorado Headwaters; Colorado Headwaters-Plateau; Conejos; Eagle; East-Taylor; Fountain; Gunnison; Huerfano; Lower Green-Diamond; Lower Gunnison; Lower Yampa; Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek; Middle South Platte- Sterling; North Platte; North Platte Headwaters; Piedra; Purgatoire; Colorado 1880 2009 47 Republican; Rio Grande Headwaters; Roaring Fork; San Luis; San Miguel; South Fork Republican; South Platte; South Platte Headwaters; St. Vrain; Tomichi; Uncompahgre; Upper Arkansas; Upper Arkansas-Lake Meredith; Upper Dolores; Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper Gunnison; Upper Laramie; Upper North Platte; Upper San Juan; Upper South Platte; Upper White; Upper Yampa; White - Yampa
Farmington; Housatonic; Lower Connecticut; New England Region; Connecticut 1875 2007 7 Pawcatuck-Wood; Saugatuck; Thames
Brandywine-Christina; Broadkill-Smyrna; Delaware Bay; Mid Atlantic Delaware 1888 1992 4 Region
Florida 1968 1968 1 Choctawhatchee Bay
Apalachicola Basin; Conasauga; Etowah; Hiwassee; Little; Middle Chattahoochee-Lake Harding; Middle Savannah; Middle Tennessee- Georgia 1962 2018 15 Chickamauga; Ocoee; Oostanaula; Savannah; South Atlantic-Gulf Region; Tugaloo; Upper Chattahoochee; Upper Savannah
Hawaii 1920 2005 3Hawaii; Kauai; Oahu
American Falls; Bear Lake; Beaver-Camas; Big Lost; Big Wood; Birch; Blackfoot; Boise-Mores; Brownlee Reservoir; Bruneau; C.J. Strike Reservoir; Camas; Clearwater; Coeur d'Alene Lake; Curlew Valley; Goose; Hangman; Hells Canyon; Idaho Falls; Lake Walcott; Lemhi; Little Lost; Little Salmon; Little Wood; Lochsa; Lower Bear-Malad; Lower Boise; Lower Clark Fork; Lower Henrys; Lower Kootenai; Lower Middle Fork Salmon; Lower North Fork Clearwater; Lower Salmon; Lower Selway; Lower Snake-Asotin; Middle Bear; Middle Fork Idaho 1941 2012 72 Payette; Middle Kootenai; Middle Salmon-Chamberlain; Middle Salmon-Panther; Middle Snake-Succor; Moyie; North and Middle Forks Boise; North Fork Payette; Pahsimeroi; Palisades; Payette; Pend Oreille; Pend Oreille Lake; Portneuf; Priest; Raft; Salmon Falls; South Fork Boise; South Fork Clearwater; South Fork Coeur d'Alene; South Fork Payette; South Fork Salmon; Spokane; St. Joe; Teton; Upper Coeur d'Alene; Upper Henrys; Upper Middle Fork Salmon; Upper North Fork Clearwater; Upper Owyhee; Upper Salmon; Upper Selway; Upper Snake-Rock; Upper Spokane; Weiser; Willow
Big Muddy; Copperas-Duck; Green; Lake Michigan; Lower Fox; Lower Illinois 1979 1996 12 Illinois; Lower Rock; Rock; Upper Illinois; Upper Illinois; Upper Mississippi; Upper Mississippi Region
Blue-Sinking; Kankakee; Lake Michigan; Little Calumet-Galien; Ohio Indiana 1901 1999 11 Region; Patoka; Patoka-White; St. Joseph; Sugar; Tippecanoe; Wabash
Apple-Plum; Coon-Yellow; Grant-Little Maquoketa; Lower Iowa; Iowa 1979 2001 10 Maquoketa; Middle Cedar; Turkey; Upper Cedar; Upper Iowa; Upper Wapsipinicon
Arkansas-White-Red Region; Medicine Lodge; Missouri Region; Kansas 1967 1967 5 Neosho-Verdigris; Smoky Hill Headwaters
Kentucky 1972 2000 21 Barren; Blue-Sinking; Kentucky; Licking; Little Sandy; Little Scioto- Tygarts; Lower Cumberland; Lower Kentucky; Lower Levisa; Middle Fork Kentucky; Ohio Brush-Whiteoak; Red; Rockcastle; Rough; South Fork Cumberland; South Fork Licking; Upper Cumberland; Upper
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=910 6/7/2020 Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - Species Profile Page 4 of 10
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Cumberland-Lake Cumberland; Upper Green; Upper Kentucky; Upper Levisa
Louisiana 1991 2008 2 Amite; East Central Louisiana Coastal
Androscoggin; Aroostook; Dead; Kennebec; Lower Androscoggin; Lower Kennebec; Maine Coastal; Meduxnekeag; New England Region; Maine 1914 2011 15 Piscataqua-Salmon Falls; Piscataquis; Presumpscot; Saco; St. George -Sheepscot; Upper Kennebec
