DOCSLIB.ORG

Family Type and Incidence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Family Type and Incidence ASSESSMENT AND DIVERSITY OF FISH COMMUNITIES IN NON-WADEABLE TRIBUTARIES OF THE MISSOURI AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ________________________________________________________________________ A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia ________________________________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy ________________________________________________________________________ by COREY GARLAND DUNN Dr. Craig P. Paukert, Dissertation Supervisor MAY 2020 © Corey G Dunn 2020 All Rights Reserved The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled ASSESSMENT AND DIVERSITY OF FISH COMMUNITIES IN NON- WADEABLE TRIBUTARIES OF THE MISSOURI AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS presented by Corey Garland Dunn, a candidate for the degree of doctor of philosophy, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Dr. Craig Paukert Dr. Amanda Rosenberger Dr. Frank Thompson III Dr. Christopher Wikle DEDICATION To Glenn Dunn for the formative winter days along the Appomattox River and encouragement to do well in school. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank my major adviser, Dr. Craig Paukert, and dissertation committee, Drs. Amanda Rosenberger, Frank Thompson, and Chris Wikle for volunteering their time to improve this research. Dr. Jodi Whittier and my lab-mates inevitably served as sounding boards: Elisa Baebler, Hadley Boehm, Dr. Kristen Bouska, John Brant, Julia Guyton, Ethan Kleekamp, Dr. Garth Lindner, Michael Moore, Zach Morris, Emily Pherigo, Dr. Landon Pierce, Jacob Schwoerer, Nick Sievert, Emily Tracy-Smith, Mike Thomas, Dr. Ralph Tingley, and Dr. James Whitney. I also thank staff with Research Computing Support Services and Greg Rotert with the School of Natural Resources for IT support. I was fortunate to work with many outstanding managers and resource scientists at the Missouri Department of Conservation. These included Dave Herzog, Dr. Vince Travnichek, Matt Combes, Dr. Doug Novinger, Bob Hrabik, Brett Landwer, Greg Pitchford, Dr. Jacob Westhoff, Jason Persinger, Christina Kelsay, Dr. Paul Blanchard, Jen Girondo, Chris Brooke, Jason Crites, Nick Girondo, Rick Horton, Tory Mason, Brian McKeage, Darby Niswonger, and Chris Williamson. I am especially grateful for the tireless effort put forth by the Mid-Sized Rivers field crew. Its core consisted of Jackman Eschenroeder (’14), Joshua Palmer (’14), Sharon Rayford (’14), Dillon Howe (’15), Mary Mabery (’15), Brandon Brooke (’15–16), and Randy Kramer (’16). The following volunteers and assistants served brief, but critical, stints on the field crew: David Broussard, Jenny Cunningham, Erin Hassett, Liz Heimer, Darcy Higgins, Travis Lyon, Ruth Anne Martin, Jack Niemeyer, Rory Mott, Brett Parra, Joey Rasco, Alex Simpher, Jeremy Williams, Brendon Woodall, and Autom Yount. Finally, I thank Laura Zseleczky for her unwavering support. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ ii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. v LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................... xi ATTRIBUTION ............................................................................................................... xiv DISSERTATION ABSTRACT ........................................................................................ xv CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Brief profile of Missouri’s mid-sized rivers ................................................................... 5 References ....................................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2: A FLEXIBLE SURVEY DESIGN FOR MONITORING SPATIOTEMPORAL FISH RICHNESS IN NON-WADEABLE RIVERS: OPTIMIZING EFFICIENCY BY INTEGRATING GEARS .......................................... 15 Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 15 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 16 Methods......................................................................................................................... 20 Analyses ........................................................................................................................ 26 Results ........................................................................................................................... 32 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 37 References ..................................................................................................................... 45 Tables ............................................................................................................................ 56 Figures........................................................................................................................... 61 Appendices .................................................................................................................... 68 CHAPTER 3: ACCOUNTING FOR DOWNRIVER CONNECTIVITY AND HABITAT WHEN APPRAISING THE CONSERVATION VALUE OF TRIBUTARIES FOR LARGE-RIVER SPECIALIST FISHES .......................................................................... 71 Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 71 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 72 Methods......................................................................................................................... 76 Analyses ........................................................................................................................ 82 Results ........................................................................................................................... 84 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 88 References ..................................................................................................................... 