DOCSLIB.ORG

The Illinois Wild and Scenic River Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Illinois Wild and Scenic River Study The Illinois Wild and Scenic River Study U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION & RECREATION SERVICE THE ILLINOIS . WILD & SCENIC RIVER STUDY Final Report U.S. Department of Interior Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service ·August, 1979 As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes foster­ ing the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdooor rec­ reation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. Department of the Interior Cecil D. Andrus Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Chris T. Delaporte TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Sunnnary of Fin.dings, Recommendations and Costs-------------- 1 Important Findings---------------------------------------- 1 Recommendations------------------------------------------- 1 Non-Federal Costs----------------------------------------- 2 I I. Introduction--·---------------------------------------------- 4 Background------------------------------------------------ 5 III. Conduct of Study-------------------------------------------- 7 Public Involvement---------------------------------------- 7 IV. Findings and Recommendations-------------------------------- 12 Major Findings-------------------------------------------- 12 Qualification--------------------------------------------- 13 Classification-------------------------------------------- 14 Recommendations------------------------------------------- 17 Background---------------------------------------------- 17 Proposal-----...,----.--------------------------------------- 18 Area of jurisdiction---------------------------------- 19 Protection techniques--------------------------------- 20 Management objectives--------------------------------- 21 Recreation deve'.lopment-------------------------------- 24 Costs------------------------------------------------- 26 National designation---------------------------------- 26 Administrative Options Considered------------------------- 27 V. Overview of the Resource------------------------------------ 29 VI. Resource Characteristics------------------------------------ 32 Terrain--------------------------------------------------- 32 Soils----------------------------------------------------- 34 Climate--------------------------------------------------- 35 Ground Water---------------------------------------------- 35 Water Quality--------------------------------------------- 36 Flow Characteristics-------------------------------------- 38 Flora----------------------------------------------------- 42 Fauna------------------------------------------------~--- 44 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) VII. Cultural and Socio-Economic Characteristics------------------ 48 Pre-history------------------------------------------------ 48 History---------------------------------------------------- 48 Population------------------------------------------------- 51 Employment------------------------------------------------- 51 Economy---------------------------------------------------- 52 Agriculture and Horticulture------------------------------- 54 Recreation Enterprises------------------------------------- 56 Economic Geology------------------------------------------- 57 Recreation and Tourism------------------------------------- 57 Land Ownership--------------------------------------------- 64 Land Use--------------------------------------------------- 64 Development------------------------------------------------ 65 Water Rights----------------------------------------------- 73 Regional-Local Plans--------------------------------------- 74 A. Flint Creek Power Plant------------------------------ 74 B. Northwest Arkansas Regional Water Quality Management Plan------------------------------------ 76 C. Irrigation Water for Western Oklahoma---------------- 76 D. Camp Gruber Energy Park------------------------------ 76 E. Flint Ridge Development------------------------------ 77 F. Potential Impoundments------------------------------- 78 G. Bridges---------------------------------------------- 80 VIII. Analysis and Evaluation of the Recommendation and Federal Administration Alternative--------------------------------- 81 Display of net effects for recommendation------------------ 83 Display of net effects for federal administration alternative---------------------------------------------- 85 Beneficial and adverse effects of the recornmendation------- 87 Beneficial and adverse effects of the federal administration alternative------------------------------- 89 Surnmary comparison of federal alternative and recornmendation------------------------------------------- 91 Recommendation assumptions--------------------------------- 93 Federal administration alternative assumptions------------- 95 IX. Assessment of the Probable Environmental Impacts of the Recommendation--------------------------------------------- 98 Introduction------------------------------------------------- 98 Fish and Wildlife--------------------------------------------- 98 Aesthetics--------------------------------------------------- 100 Vegetation--------------------------------------------------- 101 Air Quality-------------------------------------------------- 102 Water