DOCSLIB.ORG

Bronte-2007.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bronte-2007.Pdf Acknowledgements Conservation Halton would like to extend our thanks to all the individuals who provided technical assistance, sampling equipment, data and advice in support of the monitoring efforts undertaken for the 2007 field season. Special thanks to the following volunteers, co-op students, summer students, interns and staff who provided valuable assistance in the field collecting information for use in this project. Andrea Dunn Angela Ducharme David Gale Rachel Martens Brenda Van Ryswyk Kim Barett Sarah Hogg Brian Jamieson Lesley Matich Kent Rundle Jennifer Roberts Jennifer Wilson Michael McGill Contributors/Writing Team Andrea Dunn ……………………………. Monitoring Ecologist Rachel Martens …....…………………..… Aquatic Monitoring Technician Sarah Hogg ………………………..…….. Aquatic Monitoring Technician David Gale …………………………..….. Watershed Planner Brenda Van Ryswyk ………..……..……. Natural Heritage Ecologist Lesley McDonell ……………………...... Natural Heritage Ecologist Brad Rennick ………………………….... GIS Specialist Meghan Tydd-Hrynyk ………………….. GIS Technician Bill Gaines ……..……………….………. Coordinator, Forestry and Landscape Kim Barrett ……………………..…….. Senior Terrestrial Ecologist Samantha Mason………………………. Senior Aquatic Ecologist Brenda Axon…………………………… Manager, Watershed Planning Services Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Conservation Halton Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program ......................... 1 1.2 Supplementary Monitoring............................................................................................. 3 2.0 Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program (LEMP) ................................................. 5 2.1 Aquatic Monitoring......................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Fish Community Monitoring .................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Benthic Community Monitoring............................................................................. 9 2.1.3 Channel Morphology............................................................................................ 16 2.1.4 Surface Water Quality Monitoring ....................................................................... 16 2.1.5 Groundwater Monitoring...................................................................................... 24 2.1.6 Water Temperature Monitoring ............................................................................ 26 2.2 Terrestrial Monitoring................................................................................................... 28 2.2.1 Ecological Land Classification ............................................................................. 28 2.2.2 Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN) ................................. 31 2.2.3 Marsh Monitoring (Amphibians and Marsh Birds) .............................................. 34 2.2.4 Forest Bird Monitoring......................................................................................... 37 2.2.5 Forest Pest Monitoring.......................................................................................... 39 2.3 Landscape Analysis for the Bronte Creek Watershed .................................................. 40 3.0 Supplemental Monitoring................................................................................................. 43 3.1 Bronte Creek Atlantic Salmon Program ....................................................................... 43 3.2 Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) Monitoring..................................................... 44 3.3 Check Your Watershed Day – Bronte Creek................................................................ 47 3.4 Fisheries Data Gap Sampling........................................................................................ 52 3.5 Waterdown Woods Jefferson Salamander Radio Telemetry........................................ 52 4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations................................................................................... 53 5.0 Glossary of Terms............................................................................................................. 55 6.0 References......................................................................................................................... 56 List of Tables Table 1: IBI ratings and associated scores using the Modified Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). ... 6 Table 2: Distribution of IBI scores in the Bronte Creek watershed............................................... 8 Table 3: Inter-year comparison of IBI scores for Sixteen Mile Creek Annual Monitoring Sites.. 2 Table 4: Inter-year comparison of IBI scores for Bronte Creek Annual Monitoring Sites. .......... 3 Table 5: Inter-year comparison of IBI scores for Fourteen Creek Annual Monitoring Sites........ 4 Table 6: Inter-year comparison of IBI scores for Grindstone Creek Annual Monitoring Sites. ... 5 Table 7: Inter-year comparison of IBI scores for Sheldon Creek Annual Monitoring Sites. ........ 6 Table 8: Distribution of IBI Scores at Annually Sampled Watersheds. ........................................ 7 Table 9: Benthic Invertebrate Indices and Associated Classifications. ....................................... 