DOCSLIB.ORG

The Status and Distribution of the Topeka Shiner Notropis Topeka in Eastern South Dakota

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Status and Distribution of the Topeka Shiner Notropis Topeka in Eastern South Dakota South Dakota State University Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2001 The Status and Distribution of the Topeka Shiner Notropis topeka in Eastern South Dakota Carmen M. Blausey South Dakota State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons Recommended Citation Blausey, Carmen M., "The Status and Distribution of the Topeka Shiner Notropis topeka in Eastern South Dakota" (2001). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 296. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd/296 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE TOPEKA SHINER Nutropis topeka IN EASTERN SOUTH DAKOTA By Carmen M. Blausey A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the l'vlastcr of Science Major in Wildlire and Fisheries Sciences (Fisheries Specialization) South Dakota State University 2001 II The Status and Distribution of the Topeka shiner Notropis topeka in Eastern South Dakota This thesis is approved as a creditable and independent investigation by a candidate for the Master of Science degree and is acceptable for meeting the thesis requirements for this degree. Acceptance of this thesis does not imply that the conclusions reached by the candidate are necessarily the conclusions of the major department. I)r. Charles R. Berry. Y l\lajor Advisor Date Dr. Charles G. Scalet Head. Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Date lJl Acknowledgements I express my sincere thanks to my advisor Dr. Charles Berry, Jr. for giving me the opportunity to pursue a Master's degree at South Dakota State University. His guidance, support, and incredible amount of patience were very much appreciated to successfully complete this project. Additionally, I'd like to say thanks for helping me to hone my research skills, and increase my awareness and passion for nongame species management. Thank you to Steve Wall, research associate with this project, for your assistance in the field. I know the days were long and hot, and there were some disagreements, but without your help I would probably still be traversing the South Dakota prairies hunting for Topeka shiners. I also would like to thank Jeff Shearer, Dave Fryda, Craig Milewski, Jen Powell, Nathan Morey, and Kurt Hodell for your assistance in the field at one time or another. Finally, I would like to thank all of the landowners who gave me permission to work on their property. Without their cooperation, this project truly would not have been a success. I would like to thank my committee members Dr. W. Carter Johnson, Dr. David W. Willis, and Dr. Donald Evenson for providing me with their advice and comments to successfully complete this project. Also a big thank you is extended to Dr. Timothy Wittig for his assistance with statistical analysis. Without his expertise and advice this project would have taken even longer than anticipated to complete. IV I wish to th ank my parents for their Jove and suppo11, and for always believing in me. Without your guidance and advice I would not be the person I am today. I want to add and extended thank you to Dave Fryda for editorial comments, advice, and lots of patience and support throughout this project. I will never forget all of the great hunting and fishing outings I had the chance to share with you while in graduate school. Also I would like to take the time to say thanks to all of the other students in the grad office who definitely made my graduate school experience more enjoyable and memorable ... you all know who you are! Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my Grandpa Custer, who always had time to take my sister and I fishing on Lake McConaughy for walleyes when we were kids. If it weren' t for him and all of the memmies of "camping at the Lake", I most likely would have taken a different path in life. Funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey- Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey- Biological Resources Division, and the South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, which provided in-kind support. v Abstract The Status and Distribution of the Topeka shiner Notropis topeka in Eastern South Dakota Carmen M. Blausey December 2001 The Topeka shiner Notropis topeka is a small (< 75 mm) minnow that inhabits prairie streams in several north central plains states. Once widespread and abundant throughout its historic range, the Topeka shiner is now found only in isolated populations. Because of an 80% reduction in occurrence throughout their range, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Topeka shiner as endangered in January 1999. At the time, limited information on habitat preferences and dist1ibution existed for this species in South Dakota. The objectives of this study were to measure local habitat features and water quality conditions at the reach scale at Topeka shiner study sites, create a model using these data to determine favorable habitat conditions. and identify fish species commonly associated with Topeka shiners. Fish and habitat data were collected at 61 tributary sites of the James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux rivers from June through September in 1999 and 2000. Sample sites in 1999 were based on historic Topeka shiner records in the South Dakota Natural Heritage Database. Sample sites in 2000 were based on a draft GIS model identifying potential Topeka shiner streams. Fish were collected with seines between block nets. and standard procedures were used to measure physical and hydrological features of stream reaches. Cyprinids dominated the fish community for each river basin during both sample years. Insectivores and omnivores were the VI dominant trophic classes for each