Cacapon-Town; Chester-Sassafras; Conococheague-Opequon; Gunpowder-Patapsco; Lower Susquehanna; Mid Atlantic Region; Maryland 1875 2011 14 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan; Middle Potomac-Catoctin; Monocacy; North Branch Potomac; Patuxent; Pokomoke-Western Lower Delmarva; Severn; Youghiogheny
Blackstone; Cape Cod; Charles; Chicopee; Concord; Deerfield; Farmington; Housatonic; Lower Connecticut; Lower Connecticut; Massachusetts 1932 2005 17 Merrimack; Merrimack River; Middle Connecticut; Miller; Nashua; Quinebaug; Westfield
Au Gres-Rifle; Au Sable; Betsie-Platte; Betsy-Chocolay; Black-Presque Isle; Boardman-Charlevoix; Brule; Dead-Kelsey; Fishdam-Sturgeon; Michigan 1876 2013 19 Great Lakes Region; Lake Huron; Lake Michigan; Lake St. Clair; Lake Superior; Lower Grand; Menominee; Pere Marquette-White; St. Clair; St. Joseph
Baptism-Brule; Beartrap-Nemadji; Beaver-Lester; Big Fork; Buffalo- Whitewater; Cannon; Clearwater; Clearwater-Elk; Cloquet; Coon- Yellow; Crow Wing; Des Moines Headwaters; Eastern Wild Rice; Elk- Nokasippi; Hawk-Yellow Medicine; Kettle; Lake Superior; Leech Lake; Little Fork; Lower Minnesota; Lower Rainy; Lower St. Croix; Middle Minnesota 1888 2011 44 Minnesota; Minnesota; Mississippi Headwaters; Otter Tail; Pine; Platte -Spunk; Prairie-Willow; Rainy; Rainy Headwaters; Red; Red Lakes; Redwood; Root; Rush-Vermillion; Sauk; South Fork Crow; St. Croix; St. Louis; Twin Cities; Upper Mississippi-Crow-Rum; Upper St. Croix; Zumbro
Mississippi 1991 2001 2 Lower Mississippi-Helena; Upper Yazoo
Bull Shoals Lake; Cahokia-Joachim; Current; Eleven Point; Harry S. Missouri 1882 2019 9 Truman Reservoir; Lake of the Ozarks; Lower Gasconade; Meramec; Spring
Arrow; Battle; Beaver; Beaverhead; Belly; Belt; Big Dry; Big Hole; Big Horn Lake; Big Muddy; Big Porcupine; Big Sandy; Bitterroot; Blackfoot; Boulder; Box Elder; Boxelder; Bullwhacker-Dog; Charlie- Little Muddy; Clarks Fork Yellowstone; Cottonwood; Elk; Fisher; Flathead Lake; Flatwillow; Flint-Rock; Fort Peck Reservoir; Gallatin; Jefferson; Judith; Little Dry; Little Powder; Lodge; Lower Bighorn; Lower Clark Fork; Lower Flathead; Lower Milk; Lower Musselshell; Lower Powder; Lower Tongue; Lower Yellowstone; Lower Yellowstone- Sunday; Madison; Marias; Marias; Middle Clark Fork; Middle Fork Montana 1889 2019 87 Flathead; Middle Kootenai; Middle Milk; Middle Musselshell; Milk; Mizpah; Musselshell; North Fork Flathead; O'Fallon; Peoples; Poplar; Prairie Elk-Wolf; Red Rock; Rock; Ruby; Sage; Saskatchewan; Shields; Smith; South Fork Flathead; St. Marys; Stillwater; Stillwater; Sun; Swan; Teton; Tongue; Two Medicine; Upper Clark Fork; Upper Little Missouri; Upper Milk; Upper Missouri; Upper Missouri; Upper Missouri-Dearborn; Upper Musselshell; Upper Tongue; Upper Yellowstone; Upper Yellowstone-Lake Basin; Upper Yellowstone- Pompeys Pillar; Whitewater; Yellowstone Headwaters
Hat; Lower Lodgepole; Lower North Platte; Lower Platte; Lower South Nebraska 1974 1987 11 Platte; Lower Yellowstone; Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff; Middle Platte-Buffalo; Missouri Region; North Fork Republican; Upper White
Bruneau; Carson Desert; Central Lahontan; Diamond-Monitor Valleys; Fish Lake-Soda Spring Valleys; Hamlin-Snake Valleys; Havasu- Mohave Lakes; Imperial Reservoir; Lake Mead; Lake Tahoe; Little Humboldt; Long-Ruby Valleys; Lower Humboldt; Lower Virgin; Nevada 1880 2011 32 Meadow Valley Wash; Middle Carson; North Fork Humboldt; Pilot- Thousand Springs; Pyramid-Winnemucca Lakes; Salmon Falls; Smoke Creek Desert; South Fork Humboldt; South Fork Owyhee; Spring- Steptoe Valleys; Thousand-Virgin; Truckee; Upper Carson; Upper Humboldt; Upper Owyhee; Walker Lake; West Walker; White