Quality------------------------------------------------ 102 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Historical and Archeological Elements------------------------ 104 Local Economics---------------------------------------------- 105 Recreation--------------------------------------------------- 106 Land CMnership----------------------------------------------- 107 Water Resource Projects-------------------------------------- 107 Soi ls--·------------------------------------------------------ 10 8 Transportation and Utility Routes---------------------------- 108 X. Appendices-·------------------------------------------------------ 110 A. Oklahoma Scenic Rivers--------------------------------------- 111 B. Scenic River Commission L.egislation-------------------------- 113 c. Animal species---------------------------------------------- 126 D. Historic sites----------------------------------------------- 134 E. Responses from Water planning Agencies----------------------- 135 F. Agency Gmmnents en Draft Report----------------------------- 143 XI. Sources of Information------------------------------------------ 154 LIST OF MAPS I. Vicinity Map---------------------------------------------------- 3 II. Scenic Rivers of Oklahc:ma---------------------------------------- 6 III. Classification of River Segments--------------,----------------- 16 IV. River Manag1~ment Zones------------------------------------------ 20 a V. Segment Landmarks and Gauging· Stations-------------------------- 41 VI. Historic Sites--------------------------------------------------- 50 VII. Sand and Gravel Operations------------------------------------- 58 VIII. Bridges, FiBhennan Access, and Potential Trail Sites------------- 59 IX. Development------------------------------------------------------ 70 X. Potential Dam Sites---------------------------------------------- 79 LIST OF FIGURES I. Typical Soil Associations--------------------------------------­ 34 II. Stream Profile Chart of the Illinois River----------------------­ 39 III. Conceptuali2:ed Visual Corridor---------------------------------- 66 LIST OF TABLES I. Administrative Options for River Management---------------------- 28 II. Beneficial Uses of the Study Streams---------------------------- 38 III. Common Vegetation------------------------------------------------ 42 IV. Selected Social Characteristics--------------------------------- 53 V. Major Agricultural and Horticultural Practices------------------- 55 iii I SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COSTS IMPORTANT FINDINGS 1. The Illinois River in northeastern Oklahoma, from the Arkansas­ Oklahoma State line downstream to the headwaters of Tenkiller Ferry Reservoir, qualified to be added to the National Wild and Scenic River System. Also qualifying are two tributaries, Flint Creek and Barren Fork Creek from the State line to their mouths. The three streams total 115 miles in Oklahoma (see map, page 3). 2. The Illinois River, Flint Creek and Barren Fork Creek (up to present alignment of U.S. Highway 59) are currently in the Oklahoma State Scenic River System (see map, page 6). 3. The Illinois River is among the top recreation/tourism attractions in its surrounding region. 4. The three streams support significant agricultural and horticultural practices, as well as numerous commercial canoe liveries. 5. The three streams are subject to various projects which, while not directly impacting on the streams, may have an impact on their aesthetic and environmental values. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Federal management of the streams is not recommended. Instead, it is recommended that an a~ency of the State of Oklahoma administer the qualified stream segments specified above. The most appropriate agency is the newly established Oklahoma Scenic River Commission (see page 17 for a discussion of the Commission's authorities)" 1 2. At this time, it is not recommended
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Six Rivers, Five Glaciers, and an Outburst Flood: the Considerable Legacy of the Illinois River
    SIX RIVERS, FIVE GLACIERS, AND AN OUTBURST FLOOD: THE CONSIDERABLE LEGACY OF THE ILLINOIS RIVER Don McKay, Chief Scientist, Illinois State Geological Survey 615 East Peabody Drive, Champaign, Illinois 61820 [email protected] INTRODUCTION The waters of the modern Illinois River flow gently through looping meanders bordered by quiet backwater lakes and drop only a few inches in each river mile. Concealed beneath this gentle river is geologic evidence that the Illinois descended from ancient rivers with surprising and sometimes violent histories. The geologic story of the Illinois River is not only an account of an interesting chapter of Earth history, but it also reveals a rich geologic legacy of valuable and vulnerable resources that should be managed and used wisely. Modern, detailed, geologic field mapping has enabled new insights into the river’s history. Begun in 2000 by the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), geologic mapping in the Middle Illinois River Valley area (Fig 1) was undertaken to aid planning for an expansion of Illinois Highway 29 between Chillicothe and I-180 west of Hennepin. Mapping was focused initially on the western bluff and valley bottom west of the river near the present highway but has since been expanded to more than 275 sq mi in Putnam, Marshall, and Peoria counties. Funding was provided by Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and by ISGS. Several maps are scheduled to be published (McKay and others 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). Figure 1. Location of recent and ongoing geologic mapping area in the Middle Illinois River Valley region of north-central Illinois (left) and northeastern portion of the Chillicothe 7.5-minute surficial geology map (right) showing areas of river deposits, glacial tills, and bedrock where they occur at land surface.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 1. Comparison of Geometric Means to the Oklahoma Scenic River Total Phosphorus Criterion Calculated from 1999-20181 and 2013-2018