river basin for both sample years. Fish community associations for Topeka shiners were based on two stepwise logistic regression models: abundance of individual species at each site. and presence or absence of individual species at each site. The abundance model indicated that Topeka shiners were most commonly associated with orangespotted sunfish Lepomis Izumi/is and tadpole madtoms Noturns gyrinus. The presence/absence model showed that Topeka shiners were typically associated with red shiners Notropis lutre11sis, tadpole madtoms Noturns gyrinus, black bullheads Ameiurus melas, and bigmouth shiners Notropis dorsalis. Habitat preferences were based on three stepwise logistic regression models: physical habitat water quality, and substrate composition at the reach scale. The physical habitat model indicated that Topeka shiners are associated with stream reaches that had low animal use, overhanging vegetation, stream bank vegetation comprised of sedges/rushes, low depositional zones, and run macrohabitat. The water quality model did not indicate any favorable or preferred conditions. The substrate model indicated that Topeka shiners are associated with stream reaches that had fine gravel or cobble substrates. The results of my study will lead to a better understanding of Topeka shiner distribution and habitat, and aid federal and state agencies in making management decisions that provide for protection and preservation of this species. vii Table of Contents Page Abstract ....... ..... ..... ..... .... .... .. ... .... .... ... ................ ..... ....... ...... .... ......... vi List of Symbols and Abbreviations .... .. ....... ..... ......... .......... .... .... .. ..... ...... ... ix List of Fish Species .......... .... ..... ........... ..... ... ... .... ........ .... ... .................... x List of Tables ..... .... ... ....... ..... .. .... .. ..... .. ...... ........ ... ..... ........ .... ............. xii List of Figures .... .. ..... .... ... .......... .. .. .. .. .... ... .... ...... .. .. .... .. ........ ......... .... xiv List of Appendices .... ... ......... ... ... ........ ...... .............. ....... .... ...... ....... ...... xv Chapter I. Introduction and Study Arca Introduction .. .... ...... .... .... .......... ...... ........... .... ........... ......... ...... ... I Study Arca ..... .... ....... ........ .... ... ..... ... .... ... ....... ..... ... ... ..... .. ... ... .. ....6 James River Basin ... ... ... ............ ............. ........... .. ..... .. ... ...... .. 6 Vermillion River Basin ...... ......... ... ............ .. .......... ...... ..... .. .. I 0 Big Sioux River Basin ...... ......... ...... .. .... ...... .... ..... ... .... ........ ... l l Chapter 2. Fish Communities of Tributaries to the James. Vermillion, and Big Sioux Rivers lntrodlll:tion ..... ..... ... ........ ..... ....................... ..... .. ..... .. ......... .... 15 ivlethods ... ....... .... ... .... ..... ........ .. ... ......... ... .. ....... ..... ........ ..... ... 17 Results ..... ..... ....... ..... .. ... .... ... ... ... ... ... .. ........ ..... .. ... ... .. ........ ... 22 James River Basin Tributaries ....... ....... ................ ...... ........... ... 22 Vermillion Ri1·er Basin
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]
  • Notropis Girardi) and Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis Tetranema)
    Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub SSA, October 2018 Species Status Assessment Report for the Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) and Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema) Arkansas River shiner (bottom left) and peppered chub (top right - two fish) (Photo credit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub SSA, October 2018 Version 1.0a October 2018 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Albuquerque, NM This document was prepared by Angela Anders, Jennifer Smith-Castro, Peter Burck (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – Southwest Regional Office) Robert Allen, Debra Bills, Omar Bocanegra, Sean Edwards, Valerie Morgan (USFWS –Arlington, Texas Field Office), Ken Collins, Patricia Echo-Hawk, Daniel Fenner, Jonathan Fisher, Laurence Levesque, Jonna Polk (USFWS – Oklahoma Field Office), Stephen Davenport (USFWS – New Mexico Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office), Mark Horner, Susan Millsap (USFWS – New Mexico Field Office), Jonathan JaKa (USFWS – Headquarters), Jason Luginbill, and Vernon Tabor (Kansas Field Office). Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Species status assessment report for the Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) and peppered chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema), version 1.0, with appendices. October 2018. Albuquerque, NM. 172 pp. Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub SSA, October 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 INTRODUCTION (CHAPTER 1) The Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) and peppered chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema) are restricted primarily to the contiguous river segments of the South Canadian River basin spanning eastern New Mexico downstream to eastern Oklahoma (although the peppered chub is less widespread). Both species have experienced substantial declines in distribution and abundance due to habitat destruction and modification from stream dewatering or depletion from diversion of surface water and groundwater pumping, construction of impoundments, and water quality degradation.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Species April 2007