New 1864 2001 17 Black-Ottauquechee; Contoocook; Lower Androscoggin; Merrimack Hampshire River; Middle Connecticut; Miller; Nashua; New England;
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=910 6/7/2020 Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - Species Profile Page 5 of 10
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Pemigewasset; Piscataqua-Salmon Falls; Saco; Upper Androscoggin; Upper Connecticut; Upper Connecticut-Mascoma; Waits; West; Winnipesaukee River
New Jersey 1952 1999 4 Hackensack-Passaic; Lower Delaware; Mid-Atlantic Region; Raritan
Animas; Canadian Headwaters; Carrizo Wash; Cimarron; Conejos; Jemez; Middle San Juan; Mimbres; Pecos Headwaters; Rio Chama; Rio Grande-Albuquerque; Rio Grande-Santa Fe; Rio Hondo; San New Mexico 1957 2000 25 Francisco; Tularosa Valley; Upper Beaver; Upper Canadian; Upper Canadian; Upper Gila; Upper Gila-Mangas; Upper Pecos; Upper Rio Grande; Upper San Juan; Upper San Juan; Zuni
Ausable River; Black; Chenango; Hudson-Hoosic; Lake Champlain; Lake Ontario; Long Island; Lower Genesee; Lower Hudson; Mettawee River; Middle Hudson; Mohawk; Owego-Wappasening; Raisin River- New York 1874 2007 25 St. Lawrence River; Raquette; Sacandaga; Sandy Hook-Staten Island; Saranac River; Schoharie; Seneca; St. Regis; Upper Delaware; Upper Hudson; Upper Susquehanna; Upper Susquehanna
French Broad-Holston; Hiwassee; Lower Little Tennessee; Nolichucky; Pigeon; Roanoke; Seneca; South Fork Catawba; Tuckasegee; Upper North Carolina 1903 2019 18 Broad; Upper Catawba; Upper French Broad; Upper Little Tennessee; Upper New; Upper Pee Dee; Upper Tennessee; Upper Yadkin; Watauga
North Dakota 1980 1996 3 Lake Sakakawea; Painted Woods-Square Butte; Red
Ashtabula-Chagrin; Black-Rocky; Chautauqua-Conneaut; Cuyahoga; Grand; Hocking; Huron-Vermilion; Lake Erie; Little Miami; Little Muskingum-Middle Island; Lower Great Miami; Lower Scioto; Ohio 1885 2012 22 Muskingum; Ohio Brush-Whiteoak; Paint; Sandusky; Tuscarawas; Upper Great Miami; Upper Ohio-Shade; Upper Ohio-Wheeling; Upper Scioto; Walhonding
Oklahoma 1961 1992 4 Arkansas-White-Red Region; Blue; Illinois; Upper Cimarron
Brownlee Reservoir; Clackamas; Lower Crooked; Lower Grande Oregon 1928 2003 10 Ronde; Lower Malheur; Middle Owyhee; North Umpqua; Pacific Northwest Region; Upper Malheur; Willow
Allegheny; Chautauqua-Conneaut; Conococheague-Opequon; Lake Pennsylvania 1983 2003 10 Erie; Lehigh; Lower Allegheny; Lower Monongahela; Middle Delaware- Mongaup-Brodhead; Susquehanna; Upper Ohio
Cibuco-Guajataca; Culebrinas-Guanajibo; Eastern Puerto Rico; Puerto Puerto Rico 1934 1942 4 Rico
South Congaree; Cooper; Enoree; Middle Savannah; Saluda; Santee; 1971 2018 10 Carolina Santee; Seneca; Tugaloo; Upper Savannah
Big Sioux; Cheyenne; Fort Randall Reservoir; Grand; James; Lewis and Clark Lake; Lower Belle Fourche; Lower James; Lower Lake South Dakota 1950 2001 16 Oahe; Middle Big Sioux; Middle Cheyenne-Spring; Missouri Region; Rapid; Redwater; Upper Moreau; Vermillion
Buffalo; Caney; Collins; Conasauga; Emory; Hiwassee; Lower Clinch; Lower Cumberland; Lower French Broad; Lower Little Tennessee; Tennessee 1939 2008 22 Middle Tennessee-Elk; Middle Tennessee-Hiwassee; Obey; Ocoee; South Fork Holston; Upper Clinch; Upper Cumberland; Upper Elk; Upper Tennessee; Watauga; Watts Bar Lake; Wheeler Lake