10 Table 10: Distribution of Water Quality Classifications at Stations Sampled in 2008. .............. 14 Table 11: Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) and/or desired objectives................... 17 Table 12: Bronte Creek, Percent Forest Cover. ........................................................................... 41 Table 13: Bronte Creek, Patch Size and Distribution.................................................................. 41 Table 14: Bronte Creek, Interior Forest Patch Habitat. ............................................................... 42 Table 15: Bronte Creek, Percent Wetland. .................................................................................. 42 List of Figures Figure 1: Conservation Halton Watersheds ................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Frequency Distribution of Fish Species Captured in the Bronte Creek Watershed. ...... 1 Figure 3: Fisheries Sampling Stations and Associated Biotic Integrity Classifications................ 1 Figure 4: Annual Fisheries Sampling Stations and Associated Biotic Integrity Classifications. .. 8 Figure 5: Benthic Sampling Stations and Associated Water Quality Associations..................... 12 Figure 6: Annual Benthic Sampling Stations and Associated Water Quality Classifications..... 15 Figure 7: Sample “Box Plot” Chart. ............................................................................................ 17 Figure 8: Surface Water Quality Monitoring Stations................................................................. 18 Figure 9: Chloride concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN) Monitoring Stations. ............................................................................................................. 19 Figure 10: Nitrate + Nitrite concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN) Monitoring Stations. ............................................................................................................. 20 Figure 11: Total Phosphorous concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN) Monitoring Stations. .......................................................................................... 21 Figure 12: Lead concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN) Monitoring Stations.................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 13: Copper concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN) Monitoring Stations. ............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 14: Zinc concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN) Monitoring Stations.................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 15: Groundwater Quality Monitoring Stations.................................................................. 25 Figure 16: Water Temperature Sampling Stations and Associated Classifications..................... 27 Figure 17: Ecological Land Classification Sites.......................................................................... 30 Figure 18: Rattlesnake Point EMAN plot setup .......................................................................... 33 Figure 19: Terrestrial Monitoring Locations. .............................................................................. 36 Figure 20: Flux – Bronte Catchments.......................................................................................... 49 Figure 21: Proportion of Flow – Bronte Catchments................................................................... 50 Figure 22: Proportion of Flow Category – Bronte Catchments................................................... 51 List of Appendices Appendix 1: Fish Species observed in the Bronte Creek Watershed........................................... 61 Appendix 2: Fish species observed at Annual Monitoring Sites. ................................................ 63 Appendix 3: Benthic Invertebrates Observed in Bronte Creek. .................................................
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]
  • 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]
  • Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater
    FishTraits database Traits References Allen, D. M., W. S. Johnson, and V. Ogburn-Matthews. 1995. Trophic relationships and seasonal utilization of saltmarsh creeks by zooplanktivorous fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42(1)37-50. [multiple species] Anderson, K. A., P. M. Rosenblum, and B. G. Whiteside. 1998. Controlled spawning of Longnose darters. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 60:137-145. [678] Barber, W. E., D. C. Williams, and W. L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the Gila Spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970(1):9-18. [485] Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Belk, M. C., J. B. Johnson, K. W. Wilson, M. E. Smith, and D. D. Houston. 2005. Variation in intrinsic individual growth rate among populations of leatherside chub (Snyderichthys copei Jordan & Gilbert): adaptation to temperature or length of growing season? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 14:177-184. [349] Bonner, T. H., J. M. Watson, and C. S. Williams. 2006. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinella proserpina Girard, 1857 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes. In Press. [133] Bonnevier, K., K. Lindstrom, and C. St. Mary. 2003. Parental care and mate attraction in the Florida flagfish, Jordanella floridae. Behavorial Ecology and Sociobiology 53:358-363. [410] Bortone, S. A. 1989. Notropis melanostomus, a new speices of Cyprinid fish from the Blackwater-Yellow River drainage of northwest Florida. Copeia 1989(3):737-741. [575] Boschung, H.T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington. [multiple species] 1 FishTraits database Breder, C. M., and D. E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Impacts of Land-Applied Wastes from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on 4 5 6 Fish Populations and Communities 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 1 2 11 Jessica K