    Table 1. Comparison of geometric means to the Oklahoma Scenic River total phosphorus criterion calculated from 1999-20181 and 2013-2018. 1999-2018 (3-month GM'S) 2013-2018 (3-month GM'S) % N N< % Exceeding N N< Exceeding Station (see footnotes) (Period) 0.037 0.037 (Period) 0.037 0.037 Illinois River near Watts2 339 11 97% 68 6 91% Illinois River near 342 22 94% 68 13 81% Tahlequah/ Flint Creek near Kansas" 324 0 100% 69 0 100% Barren Fork near Eldon2 327 183 44% 67 50 25% Little Lee Creek near 104 100 4% 48 48 0% Nicut" Lee Creek near Short 228 217 5% 51 51 0% Mountain Fork River near 196 159 19% 50 46 8% Smithville Little Lee Creek near Nicut Period of Record Dataset from 2008-2016 2Dataset meets USAP data requirements Table 2. Waters Listed on Oklahoma's 2016 303(d) List Impaired Waters in the Illinois River Basin OKWBID Name Listed on 303(d) for Impairments 121700020020 Tenkiller Ferry Lake Dissolved Oxyqen, TP 121700020110 Chicken Creek Fish Bioassessment 121700020220 Tenkiller Ferry Lake, Illinois River Arm Chlorophyll-a, TP 121700030010 Illinois River - Tahlequah TP, Enterococcus 121700030040 Tahlequah Creek (Town Branch) Eschericia coli 121700030080 Illinois River TP, Lead, Eschericia coli, 121700030280 Illinois River - Chewey Bridge TP, Escherichia coli. Turbidity, Enterococcus 121700030290 Flint Creek TP,Dissolved Oxvcen 121700030350 Illinois River - Watts TP, Enterococcus, Escherichia coli 121700030370 Ballard Creek Enterococcus 121700040010 Caney Creek Enterococcus 121700050010 Illinois River - Baron Fork TP, Enterococcus
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Disaster Mitigation Floodwall Projects Cities of Marseilles, Ottawa, and Peru, Lasalle County, Illinois Village of Depue, Bureau County, Illinois January 2018
    Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Pre-Disaster Mitigation Floodwall Projects Cities of Marseilles, Ottawa, and Peru, LaSalle County, Illinois Village of DePue, Bureau County, Illinois January 2018 Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean, VA 22102 Prepared for FEMA Region V 536 South Clark Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60605 Photo attributes: Top left: City of Ottawa Top right: City of Peru Bottom left: City of Marseilles Bottom right: Village of DePue Pre-Disaster Mitigation Floodwall Projects Page ii January 2018 Programmatic Environmental Assessment Acronyms and Abbreviations List of Acronyms and Abbreviations oC Degrees Celsius ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AD Anno Domini AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act APE Area of Potential Effect ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 BFE Base Flood Elevation BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice BP Before Present CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision CRS Community Rating System CWA Clean Water Act CWS Community Water Supplies dB decibels EA Environmental Assessment EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map Pre-Disaster Mitigation Floodwall Projects Page iii January 2018 Programmatic Environmental Assessment Acronyms and Abbreviations FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy
    [Show full text]
  • North Farm Creek and Dry Run Tributary Implementation Plan
    North Farm Creek and Dry Run Tributary Implementation Plan By: Tetra Tech 1468 West 9th Street, Suite 620 Cleveland, OH 44113 In support of: EPA Contract Number EP-C-11-009 Work Assignment 1-29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604 December 2012 North Farm Creek and Dry Run Tributary Implementation Plan Page ii Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 TMDL/LRS Summary ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Watershed Plan Requirements - Nine Key Elements................................................................. 6 1.3 Implementation Plan Approach ................................................................................................ 7 1.3.1 Nonstructural Management Opportunities ....................................................................... 8 1.3.2 Structural Management Opportunities ............................................................................. 8 2. Implementation Partners and Existing Implementation Efforts ............................................ 10 2.1 Implementation Partners ........................................................................................................ 10 2.2 Existing Implementation Efforts ............................................................................................ 11 2.2.1 Honoring our Water Stormwater Plan ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Assessment of the Illinois River Watershed Mission
    ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ILLINOIS RIVER WATERSHED MISSION IRWP works to improve the integrity of the Illinois River through public education, community outreach, and implementation of conservation and restoration practices throughout the watershed. VISION The Illinois River and its tributaries will be a fully function- ing ecosystem, where ecological protection, conservation, and economically productive uses support diverse aquatic and riparian communities, meet all state and federal water quality standards, promote economic sustainability, and provide recreational opportunities. CONTACT 221 S. Main St., Cave Springs, AR 72718 Phone 479-203-7084 Website www.irwp.org Facebook www.facebook.com/IllinoisRiverWatershedPartnership Table of Contents Introduction Mission, Vision, and Contact ......................................................................................................................2 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................4 Summary of Findings..................................................................................................................................5 Site Assessments Barren Fork...........................................................................................................................................8 Caney Creek........................................................................................................................................10 Clear Creek..........................................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the ILLINOIS RIVER and the Decline of a NATIVE SPECIES by Paige A
    The history of the ILLINOIS RIVER and the decline of a NATIVE SPECIES BY PAIGE A. METTLER-CHERRY AND MARIAN SMITH 34 | The Confluence | Fall 2009 A very important advantage, and one which some, perhaps, will find it hard to credit, is that we could easily go to Florida in boats, and by a very good navigation. There would be but one canal to make … Louis Joliet, 1674, making the earliest known proposal to alter the Illinois River (Hurlbut 1881) Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge as it appears today. The corn and soybean fields (see page 38) have been replaced by the reappearance of Thompson and Flag lakes. The refuge already teems with wildlife, including many species of migrating waterfowl, wading birds, deer, and re-introduced native fish species. (Photo: Courtesy of the author) Fall 2009 | The Confluence | 35 Large river ecosystems are perhaps the most modified systems in The lower Illinois Valley is much older than the upper and has the world, with nearly all of the world’s 79 large river ecosystems been glaciated several times. The Illinoisan ice sheet covered much altered by human activities (Sparks 1995). In North America, of Illinois, stopping 19.9 miles north of the Ohio River. The effects the Illinois River floodplain has been extensively modified and of the glacier are easily seen when comparing the flat agricultural the flood pulse, or annual flood regime, of the river is distorted fields of central and northern Illinois, which the glacier covered, as a result of human activity (Sparks, Nelson, and Yin 1998). to the Shawnee Hills of southern Illinois, where the glacier did Although many view flooding as an unwanted destructive force of not reach.
    [Show full text]
  • (T-58-R-1) Determining Factors Affecting the Distribution of Endanger
    FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT Federal Aid Grant No. F11AF00029 (T-58-R-1) Determining Factors Affecting the Distribution of Endangered Fish and Crayfish Species with Emphasis on the Ozark Region in Northeastern Oklahoma Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2011 FINAL REPORT State: Oklahoma Grant Number: F11AF00029 (T-58-R-1) Grant Program: State Wildlife Grant Grant Title: Determining Factors Affecting the Distribution of Endangered Fish and Crayfish Species with Emphasis on the Ozark Region in Northeastern Oklahoma Grant Period: 1 June 2011 – 30 May 2014 Principle Investigators: Michael Tobler and Reid L. Morehouse OBJECTIVES 1. Establish multiple sampling sites throughout each river drainage of focus by using historic collection localities and field reconnaissance. (Grand-Neosho, Illinois, and Spavinaw). Quantify the composition of fish and crayfish communities (including the presence of invasive species) and assess basic habitat properties including the physical environment, nutrient levels that are indicative of anthropogenic activities, and basic properties of aquatic insect communities that serve as environmental indicators. 2. Generate a GIS database of fish and crayfish distributions that could be used to identify significant landscape-level risks to these species (e.g. river access points, highway overpasses, permitted wastewater inputs). 3. Determine historic ranges of tier-listed species by using the GIS database of fish distributions. By comparing historic data with results from current surveys, we will identify distribution trends in tier-listed species. 4. Use GIS-based analyses of each species’ environmental niche using ecological niche modeling techniques. Identify landscape level properties that determine historic and current niches of tier-listed species.