Texas 1892 2018 66 Austin-Travis Lakes; Bois D'arc-Island; Buchanan-Lyndon B. Johnson Lakes; Buffalo-San Jacinto; Cedar; Cibolo; East Fork San Jacinto; East Fork Trinity; Elm Fork Trinity; International Falcon Reservoir; Johnson Draw; Lake Meredith; Lake O'the Pines; Lampasas; Landreth- Monument Draws; Leon; Little Cypress; Lower Brazos; Lower Brazos; Lower Colorado-Cummins; Lower Frio; Lower Guadalupe; Lower Neches; Lower Nueces; Lower Prairie Dog Town Fork Red; Lower Sabine; Lower Sulpher; Lower West Fork Trinity; Middle Brazos-Lake Whitney; Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto; Middle Canadian-Spring; Middle Guadalupe; Middle Sabine; Navasota; Navidad; North Bosque; North Concho; North Fork Double Mountain Fork Brazos; North Laguna Madre; Pease; Pedernales; Richland; Rio Grande-Falcon; Rio Grande- Fort Quitman; San Gabriel; San Marcos; San Saba; South Concho; South Corpus Christi Bay; South Laguna Madre; South Llano; Texas- Gulf Region; Tierra Blanca; Tule; Upper Clear Fork Brazos; Upper Guadalupe; Upper Neches; Upper Prairie Dog Town Fork Red; Upper Sabine; Upper Salt Fork Red; Upper San Antonio; Upper Trinity;
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=910 6/7/2020 Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - Species Profile Page 6 of 10
State Year of Year of last Total HUCs HUCs with observations† earliest observation with observation observations† Upper West Fork Trinity; West Fork San Jacinto; West Galveston Bay; Wichita
Bear Lake; Beaver Bottoms-Upper Beaver; Blacks Fork; Duchesne; East Fork Sevier; Escalante; Escalante Desert; Fremont; Jordan; Little Bear-Logan; Lower Bear-Malad; Lower Green; Lower Green- Desolation Canyon; Lower Green-Diamond; Lower Lake Powell; Lower San Juan-Four Corners; Lower Sevier; Lower Weber; Middle Bear; Utah 1880 2007 37 Middle Sevier; Montezuma; Price; Provo; Rush-Tooele Valleys; San Pitch; San Rafael; Spanish Fork; Strawberry; Upper Bear; Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil; Upper Colorado-Kane Springs; Upper Green- Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper Lake Powell; Upper Sevier; Upper Virgin; Upper Weber; Utah Lake
Black-Ottauquechee; Deerfield; Hudson-Hoosic; Lake Champlain; Lamoille River; Mettawee River; Missiquoi River; Otter Creek; Vermont 1980 2000 18 Passumpsic; Richelieu; St. Francois; St. Francois River; Upper Connecticut; Upper Connecticut-Mascoma; Waits; West; White; Winooski River
Conococheague-Opequon; James; Kanawha; Lower James; Lower Rappahannock; Maury; Middle James-Buffalo; Middle New; Middle Roanoke; North Fork Holston; North Fork Shenandoah; Potomac; Virginia 1945 2007 27 Powell; Rapidan-Upper Rappahannock; Rivanna; Roanoke; Shenandoah; South Branch Potomac; South Fork Holston; South Fork Shenandoah; Upper Clinch; Upper Dan; Upper James; Upper Levisa; Upper New; Upper Roanoke; Upper Yadkin
Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake; Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula; Pacific Washington 1920 2005 3 Northwest Region
Big Sandy; Guyandotte; James; Kanawha; Little Kanawha; Little West Virginia 1986 1995 11 Muskingum-Middle Island; Middle New; Monongahela; Potomac; Upper James; Upper Kanawha
Apple-Plum; Bad-Montreal; Baraboo; Beartrap-Nemadji; Black; Black- Presque Isle; Brule; Buffalo-Whitewater; Castle Rock; Coon-Yellow; Door-Kewaunee; Duck-Pensaukee; Eau Claire; Flambeau; Grant-Little Maquoketa; Great Lakes Region; Jump; Kickapoo; La Crosse-Pine; Lake Dubay; Lake Michigan; Lake Superior; Lower Chippewa; Lower Wisconsin 1888 2014 49 Fox; Lower St. Croix; Lower Wisconsin; Manitowoc-Sheboygan; Menominee; Middle Rock; Milwaukee; Namekagon; Oconto; Ontonagon; Pecatonica; Peshtigo; Pike-Root; Red Cedar; Rush- Vermillion; South Fork Flambeau; St. Louis; Sugar; Trempealeau; Upper Chippewa; Upper Fox; Upper Fox; Upper Rock; Upper St. Croix; Upper Wisconsin; Wolf
Big Horn; Blacks Fork; Cheyenne; Crazy Woman; Great Divide Closed Basin; Gros Ventre; Missouri Headwaters; North Fork Shoshone; North Platte; Pathfinder-Seminoe Reservoirs; Snake Headwaters; Wyoming 1880 2018 22 South Platte; Upper Bighorn; Upper Green; Upper Green; Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir; Upper Green-Slate; Upper North Platte; Upper Wind; Upper Yellowstone; White - Yampa; Yellowstone Headwaters
Table last updated 5/2/2020
† Populations may not be currently present.