    Environmental Science & Technology Assessing impacts of land -applied wastes from concentrated animal feeding operations on fish populations and communities Journal: Environmental Science & Technology Manuscript ID: Draft Manuscript Type: Article Date Submitted by the Author: n/a Complete List of Authors: Leet, Jessica; Purdue University, Lee, Linda; Purdue University, Gall, Heather; Purdue University, Goforth, Reuben; Purdue University, Sassman, Stephen Gordon, Denise; US Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Exposure Research Division, Lazorchak, James; US Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Exposure Research Division, Smith, Mark; US Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Exposure Research Division, Jafvert, Chad; Purdue University, Civil Engineering Sepulveda, Maria; Purdue University, Civil Engineering ACS Paragon Plus Environment Page 1 of 35 Environmental Science & Technology 1 2 3 Assessing impacts of land-applied wastes from concentrated animal feeding operations on 4 5 6 fish populations and communities 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 1 2 11 Jessica K. Leet , Linda S. Lee , Heather E. Gall , Reuben R. Goforth , Stephen Sassman , Denise 12 4 4 4 3 1, 3* 13 A. Gordon , James M. Lazorchak , Mark E. Smith , Chad T. Javfert , and Maria S. Sepúlveda 14 15 16 17 1 18 Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, 195 Marsteller Street, West 19 20 Lafayette, IN 47907 21 22 2 Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, 915 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907 23 24 3 25 School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, Lafayette, IN 47907 26 27 4 US Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Exposure Research Division, 26 West Martin 28 29 Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268 30 31 32 33 34 *Corresponding author: Maria S.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Distribution Models of Freshwater Stream Fishes in Maryland and Their Implications for Management
    Environ Model Assess (2013) 18:1–12 DOI 10.1007/s10666-012-9325-3 Species Distribution Models of Freshwater Stream Fishes in Maryland and Their Implications for Management Kelly O. Maloney & Donald E. Weller & Daniel E. Michaelson & Patrick J. Ciccotto Received: 20 December 2010 /Accepted: 21 May 2012 /Published online: 8 June 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 Abstract Species distribution models (SDMs) are often used natural attributes (e.g., ecoregion, watershed area, latitude/ in conservation planning, but their utility can be improved by longitude); land cover (e.g., %impervious, %row crop) was assessing the relationships between environmental and species important for three species. Focused analyses on four repre- response variables. We constructed SDMs for 30 stream fishes sentative species (central stoneroller, creek chub, largemouth of Maryland, USA, using watershed attributes as environmen- bass, and white sucker) showed the probability of presence of tal variables and presence/absence as species responses. each species increased non-linearly with watershed area. For SDMs showed substantial agreement between observed and these species, SDMs built to predict absent, low, and high predicted values for 17 species. Most important variables were densities were similar to presence/absence predictions but provided probable locations of high densities (e.g., proba- bility of high-density creek chub decreased rapidly with Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article watershed area). We applied SDMs to predict suitability of (doi:10.1007/s10666-012-9325-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. watersheds within the study area for each species. Maps of : : suitability and the environmental and species response rela- K.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Species Mapping in North Carolina Using Maxent