    Fishes of Indiana April 2007 The Wildlife Diversity Section (WDS) is responsible for the conservation and management of over 750 species of nongame and endangered wildlife. The list of Indiana's species was compiled by WDS biologists based on accepted taxonomic standards. The list will be periodically reviewed and updated. References used for scientific names are included at the bottom of this list. ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS* CLASS CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI Petromyzontiformes Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon bdellium Ohio lamprey lampreys Ichthyomyzon castaneus chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor northern brook lamprey SE Ichthyomyzon unicuspis silver lamprey Lampetra aepyptera least brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey Petromyzon marinus sea lamprey X CLASS ACTINOPTERYGII Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SE sturgeons Scaphirhynchus platorynchus shovelnose sturgeon Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula paddlefish paddlefishes Lepisosteiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar gars Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar Amiiformes Amiidae Amia calva bowfin bowfins Hiodonotiformes Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides goldeye mooneyes Hiodon tergisus mooneye Anguilliformes Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel freshwater eels Clupeiformes Clupeidae Alosa chrysochloris skipjack herring herrings Alosa pseudoharengus alewife X Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum central stoneroller
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Fish Species
    The Angler’s Guide To TennesseeIncluding Aquatic Nuisance SpeciesFish Published by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Cover photograph Paul Shaw Graphics Designer Raleigh Holtam Thanks to the TWRA Fisheries Staff for their review and contributions to this publication. Special thanks to those that provided pictures for use in this publication. Partial funding of this publication was provided by a grant from the United States Fish & Wildlife Service through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Authorization No. 328898, 58,500 copies, January, 2012. This public document was promulgated at a cost of $.42 per copy. Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency is available to all persons without regard to their race, color, national origin, sex, age, dis- ability, or military service. TWRA is also an equal opportunity/equal access employer. Questions should be directed to TWRA, Human Resources Office, P.O. Box 40747, Nashville, TN 37204, (615) 781-6594 (TDD 781-6691), or to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office for Human Resources, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203. Contents Introduction ...............................................................................1 About Fish ..................................................................................2 Black Bass ...................................................................................3 Crappie ........................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • A Decade of Monitoring on Pool 26 of the Upper Mississippi River System
    A Decade of Monitoring on Pool 26 of the Upper Mississippi River System: Water Quality and Fish Data from the Upper Mississippi River Restoration Environmental Management Program John H. Chick Lori A. Soeken-Gittinger Eric N. Ratcliff Eric J. Gittinger Benjamin J. Lubinski Rob Maher Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin Volume 39, Article 6 September 2013 Prairie Research Institute William Shilts, Executive Director Illinois Natural History Survey Brian D. Anderson, Director Forbes Natural History Building 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, Illinois 61820 217-333-6880 Citation: Chick, J.H., L.A. Soeken-Gittinger, E.N. Ratcliff, E.J. Gittinger, B.J. Lubinski, and R. Maher. 2013. A decade of monitoring on Pool 26 of the Upper Mississippi River system: water quality and fish data from the Upper Mississippi River Restoration Environmental Management Program. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 39(6):323–420. For permissions: contact the Prairie Research Institute. Editor: Charles Warwick US ISSN 0073-4918 US ISBN 1-882932-30-7 P0847839—.6M—09/2013 © 2013 University of Illinois Board of Trustees. All rights reserved. Printed with soy ink on recycled and recyclable paper. The University of Illinois will not engage in discrimination or harassment against any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation including gender identity, unfavorable discharge from the military or status as a protected veteran and will comply with all federal and state nondiscrimination, equal opportunity and affirmative action laws, orders and regulations. This nondiscrimination policy applies to admissions, employment, access to and treatment in University programs and activities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scientific Names Notropis Stramineus (Cope) and N
    Am. Midl. Nat. 151:164 Notes The Scientific Names Notropis stramineus (Cope) and N. ludibundus (Girard) ABSTRACT.—Two scientific names referring to the sand shiner have appeared in the literature during the past decade. A ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 2002 (Opinion, 1991) conserved the more commonly used name, Notropis stramineus (Cope, 1865), and this name should be used rather than the name N. ludibundus (Girard, 1856). The sand shiner is a small species of minnow (family Cyprinidae) occurring most often in lotic waters of the eastern and central United States and southern Canada (Lee et al., 1980). Several scientific names have been proposed for the sand shiner; however, the name Notropis stramineus, originally Hybognathus stramineus Cope, 1865, has been the most widely used name for this species. In 1989, the name N. ludibundus, originally Cyprinella ludibunda Girard, 1856, was resurrected for the sand shiner by Mayden and Gilbert (1989). Since then, both names have appeared in the literature, leading to nomenclatural instability. In the interest of preserving nomenclatural stability, Bailey (1999) submitted a petition to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) to conserve the name H. stramineus Cope for the sand shiner instead of the slightly older but little-used name C. ludibunda Girard. Comments from ichthyologists on the case were published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature [2000. 57(2):111–112, 57(3):168–172] and in March 2002 the ICZN published their ruling on the matter (ICZN, 2002). The decision of the ICZN was to conserve the name N. stramineus; therefore, this name should be used for the sand shiner rather than the name N.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    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]