Ecology: Lake fish usually spawn in lake tributaries, where the young trout feed and grow before migrating downstream after about a year. Growing to maturity in the lake takes between 2-4 years, at which time they migrate back to the tributaries to spawn. Most fish will return to the tributary in which they hatched (McDowall, 1990). Some lake populations may spawn in lake-shore gravels rather than travel into tributaries, however. Adult rainbow trout eat insects (both aquatic and terrestrial), crustaceans, molluscs, fish eggs, and small fish. Young trout feed predominantly on zooplankton (GISD, 2019).
Means of Introduction: Beginning in the late 1800s, there have been many stockings of this species for sportfishing purposes by state and federal agencies and by private individuals, mostly into streams and spring branches. Some states stock on an annual basis.
Status: Established in many states, including Hawaii. Also frequently stocked in most states to replenish populations harvested by fishing pressures or in other areas where populations are not self sustaining. One specimen collected from Mississippi (Ross and Brenneman 1991). Stocked once, in 1991, in Louisiana. The stocking failed. Previously established in Soda Butte Creek in Yellowstone National Park. Extirpated via rotenone treatments in 2015 and 2016; currently monitoring and eDNA testing (Ertel 2018).
Impact of Introduction: The rainbow trout hybridizes with other, more rare trout species, thereby affecting their genetic integrity (Lee et al. 1980 et seq.; Rinne and Minckley 1985; Page and Burr 1991). In California, rainbow trout have hybridized with Lahontan cutthroat trout O. clarki henshawi, golden trout O. aguabonita, and redband trout O. mykiss subsp. to the point that all three are included in the threatened trout management program of the California Department of Fish and Game (McAffee 1966b; Moyle 1976b; Behnke 1992). In
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=910 6/7/2020 Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - Species Profile Page 7 of 10
the Lahontan drainage and various Rocky Mountain rivers, hybridization with rainbow trout has been a major factor in the decline of native cutthroat trouts (McAffee 1966a). Rainbow trout have been shown to hybridize with Westslope cutthroat trout throughout the Flathead River system in Montana (Muhlfeld et. al, 2009). In Nevada, this species is also held responsible for the virtual extinction of Alvord cutthroat O. mykiss subsp. (Behnke 1992). In Arizona, the species has hybridized with native gila trout O. gilae and Apache trout O. apache (Minckley 1973; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979). Rainbow trout have replaced Lahontan cutthroat trout in areas where the cutthroat is native and Rainbow Trout have been introduced (McAffee 1966b). Introduced rainbow trout, and other trout species, were likely responsible for the near-extinction of Lahontan cutthroat in Lake Tahoe in the 1940s (McAffee 1966b). Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi hybridization with O. mykiss, and the resulting backcrossing to pure parent populations, has resulted in strong introgression toward both populations in the Upper Oldman River, Alberta, Canada (Rasmussen et al. 2010).
Rainbow trout have been found to negatively affect Little Colorado spinedace Lepidomeda vittata through predation and by affecting spinedace behavior. The trout occupied undercut banks that the spinedace normally used for refuge. As a result, spinedace were displaced from preferred microhabitats and pushed into open water, making them vulnerable to predation (Blinn et al. 1993). Thibault and Dodsen (2013) found significant habitat niche overlap between introduced Rainbow Trout and two native salmonids, Atlantic salmon Salmo salar and brook trout Salvelinus fontinatlis, within eastern Quebec rivers, and increased habitat overlap between native salmonids in rivers containing rainbow trout.