    Aquatic Species Mapping in North Carolina Using Maxent Mark Endries U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, Asheville North Carolina INTRODUCTION The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the lead governmental agency involved in the recovery of federally endangered and threatened species in freshwater and terrestrial habitats. To meet its recovery and protection goals, the Service: (1) works with other federal agencies to minimize or eliminate impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants from projects they authorize, fund, or carry out; (2) supports the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat on private land through technical and financial assistance; and (3) provides scientific knowledge and analyses to help guide the conservation, development, and management of the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources. Freshwater ecosystems present unique management challenges due to their linear spatial orientation and their association with upland habitat variables. On broad scales, the movement of aquatic species within the stream environment is limited to upstream and downstream migration. The inability of aquatic species to circumnavigate man-made obstacles causes them to be particularly vulnerable to habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation has a major influence on species distribution and complicates distribution mapping. To better understand the spatial distributions of freshwater aquatic species in North Carolina, the Service created predictive habitat maps for 226 different aquatic species using geographic information systems (GIS) and maximum entropy (Maxent) modeling. These maps were derived by comparing known species occurrences with a suite of stream- or land-cover-derived environmental variables.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Fishes IDENTIFICATION GUIDE
    Pennsylvania Fishes IDENTIFICATION GUIDE WATERSHEDS SPECIES STATUS E O G P S D Editor’s Note: During 2018, Carps and Minnows (Family Cyprinidae) Pennsylvania Angler & Boater Central Stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum) N N N N N N magazine will feature select Goldfish (Carassius auratus) I I I I I common fishes of Pennsylvania Northern Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus eos) EN N N in each issue, providing scientific Southern Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus erythrogaster) TH N N names and the status of fishes in Mountain Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus oreas) I Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) N N N X or introduced into Pennsylvania’s Rosyside Dace (Clinostomus funduloides) N N N major watersheds. Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) I I I I I I The table to the left denotes any Satinfin Shiner (Cyprinella analostana) N N N known occurrence. Spotfin Shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera) N N N N N Steelcolor Shiner (Cyprinella whipplei) N Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) I I I I I Streamline Chub (Erimystax dissimilis) N Gravel Chub (Erimystax x-punctatus) EN N Species Status Tonguetied Minnow (Exoglossum laurae) N N Cutlip Minnow (Exoglossum maxillingua) N N N EN = Endangered Brassy Minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni) X TH = Threatened Eastern Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus regius) N N N Bigeye Chub (Hybopsis amblops) N N C = Candidate Bigmouth Shiner (Hybopsis dorsalis) TH N EX = Believed extirpated Ide (Leuciscus idus) I I Striped Shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus) N N DL = Delisted (removed from the Common Shiner (Luxilus cornutus) N N N N N N endangered, threatened or candidate
    [Show full text]
  • Humber River Fisheries Management Plan
    Humber River FFiisshheerriieess MMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPllaann A cooperative resource management plan developed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority October 2004 Correct citation for this publication: Clayton, J., Hayes K., Heaton, M. G. and, Lawrie, D. 2004. Humber River Fisheries Management Plan. Published by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. i PREFACE A number of federal, provincial and regional strategies exist to guide watershed management and habitat protection and rehabilitation. At a federal level, the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was established in accordance with the Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and identified the Toronto and Region Area of Concern (AOCs) as one of 43 AOCs around the Great Lakes. The Stage I RAP document identifies types and sources of water pollution problems, and outlines goals, remedial actions, agencies, costs, timetables and monitoring programs. Stage II provides a framework for guiding more local initiatives, such as fisheries rehabilitation. The Humber River Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) provides direction on three RAP goals and actions: Goal 2a) a self sustaining fishery Goal 2b) rehabilitation of fish and wildlife habitat Action 21) protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat Implementation of RAP recommendations, in conjunction with the recommendations of watershed based rehabilitation plans, will eventually lead to the delisting of watersheds within the Toronto and Region Area of Concern. Provincial fisheries management plans that set the context for the Humber River Fisheries Management Plan include the Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries (SPO F II) and the Maple District Fisheries Management Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX 3: DELETION TABLES 3.1 Aluminum