96 Tables .......................................................................................................................... 108 iii Figures......................................................................................................................... 112 Appendices .................................................................................................................. 118 CHAPTER 4: PINPOINTING BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTS: LOCAL HABITAT AND REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY SHAPE FISH RICHNESS WITHIN CONTRASTING RIVERINE METACOMMUNITIES ............................................................................. 128 Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 128 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 129 Methods....................................................................................................................... 133 Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 138 Results ......................................................................................................................... 142 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 148 References ................................................................................................................... 158 Tables .......................................................................................................................... 173 Figures......................................................................................................................... 177 Appendices .................................................................................................................. 183 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ............ 190 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 190 Future research directions ........................................................................................... 197 References ................................................................................................................... 198 VITA ............................................................................................................................... 205 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Site characteristics and means (SD) of habitat variables from nine non- wadeable sites across two physiographic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Carmine Shiner (Notropis Percobromus) in Canada
    COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Carmine Shiner Notropis percobromus in Canada THREATENED 2006 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION ENDANGERED WILDLIFE DES ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL IN CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the carmine shiner Notropis percobromus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 29 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Previous reports COSEWIC 2001. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the carmine shiner Notropis percobromus and rosyface shiner Notropis rubellus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. v + 17 pp. Houston, J. 1994. COSEWIC status report on the rosyface shiner Notropis rubellus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-17 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge D.B. Stewart for writing the update status report on the carmine shiner Notropis percobromus in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada, overseen and edited by Robert Campbell, Co-chair, COSEWIC Freshwater Fishes Species Specialist Subcommittee. In 1994 and again in 2001, COSEWIC assessed minnows belonging to the rosyface shiner species complex, including those in Manitoba, as rosyface shiner (Notropis rubellus). For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la tête carminée (Notropis percobromus) au Canada – Mise à jour.
    [Show full text]
  • Thermal Toxicity Literature Evaluation
    Thermal Toxicity Literature Evaluation 2011 TECHNICAL REPORT Electric Power Research Institute 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA 800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • [email protected] • www.epri.com Thermal Toxicity Literature Evaluation 1023095 Final Report, December 2011 EPRI Project Manager R. Goldstein ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA 800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ [email protected] ▪ www.epri.com DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
    [Show full text]
  • CAT Vertebradosgt CDC CECON USAC 2019
    Catálogo de Autoridades Taxonómicas de vertebrados de Guatemala CDC-CECON-USAC 2019 Centro de Datos para la Conservación (CDC) Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas (Cecon) Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacia Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala Este documento fue elaborado por el Centro de Datos para la Conservación (CDC) del Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas (Cecon) de la Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacia de la Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala. Guatemala, 2019 Textos y edición: Manolo J. García. Zoólogo CDC Primera edición, 2019 Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas (Cecon) de la Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacia de la Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala ISBN: 978-9929-570-19-1 Cita sugerida: Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas [Cecon]. (2019). Catálogo de autoridades taxonómicas de vertebrados de Guatemala (Documento técnico). Guatemala: Centro de Datos para la Conservación [CDC], Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas [Cecon], Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacia, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala [Usac]. Índice 1. Presentación ............................................................................................ 4 2. Directrices generales para uso del CAT .............................................. 5 2.1 El grupo objetivo ..................................................................... 5 2.2 Categorías taxonómicas ......................................................... 5 2.3 Nombre de autoridades .......................................................... 5 2.4 Estatus taxonómico