Stocking of hatchery rainbow trout in rivers has led to introduction of whirling disease into open waters in approximately 20 states including, most recently, the Madison River and its tributaries in Montana (B. Nehring and R. White, personal communication). In the Madison River, the disease has reduced the rainbow trout population by 90% (White, personal communication). Rainbow trout have the potential to consume native fishes and compete with native salmonids (Page and Laird 1993). Introduced rainbow trout eat endangered humpback chub Gila cypha in the Little Colorado River, and may exert a major negative effect on the population there (Marsh and Douglas 1997). Fausch (1988), Clark and Rose (1997), and numerous papers cited in both, discussed several factors affecting competitive interactions between rainbow and brook trout. Rainbow trout drive nongame fishes such as suckers and squawfish from feeding territories (Li, personal communication to P. Moyle in Moyle 1976a). Introduced predatory fishes, including the rainbow trout, are likely at least partially responsible for the decline of the Chiricahua leopard frog Rana chiricahuensis in southeastern Arizona (Rosen et al. 1995).
Remarks: Tyus et al. (1982) mapped the distribution of rainbow trout in the upper Colorado basin.
References:
Anonymous. 2000. Northwestern Pa. waters. James's Northeastern Fishing Guide.
Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, 275 pp.
Blinn, D.W., C. Runck, D.A. Clark, and J.N. Rinne. 1993. Effects of rainbow trout predation on Little Colorado spinedace. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:139-143.
Boogaard, M.A., T.D. Bills, and D.A. Johnson. 2003. Acute toxicity of TFM and a TFM/niclosamide mixture to selected species of fish, including lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) and Mudpuppies (Necturus maculosus), in Laboratory and Field Exposures. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29(Supplement 1):529-541.
Bradley, W.G., and J.E. Deacon. 1967. The biotic communities of southern Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 13, Part 4. 201-273.
Burkhead, N.M., S.J. Walsh, B.J. Freeman, and J.D. Williams. 1997. Status and restoration of the Etowah River, an imperiled southern Appalachian ecosystem, p 375-444, In: G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (eds). Aquatic Fauna in Perile: The Southeastern Perspective. Special Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design & Communications, Decatur, GA.
Champion, P., J. Clayton, and D. Rowe. 2002. Lake Manager's Handbook: Alien Invaders. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.
Clark, M.E., and K.A. Rose. 1997. Factors affecting competitive dominance of rainbow trout over brook trout in southern Appalachian streams: implications of an individual-based model. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126(2):1-20.
Clearwater, S.J., C.W. Hickey, and M.L. Martin. 2008. Overview of potential piscicides and molluscicides for controlling aquatic pest species in New Zealand. Science & Technical Publishing, New Zealand Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Courtenay, W.R., Jr., and J.R. Stauffer, Jr., eds. Distribution, Biology, and Management of Exotic Fishes. John Hopkins. Baltimore and London.
Crawford, S.S. 2001. Salmonine introductions to the Laurentian Great Lakes: an historical review and evaluation of ecological effects. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 132. 205 pp.
Cudmore-Vokey, B., and E.J. Crossman. 2000. Checklists of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes and their connecting channels. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2500: v + 39 pp.
Ertel, B. 2018. Preservation of Native Cutthroat Trout in Northern Yellowstone. https://www.nps.gov/articles/preservation-of-native- cutthroat-trout-in-northern-yellowstone.htm. Accessed on 04/23/2018.
Fausch, K.D. 1988. Tests of competition between native and introduced salmonids in streams: what have we learned? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45(12):2238-2246.
Feltmate, B.W., and D.D. Williams. 1989. Influence of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) on density and feeding behavior of a perlid stonefly. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46(9):1575-1580.
Finlayson, B.J., R.A. Schnick, R.L. Cailteux, L. Demong, W.D. Horton, W. McClay, and C.W. Thompson. 2002. Assessment of antimycin A use in fisheries and its potential for reregistration. Fisheries 27(6):10-18.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=910 6/7/2020 Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - Species Profile Page 8 of 10
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2011. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme: Oncorhynchus mykiss. Text by Cowx, I.G. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 15 June 2005. Available: http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Oncorhynchus_mykiss/en. Accessed 19 December 2011.
Gilderhus, P.A. 1972. Exposure times necessary for antimycin and rotenone to eliminate certain freshwater fish. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 25(2):199-202.
Global Invasive Species Database. 2019. Species profile: Oncorhynchus mykiss. Downloaded from http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=103 on 03-05-2019.
Graham, K. 2003. Diamond Lake sick with algae. OregonLive.com. July 21, 2003.
Hamblin, P.F., and P. Gale. 2002. Water quality modeling of caged aquaculture impacts in Lake Wolsey, North Channel of Lake Huron. Journal of Great Lakes Research 28(1):32-43.