  • Fishes of South Dakota
    MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, NO. 119 Fishes of South Dakota REEVE M. BAILEY AND MARVIN 0. ALLUM South Dakota State College ANN ARBOR MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN JUNE 5, 1962 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY 01; MICHIGAN The publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, consist of two series-the Occasional Papers and the Miscellaneous Publications. Both series were founded by Dr. Bryant Walker, Mr. Bradshaw H. Swales, and Dr. W. W. Newcomb. The Occasional Papers, publication of which was begun in 1913, serve as a medium for original studies based principally upon the collections in the Museum. They are issued separately. When a sufficient number of pages has been printed to make a volume, a title page, table of contents, and an index are supplied to libraries and indi- viduals on the mailing list for the series. The Miscellaneous Publications, which include papers on field and museum tech- niques, monographic studies, and other contributions not within the scope of the Occasional Papers, are published separately. It is not intended that they be grouped into volumes. Each number has a title page and, when necessary, a table of contents. A conlplete list of publications on Birds, Fishes, Insects, Mammals, Mollusks, and Reptiles and Amphibians is available. Address inquiries to the Director, Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan No. 13. Studies of the fishes of the order Cyprinodontes. By CARL L. HUBBS. (1924) 23 pp., 4 pls. ............................................. No. 15. A check-list of the fishes of the Great Lakes and tributary waters, with nomenclatorial notes and analytical keys.
    [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]
  • Left Hand Creek Fish Passage Report
    LEFT HAND CREEK FISH PASSAGE REPORT May 2021 Prepared by LEFT HAND WATERSHED CENTER P.O. Box 1074, Niwot, CO 80544-0210 303.530.4200 | www.watershed.center Table of Contents Left Hand Creek as a Working River .............................................................................................................. 4 Fish Populations in Left Hand Creek ............................................................................................................. 7 Habitat and Distribution ........................................................................................................................... 8 Movement and Life Cycle ....................................................................................................................... 10 Biological Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 12 Dataset, Analysis, and Interpretation ................................................................................................. 14 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 15 Barriers in Left Hand Creek ......................................................................................................................... 21 Barriers Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 22 Potential Solutions .....................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Il[Irlllii~Lliilllmlilrliilr
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE LIBRARY LI~~~Jm'llllll~~~il[irlllii~lliilllmlilrliilas part of an ongoingr digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp 3 0307 00062 5502 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Division of Water Quality Municipal Section WASTEWATER DISPOSAL FACILITIES INVENTORY July 1, 1991 Summary Number Population Total State Population (1990) 4,375,099 Municipalities in the State 855 3,396,371 Municipalities with Sewer Systems 661 3,305,749 Municipalities without Sewer System 194 90,622 Municipalities having a Sewer System 2 413 without Treatment Municipalities which have only Primary 4 541 treatment (4 plants) Municipalities which have a Maximum of 502 2,684,724 Secondary Treatment (403 plants) Municipalities which have Tertiary 153 620,071 Treatment (129 plants) Municipalities having a Sewer System 659 3,305,336 with Treatment Works (536 plants) 1 Table of Contents Tables Pages 1. Municipal and Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment Works 2. Unincorporated Communities Having Sewer Systems and Wastewater Treatment Works 3. Wastewater Disposal Facilities at State Institutions 4. Wastewater Disposal Facilities at Sanatoriums and Nursing Homes 5. Wastewater Disposal Facilities at Federal Installations 6. Miscellaneous Wastewater Treatment Works 7. Facilities Operated by Sanitary Districts 8. Municipal Industrial Waste Treatment Works 9. Wastewater Disposal Facilities Operated by Indian Councils 10. Wastewater Treatment Facilities with Tertiary Treatment 11. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Completed in 1990 and 1991 12. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Under Construction 13. Municipalities Having Sewer Systems Without Treatment Works Listed Alphabetically 14. Municipalities Without Sewer Systems - Listed Alphabetically 15.
    [Show full text]