    [Show full text]
  • Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L
    PERSPECTIVE Goodbye to “Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L. Rypel | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, 1 Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616 | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA. E-mail: [email protected] Parsa Saffarinia | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Caryn C. Vaughn | University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Biological Survey and Department of Biology, Norman, OK Larry Nesper | University of Wisconsin–Madison, Department of Anthropology, Madison, WI Katherine O’Reilly | University of Notre Dame, Department of Biological Sciences, Notre Dame, IN Christine A. Parisek | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA | The Nature Conservancy, Science Communications, Boise, ID Peter B. Moyle | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA Nann A. Fangue | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Miranda Bell- Tilcock | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA David Ayers | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Solomon R. David | Nicholls State University, Department of Biological Sciences, Thibodaux, LA While sometimes difficult to admit, perspectives of European and white males have overwhelmingly dominated fisheries science and management in the USA. This dynamic is exemplified by bias against “rough fish”— a pejorative ascribing low- to- zero value for countless native fishes. One product of this bias is that biologists have ironically worked against conservation of diverse fishes for over a century, and these problems persist today.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Stream Fishes
    A POCKET GUIDE TO Kansas Stream Fishes ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ By Jessica Mounts Illustrations © Joseph Tomelleri Sponsored by Chickadee Checkoff, Westar Energy Green Team, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, Kansas Alliance for Wetlands & Streams, and Kansas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents • Introduction • 2 • Fish Anatomy • 3 • Species Accounts: Sturgeons (Family Acipenseridae) • 4 ■ Shovelnose Sturgeon • 5 ■ Pallid Sturgeon • 6 Minnows (Family Cyprinidae) • 7 ■ Southern Redbelly Dace • 8 ■ Western Blacknose Dace • 9 ©Ryan Waters ■ Bluntface Shiner • 10 ■ Red Shiner • 10 ■ Spotfin Shiner • 11 ■ Central Stoneroller • 12 ■ Creek Chub • 12 ■ Peppered Chub / Shoal Chub • 13 Plains Minnow ■ Silver Chub • 14 ■ Hornyhead Chub / Redspot Chub • 15 ■ Gravel Chub • 16 ■ Brassy Minnow • 17 ■ Plains Minnow / Western Silvery Minnow • 18 ■ Cardinal Shiner • 19 ■ Common Shiner • 20 ■ Bigmouth Shiner • 21 ■ • 21 Redfin Shiner Cover Photo: Photo by Ryan ■ Carmine Shiner • 22 Waters. KDWPT Stream ■ Golden Shiner • 22 Survey and Assessment ■ Program collected these Topeka Shiner • 23 male Orangespotted Sunfish ■ Bluntnose Minnow • 24 from Buckner Creek in Hodgeman County, Kansas. ■ Bigeye Shiner • 25 The fish were catalogued ■ Emerald Shiner • 26 and returned to the stream ■ Sand Shiner • 26 after the photograph. ■ Bullhead Minnow • 27 ■ Fathead Minnow • 27 ■ Slim Minnow • 28 ■ Suckermouth Minnow • 28 Suckers (Family Catostomidae) • 29 ■ River Carpsucker •
    [Show full text]
  • Resolving Cypriniformes Relationships Using an Anchored Enrichment Approach Carla C
    Stout et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology (2016) 16:244 DOI 10.1186/s12862-016-0819-5 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Resolving Cypriniformes relationships using an anchored enrichment approach Carla C. Stout1*†, Milton Tan1†, Alan R. Lemmon2, Emily Moriarty Lemmon3 and Jonathan W. Armbruster1 Abstract Background: Cypriniformes (minnows, carps, loaches, and suckers) is the largest group of freshwater fishes in the world (~4300 described species). Despite much attention, previous attempts to elucidate relationships using molecular and morphological characters have been incongruent. In this study we present the first phylogenomic analysis using anchored hybrid enrichment for 172 taxa to represent the order (plus three out-group taxa), which is the largest dataset for the order to date (219 loci, 315,288 bp, average locus length of 1011 bp). Results: Concatenation analysis establishes a robust tree with 97 % of nodes at 100 % bootstrap support. Species tree analysis was highly congruent with the concatenation analysis with only two major differences: monophyly of Cobitoidei and placement of Danionidae. Conclusions: Most major clades obtained in prior molecular studies were validated as monophyletic, and we provide robust resolution for the relationships among these clades for the first time. These relationships can be used as a framework for addressing a variety of evolutionary questions (e.g. phylogeography, polyploidization, diversification, trait evolution, comparative genomics) for which Cypriniformes is ideally suited. Keywords: Fish, High-throughput
    [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]
  • Abstracts Part 1