Ivan, L.N., E.S. Rutherford, and T.H. Johengen. 2011. Impacts of adfluvial fish on the ecology of two Great Lakes tributaries. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 140:1670-1682.
Kelch, D., F. Lichtkoppler, B. Sohngen, and A. Daigneault. 2006. The value of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) angling in Lake Erie tributaries. Journal of Great Lakes Research 32(3):424-433.
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. Volume 1980. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
Li, H.W. – Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Lintermans, M. and T. Raadik. 2003. Local eradication of trout from streams using rotenone: the Australian experience. Pages 95-111 in Managing invasive freshwater fish in New Zealand: Proceedings of a workshop hosted by the Department of Conservation, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Loyacano, H.A. 1975. A List of Freshwater Fishes of South Carolina. Bulletin of the South Carolina Experimental Station. Bulletin 580, 9 pp.
Madison, D. 2003. Outlaw Introductions. Montana Outdoors. July/August 2003: 26-35.
Marking, L.L. and T.D. Bills. 1985. Effects of contaminants on toxicity of the lampricides TFM and Bayer 73 to three species of fish. Journal of Great Lakes Research 11(2):171-178.
Marotz, B. 2004. Tough Love, why it makes sense to kill some fish in order to save others. Montana Outdoors. March/April 2004.
Marsh, P.C., and M.E. Douglas. 1997. Predation by introduced fishes on endangered humpback chub and other native species in the Little Colorado River, Arizona. Transactions American Fisheries Society 126:343-346.
McAffee, W.R. 1966a. Rainbow trout. In A. Calhoun, ed. Inland Fisheries Management. California Department of Fish and Game. pp. 192-215.
McAffee, W.R. 1966b. Lahontan cutthroat trout. In A. Calhoun, ed. Inland Fisheries Management. California Department of Fish and Game. pp. 225-231.
McDowall, R.M. 1990: New Zealand freshwater fishes, a natural history and guide. Auckland, New Zealand, Heinemann Reed. 553 p.
Miller, R.R., and C.H. Lowe. 1967. Part 2. Fishes of Arizona, p 133-151, In: C.H. Lowe, ed. The Vertebrates of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Fish and Game Department. Sims Printing Company, Inc., Phoenix, AZ.
Morrow, J.E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company, Anchorage, AK.
Moyle, P.B. 1976a. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Moyle, P.B. 1976b. Fish introduction in California: history and impact on native fishes. Biological Conservation 9:101-118.
Muhlfeld, C.C., T.E. McMahon, M.C. Boyer, and R.E. Gresswell. 2009. Local habitat, watershed, and biotic factors influencing the spread of hybridization between native westslope cutthroat trout and introduced rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:1036-1051.
National Park Service. 2011. Natural Resource Fact Sheet--Exotic Fish Management. National Park Service.
Nehring, R.B. – Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). 2011. Fish stocking lists: 2010 lists by county. Bureau of Fisheries, Albany, NY. Available:http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/7739.html
Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr. 1991. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America North of Mexico. The Peterson Field Guide Series, volume 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Page, L.M., and C.A. Laird. 1993. The identification of the nonnative fishes inhabiting Illinois waters. Report prepared by Center for Biodiversity, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, for Illinois Department of Conservation, Springfield. Center for Biodiversity Technical Report 1993(4). 39 pp.
Parmenter, R.R., and Lamarra, V.A. 1991. Nutrient cycling in a freshwater marsh: The decomposition of fish and waterfowl carrion. Limnology and Oceanography 36(5):976-987.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=910 6/7/2020 Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - Species Profile Page 9 of 10
Phillips, E.C., M.E. Washek, A.W. Hertel, and B.M. Niebel. 2003. The round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) in Pennsylvania tributary streams of Lake Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29(1):34-40.
Powers, S.L., and P.A. Ceas. 2000. Ichthyofauna and biogeography of Russell Fork (Big Sandy River - Ohio River). Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings 41:1-12.
Rasmussen, J.L. 1998. Aquatic nuisance species of the Mississippi River basin. 60th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Aquatic Nuisance Species Symposium, Dec. 7, 1998, Cincinnati, OH.
Rand, P.S., C.A.S. Hall, W.H. McDowell, N.H. Ringler, and J.G. Kennen. 1992. Factors limiting primary productivity in Lake Ontario tributaries receiving salmon migrations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49(11):2377-2385.
Rasmussen, J.B., M.D. Robinson, and D.D. Heath. 2010. Ecological consequences of hybridization between native westslope cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) and introduced rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) trout: effects on life history and habitat use. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67(2):357-370.