    [Show full text]
  • North Branch Chicago River Watershed-Based Plan
    CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION NORTH BRANCH CHICAGO RIVER WATERSHED-BASED PLAN CONTENTS 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.1 What is a Watershed? ............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.1.1 Why A Watershed-Based Plan? ....................................................................................... 1-4 1.2 North Branch Chicago River Watershed Planning Area .......................................................... 1-4 1.2.1 Chicago River Watershed................................................................................................. 1-4 1.2.2 North Branch Chicago River Watershed Planning Area .................................................. 1-5 1.2.2.1 North Branch Chicago River Watershed Partnerships ............................................................. 1-8 1.2.2.2 North Branch Chicago River Watershed Planning .................................................................... 1-8 1.3 WATERSHED PLAN PURPOSE .................................................................................................. 1-9 1.4 Watershed Plan Requirements, Process, and Organization ................................................. 1-10 1.5 Previous and Related Studies and Plans ............................................................................... 1-11 1.6 Use of the Plan .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GCP LCC Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow
    Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow Alteration Photo credit: Brandon Brown A report by the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee Edited by: Mary Davis, Coordinator, Southern Aquatic Resources Partnership 3563 Hamstead Ct, Durham, North Carolina 27707, email: [email protected] and Shannon K. Brewer, U.S. Geological Survey Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 007 Agriculture Hall, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 email: [email protected] Wildlife Management Institute Grant Number GCP LCC 2012-003 May 2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee members for their time and thoughtful input into the development and testing of the regional flow-ecology hypotheses. Shannon Brewer, Jacquelyn Duke, Kimberly Elkin, Nicole Farless, Timothy Grabowski, Kevin Mayes, Robert Mollenhauer, Trevor Starks, Kevin Stubbs, Andrew Taylor, and Caryn Vaughn authored the flow-ecology hypotheses presented in this report. Daniel Fenner, Thom Hardy, David Martinez, Robby Maxwell, Bryan Piazza, and Ryan Smith provided helpful reviews and improved the quality of the report. Funding for this work was provided by the Gulf Coastal Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and administered by the Wildlife Management Institute (Grant Number GCP LCC 2012-003). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Suggested Citation: Davis, M. M. and S. Brewer (eds.). 2014. Gulf Coast Prairie Landscape Conservation Cooperative Regional Hypotheses of Ecological Responses to Flow Alteration. A report by the GCP LCC Flow-Ecology Hypotheses Committee to the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) for the GCP LCC Instream Flow Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Kyfishid[1].Pdf
    Kentucky Fishes Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission To conserve, protect and enhance Kentucky’s fish and wildlife resources and provide outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, shooting sports, wildlife viewing, and related activities. Federal Aid Project funded by your purchase of fishing equipment and motor boat fuels Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 1-800-858-1549 • fw.ky.gov Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission Kentucky Fishes by Matthew R. Thomas Fisheries Program Coordinator 2011 (Third edition, 2021) Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Division of Fisheries Cover paintings by Rick Hill • Publication design by Adrienne Yancy Preface entucky is home to a total of 245 native fish species with an additional 24 that have been introduced either intentionally (i.e., for sport) or accidentally. Within Kthe United States, Kentucky’s native freshwater fish diversity is exceeded only by Alabama and Tennessee. This high diversity of native fishes corresponds to an abun- dance of water bodies and wide variety of aquatic habitats across the state – from swift upland streams to large sluggish rivers, oxbow lakes, and wetlands. Approximately 25 species are most frequently caught by anglers either for sport or food. Many of these species occur in streams and rivers statewide, while several are routinely stocked in public and private water bodies across the state, especially ponds and reservoirs. The largest proportion of Kentucky’s fish fauna (80%) includes darters, minnows, suckers, madtoms, smaller sunfishes, and other groups (e.g., lam- preys) that are rarely seen by most people.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from The
    Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from the 1940s to the 1990s by MATTHEW R. WINSTON Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO 65201 February 2003 CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 10 Methods……………………………………………………………………………….. 17 The Data Used………………………………………………………………… 17 General Patterns in Species Change…………………………………………... 23 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 26 Results………………………………………………………………………………… 34 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 30 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 46 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 63 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 53 Conservation Status of Species………………………………………………. 63 Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………. 66 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………………….. 66 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………… 72 FIGURES 1. Distribution of samples by principal investigator…………………………. 20 2. Areas of greatest average decline…………………………………………. 33 3. Areas of greatest average expansion………………………………………. 34 4. The relationship between number of basins and ……………………….. 39 5. The distribution of for each reproductive group………………………... 40 2 6. The distribution of for each family……………………………………… 41 7. The distribution of for each trophic group……………...………………. 42 8. The distribution of for each faunal region………………………………. 43 9. The distribution of for each stream type………………………………… 44 10. The distribution of for each range edge…………………………………. 45 11. Modified
    [Show full text]