    APPENDIX 3: DELETION TABLES APPENDIX 3: DELETION TABLES 3.1 Aluminum TABLE 3.1.1: Deletion process for the Santa Ana River aluminum site-specific database. Phylum Class Order Family Genus/Species Common Name Code Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planarlidae Girardiaia tigrina Flatworm G Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Tubificidae Tubifex tubifex Worm F Mollusca Gastropoda Limnophila Physidae Physa sp. Snail G Arthropoda Branchiopoda Diplostraca Daphnidae Ceriodaphnia dubia Cladoceran O* Arthropoda Branchiopoda Diplostraca Daphnidae Daphnia magna Cladoceran O* Arthropoda Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea aquaticus Isopod F Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Gammaridae Crangonyx pseudogracilis Amphipod F Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus pseudolimnaeus Amphipod G Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae Acroneuria sp. Stonefly O Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus dissimilis Midge G Chordata Actinopterygii Salmoniformes Salmonidae Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout D Chordata Actinopterygii Salmoniformes Salmonidae Oncorhynchus tschawytscha Chinook Salmon D Chordata Actinopterygii Salmoniformes Salmonidae Salmo salar Atlantic salmon D Chordata Actinopterygii Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Hybognathus amarus Rio Grande silvery minnow F Chordata Actinopterygii Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow S Chordata Actinopterygii Perifomes Centrarchidae Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish S Chordata Actinopterygii Perifomes Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieui Smallmouth bass G Chordata Actinopterygii
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Review of Freshwater Fishes
    NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife Endangered and Nongame Species Program Species Status Review of Freshwater Fishes Final Report Including review by the NJ Endangered and Nongame Species Advisory Committee Conducted on March 16, 2016 Prepared by: Jeanette Bowers-Altman, Principal Zoologist NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife Endangered and Nongame Species Program New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife – Endangered and Nongame Species Program Executive Summary . Project Manager and compiler for the freshwater fish status review was Jeanette Bowers-Altman, Principal Zoologist, ENSP; she was not a reviewer on the review panel. Bureau of Freshwater Fisheries biologists compiled a list of 65 species to be reviewed using the Delphi Technique (Appendix 1). Twelve species were dropped from the review process due to reviewer concerns over species’ utilization of marine habitats. Several reviewers suggested that the ENSP conduct a separate status review focusing on anadromous fish species. The statuses of the remaining 53 species were reviewed during four rounds. Ten panelists agreed to participate in the review process. One reviewer dropped out during Round 1. Each of the nine remaining panelists participated in all four rounds. Reviewers included experts from NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife and other state agencies, federal agencies, and academia. Panelists were provided with information on each species, including current status in NJ and across their range; species range maps created by NatureServe; NJ Bureau of Freshwater Fisheries (BFF) native fish maps of fisheries data collected from 2000 to 2012 (data were extracted from the BFF FishTrack Database and compiled with data from DEP’s Freshwater and Biological Monitoring, the Pinelands Commission, and USGS); NJ Freshwater and Biological Monitoring/EPA fish distribution maps, Pinelands Commission fish distribution and abundance graphs; Shortnose sturgeon Delaware River occurrences generated from NJDEP Biotics data; and other materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater And
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Bear Creek System for Fish Species of Moderate to Highest Conservation Concern: Report of Results for 2007-08
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist Water Investigations Program Patrick E. O’Neil Director SURVEY OF THE BEAR CREEK SYSTEM FOR FISH SPECIES OF MODERATE TO HIGHEST CONSERVATION CONCERN: REPORT OF RESULTS FOR 2007-08 OPEN-FILE REPORT 0901 by Thomas E. Shepard, Stuart W. McGregor, Patrick E. O'Neil, Maurice F. Mettee, J. Brett Smith, Cal C. Johnson, and Josh H. Hunter Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2009 CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Acknowledgments .................................................... 1 Introduction.......................................................... 1 Study area .......................................................... 4 Methods ............................................................ 6 Results and discussion................................................ 11 Study plan for 2009 .................................................. 26 References cited..................................................... 29 Appendix: Collection results for fish samples in the Bear Creek system, 2007-08 . 32 ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Sampling stations in the Bear Creek system, 2007-08 . 5 2. Sampling stations where the brindled madtom, Noturus miurus, was collected in the Bear Creek system, 2007-08 ...................................... 16 3. Sampling stations where the bandfin darter, Etheostoma zonisteum, was collected in the Bear Creek system, 2007-08 ..................................
    [Show full text]