Rinne, J.N. and W.L. Minckley. 1985. Patterns of variation and distribution in Apache trout (Salmo apache) relative to co-occurrence with introduced salmonids. Copeia 1985(2):285-292.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. 430 pp.
Rosen, P.C., C.R. Schwalbe, D.A. Parizek, Jr., P.A. Holm, and C.H. Lowe. 1995. Introduced aquatic vertebrates in the Chiricahua region: effects on declining native ranid frogs. In: Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago: The Sky Islands of Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. pp. 251-261.
Rooney, R.C., and C.L. Podemski. 2010. Freshwater trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) farming affects sediment and pore-water chemistry. Marine and Freshwater Research 61:513-526.
Sajna, M. 1998. Outdoors: El Nino spurs early arrival of peregrines. Pitsburgh Post-Gazette.
Starnes, W.C., J. Odenkirk, and M.J. Ashton. 2011. Update and analysis of fish occurrences in the lower Potomac River drainage in the vicinity of Plummers Island, Maryland—Contribution XXXI to the natural history of Plummers Island, Maryland. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 124(4):280-309.
State of Oregon. 2000. Warm Water Game Fish Records. 7 pp.
Stripling, M. 2001. Trout: The jewels of the Chattahoochee. The Natural Georgia Series: The Chattahoochee River. Sherpa Guides. 9 pp. http://www.sherpaguides.com/georgia/chattahoochee/trout/
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2001. Fish Records: Water Body - All Tackle. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. April 24, 2001.
Thibault, I. and J. Dodson. 2013. Impacts of exotic Rainbow Trout on habitat use by native juvenile salmonid species at an early invasive stage. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142(4):1141-1150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2013.799516
Tiegs, S.D., E.Y. Campbell, P.S. Levi, J. Rüegg, M.E. Benbow, D.T. Chaloner, R.W. Merritt, J.L. Tank, and G.A. Lamberti. 2009. Separating physical disturbance and nutrient enrichment caused by Pacific salmon in stream ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 54(9): 1864-1857.
Tilmant, J.T. 1999. Management of nonindigenous aquatic fish in the U.S. National Park System. National Park Service. 50 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Arizona trout recovery plan. Arizona Trout Recovery Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 37 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Economic effects of rainbow trout production by the national fish hatchery system. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, 33 pp. Available: http://www.fws.gov/southeast/fisheries/pdf/RainbowTrout-05.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 Fisheries Program, and Great Lakes Fishery Commission (FWS/GLFC). 2010. Great Lakes Fish Stocking database. Available: http://www.glfc.org/fishstocking/index.htm
Waldrip, L. 1993. Fish Stocking Report. Texas Parks and Wildlife News. March 5, 1993. 1993: 7-8.
Whittier, T.R., D.B. Halliwell, and R.A. Daniels. 2000. Distributions of lake fishes in the Northeast - II. The Minnows (Cyprinidae). Northeastern Naturalist 7(2):131-156.
Yoder, W.G. 1972. The spread of Myxosoma cerebralis into native trout populations in Michigan. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 34 (2):103-106.
Other Resources: Distribution in Illinois - Illinois Natural History Survey
Oncorhyncus mykiss - Global Invasive Species Database
Great Lakes Waterlife
Author: Fuller, P., J. Larson, A. Fusaro, T.H. Makled, and M. Neilson
Revision Date: 9/12/2019
Peer Review Date: 11/4/2013
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=910 6/7/2020 Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - Species Profile Page 10 of 10
Citation Information: Fuller, P., J. Larson, A. Fusaro, T.H. Makled, and M. Neilson, 2020, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=910, Revision Date: 9/12/2019, Peer Review Date: 11/4/2013, Access Date: 6/7/2020
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
DOI Privacy Policy | Legal | Accessibility | Site Map | Contact USGS
U.S. Department of the Interior | DOI Inspector General | White House | E-gov | No Fear Act | FOIA Follow ®ŨŤŧ
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=910 6/7/2020
ERM has over 160 offices across the following countries and territories worldwide
Argentina The Netherlands ERM’s Seattle Office Australia New Zealand 1218 3rd Avenue, Suite 1412 Belgium Norway Seattle, Washington 98101 Brazil Panama Canada Peru T: +1 425 462 8591 F: +1 425 455 3573 Chile Poland
China Portugal www.erm.com Colombia Puerto Rico France Romania Germany Russia Ghana Senegal Guyana Singapore Hong Kong South Africa India South Korea Indonesia Spain Ireland Sweden Italy Switzerland Japan Taiwan Kazakhstan Tanzania Kenya Thailand Malaysia UAE Mexico UK Mozambique US Myanmar Vietnam
The business of sustainability