    375 Poster Session I, Event Center – The Snowbird Center, Friday 26 July 2019 Maria Sabando1, Yannis Papastamatiou1, Guillaume Rieucau2, Darcy Bradley3, Jennifer Caselle3 1Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA, 2Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin, LA, USA, 3University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Reef Shark Behavioral Interactions are Habitat Specific Dominance hierarchies and competitive behaviors have been studied in several species of animals that includes mammals, birds, amphibians, and fish. Competition and distribution model predictions vary based on dominance hierarchies, but most assume differences in dominance are constant across habitats. More recent evidence suggests dominance and competitive advantages may vary based on habitat. We quantified dominance interactions between two species of sharks Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos and Carcharhinus melanopterus, across two different habitats, fore reef and back reef, at a remote Pacific atoll. We used Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) to observe dominance behaviors and quantified the number of aggressive interactions or bites to the BRUVs from either species, both separately and in the presence of one another. Blacktip reef sharks were the most abundant species in either habitat, and there was significant negative correlation between their relative abundance, bites on BRUVs, and the number of grey reef sharks. Although this trend was found in both habitats, the decline in blacktip abundance with grey reef shark presence was far more pronounced in fore reef habitats. We show that the presence of one shark species may limit the feeding opportunities of another, but the extent of this relationship is habitat specific. Future competition models should consider habitat-specific dominance or competitive interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of the Eleven Point River Within Arkansas Michael B
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 31 Article 19 1977 Fishes of the Eleven Point River Within Arkansas Michael B. Johnson Arkansas State University John K. Beadles Arkansas State University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Johnson, Michael B. and Beadles, John K. (1977) "Fishes of the Eleven Point River Within Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 31 , Article 19. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol31/iss1/19 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 31 [1977], Art. 19 Fishes of the Eleven Point River Within Arkansas B.MICHAELJOHNSON and JOHN K.BEADLES Division of Biological Sciences Arkansas State University State University, Arkansas 72467 ABSTRACT A survey of the fishes of the Eleven Point River and its tributaries was made between 31 January 1976 and 13 February 1977.
    [Show full text]
  • A Summary of the Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina by the Ncfishes.Com Team
    A Summary of the Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina By the NCFishes.com Team This is the last blog in the series focusing on the freshwater fishes of North Carolina, which was launched on June 17, 2020 (https://ncfishes.com/identification-of-north-carolina-freshwater-fishes/). In some respects, this last blog should have been the first, but learning about fishes is never along a straight stream, unless it is in a channelized stream. Our last identification key to all the families of freshwater fishes found in North Carolina can be found at the end of this summary (please refer to An Identification Key to the Freshwater Families in North Carolina). These 26 blogs, with their narratives and species identification keys, serve as a companion to “An Annotated Atlas of the Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina” by Tracy et al. (2020). [Please note: Tracy et al. (2020) may be downloaded for free at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings/vol1/iss60/1.] Along with Tracy et al. (2020), our main webpage, NCFishes.com, and our freshwater-focused webpages (https://ncfishes.com/freshwater-fishes-of-north-carolina/, we have provided much needed revisions and updates to the “The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina” by Menhinick (1991). From the little community of Liberty in Cherokee County to the small Outer Banks town of Buxton in Dare County (about 620 miles as the wolf runs), North Carolina’s waters are home to 39 families of “freshwater” fishes (Table 1). This list includes 30 families whose species are primarily freshwater, 5 families whose species are primarily marine and estuarine, and 4 families whose species are more or less evenly split between fresh water and marine (Table 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation No. 2 Regulation Establishing Water Quality
    PresentedbelowarewaterqualitystandardsthatareineffectforClean WaterActpurposes. EPAispostingthesestandardsasaconveniencetousersandhasmade areasonableefforttoassuretheiraccuracy.Additionally,EPAhasmade areasonableefforttoidentifypartsofthestandardsthatarenot approved,disapproved,orareotherwisenotineffectforCleanWater Actpurposes. October 21, 2020 Regulation No. 2: Regulation Establishing Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Arkansas Effective June 4, 2020 The following provisions are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with the exception of the provisions described below. Chapter 1: Authority, General Principles, and Coverage • Regulation 2.104 – Policy for Compliance o EPA took no action on the statement “…unless the permittee is completing site specific criteria development or is under a plan approved by the Department, in accordance with Regs. 2.306, 2.308, and the State of Arkansas Continuing Planning Process.” Under 40 C.F.R. § 131.21(c), new and revised standards do not go into effect for CWA purposes until approved by EPA. Therefore, the previously approved version (dated October 26, 2007) of this paragraph without this final sentence remains in effect for CWA purposes. Chapter 3: Waterbody Uses • Regulation 2.306 - Procedures for Removal of Any Designated Use Except Fishable/Swimmable, Extraordinary Resource Water, Ecologically Sensitive Waterbody, or Natural and Scenic Waterway, and Modification of Water Quality Criteria Not Related to These Uses o EPA took no action on the following revision to this
    [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]