Status of the Hornyhead Chub (Nocomis Biguttatus) in Minnesota

1 2 A Letter From the Editors Status of the Hornyhead Chub

Konrad Schmidt (Nocomis biguttatus) in Minnesota 1663 Iowa Avenue East, St. Paul, MN 55106 Email: [email protected] Phone: (651) 776-3468 Konrad Schmidt and 1663 Iowa Avenue East, St. Paul, MN 55106 [email protected] Fritz Rohde Author’s Note: The following report was prepared in Most importantly, Barry emphasizes if there is going to 2000 Trinity Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28411 2008 with the field assistance and editing input of Barry Thoele, be a future for wild populations of Hornyhead Chubs and also Email: [email protected] Phone: (910) 431-3891 owner of Lincoln Bait (Staples, MN). At that time, I was the sustainable to bait industry demand there must be a monumental Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Nongame shift to aquaculture--not closure of streams to harvest. Fish Biologist. In November 2008, this report was discussed with Abstract DNR Fisheries Section Managers. Barry Thoele participated via In recent decades there have been many reports of We want to thank outgoing editor Chris Vrba for his as collecting trips, fish keeping, breeding accounts, life history, conference call. At the minimum, I believed these results would drastic declines of Hornyhead Chubs (aka redtail chub) in streams service to NANFA and wish he could have stayed on, but his real photography, restoration, new occurrences, book reviews, etc. If assure a commitment from the DNR to study the problem in primarily in north-central Minnesota. The primary cause of this job as editor for three town newspapers was just too much even you need help, we can provide it. greater detail. However, the meeting ended with the decision to observation is believed to be increasing harvest pressure from for his broad shoulders to bear. table the issue indefinitely despite the role that the Hornyhead the bait industry to meet angler demand. However, supporting First and foremost in this issue, please check out the Chub performs as a keystone species. The desired outcome information has been anecdotal and declines have not been scien- We’re trying something different with a two-editor 2012 NANFA convention announcement. Annual conventions would have been a temporary harvest ban during the spawning tifically confirmed. This report discusses the limited abundance model. Publishing American Currents on schedule is a daunting are always a hoot! Generally, these affairs are light on presenta- season in the watersheds I had identified with populations in data available on the species, identifies critical research needs and task, but we hope sharing the load will keep it on track and help tions, heavy on collecting and just good, clean(?) fun! poor condition. recommends actions to consider if the species is to be properly prevent editor burnout. Neither of us is highly tech-savvy so Sometime in 2012, the DNR will be finalizing species managed for continued commercial harvest on a long-term sus- judge us on content and not how great the layout looks. At this We have some interesting articles in this issue begin- for Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern status. The tainable basis. point, we cannot match the quality of the previous editors. ning with the “Status of the Hornyhead Chub in Minnesota” Hornyhead Chub is currently not under review. I believe Special which illustrates the impacts on this species under virtually Concern status is warranted for this species even though this des- Introduction We’d like to introduce ourselves with a couple of brief unregulated commercial harvest and chronic drought. The next ignation does not afford protection. However, special regulations Distribution and Status: The range of the Hornyhead introductions. Konrad has been a NANFA member since the article (funded in part by a NANFA Conservation Grant) sheds prohibiting harvest can be imposed in watersheds where popula- Chub in North America includes 18 states and 2 Canadian 1970s, served on the BOD and was the Darter newsletter editor light on why a relict population of Ironcolor Shiners has survived tions require protection. This is not unprecedented. For example provinces (Figure 1). It is extirpated from Colorado and possibly in the late 1990s. His interest began with tropical fish, but and how different their life histories are to disjunct northern pop- a Special Concern species, Slender Madtom (Noturus exilis), Nebraska and ranked critically imperiled in Kansas, Pennsylvania switched to natives for good, while still a teenager. He was the ulations. The Fish in Focus reports on the super fish attributes of only occurs in the Cedar River system of southern Minnesota. and Wyoming. In the Upper Midwest, the species’ status has not Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Nongame Fish the Eastern and Central Mudminnows which give them the edge The demand for madtoms (aka willow cats) in the bait industry been determined in Minnesota, but ranked imperiled in Manitoba Biologist for 20 years and is one of the authors working on the to survive in harsh environments where “mere mortal” fishes has likewise skyrocketed (Cochran and Zoller 2009) in recent and vulnerable in North and South Dakota. Its status is secure or Fishes of Minnesota. have long since perished. Members who never or rarely get out decades and current regulations for the Cedar and its tributaries apparently secure in Iowa, Wisconsin and Ontario (NatureServe collecting may fancy the Darter Hunt article which offers an ban bait harvest in Mower County south of Interstate 90. 2008). Fritz, of course, is the current NANFA President (mem- open invitation to this very unique annual event. Also please While editing this report for American Currents, I con- The Hornyhead Chub has been reported from all drain- ber since 1993) and lead author of Freshwater Fishes of South check out our Regional Rep page; there have been a number of tacted Barry Thoele in November 2011 to provide an update and ages in Minnesota, but is not evenly distributed. The species is Carolina and Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, changes. Michael Wolfe has taken over the Coordinator duties his comments are paraphrased below: absent or rare in the Des Moines, Missouri, Superior; southern Maryland and Delaware. For 25 years he worked for the North from Charlie Nunziata, who got the program going and has done “I would reiterate the results stated in the 2008 status Upper Mississippi; northern and southern Red; and eastern Lower Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries on estuarine and marine a terrific job since then. Thanks, Charlie! report and add that the harvest this year may have been the worst Mississippi, Minnesota and Rainy River drainages (Figure 2). fishes but retired to work for the National Marine Fisheries yet. It is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain sufficient Natural History: The majority of information available Service on diadromous fishes and fish passage at dams. broodstock for propagation. However, I personally find it diffi- on the Hornyhead Chub in the upper Midwest has been reported cult to justify removing any Hornyhead Chubs even for the sole in Fishes of Wisconsin (Becker 1983). At that time, there was We want all the members to know we welcome your purpose of aquaculture if this may further hurt wild populations. concern the species was generally declining across its range feedback. Yes, we want to hear both the good, the bad and the Ironically, I’m coming to believe the only salvation for because of intensive agriculture, which caused increased siltation ugly about American Currents. Are the articles too dry and tech- Hornyhead Chub populations may be exotic Zebra Mussels and greater frequency of intermittent stream flows. In Wisconsin, nical or too simple? The NANFA membership is a diverse audi- Corrections: Volume 37 Number 1. Page (Drissena polymorhpa) as they spread into new watersheds. Hornyhead Chubs prefer clear medium sized streams, but its ence with varying interests. It is our intent to publish articles on 16, Figure 1 is the Stippled Studfish, Fun- Under current regulations, Zebra Mussel infested waters are abundance declines as turbidity increases. The species occurred many topics and hopefully span this wide divide. However, closed to bait harvest from May 15 through October 16, which most often over gravel and sand in streams up to 24 m (26 yd) we can’t emphasize enough how important it is to dulus bifax. Page 20, Figures 4 and 5 are will provide protection for Hornyhead Chubs through their wide. Spawning begins in May when water temperatures reach have members submit articles and news items. One also F. bifax. We’re sorry Joe Scanlon! spawning season. I have observed a “modest recovery” in two 18.3º C (65º F) and continues through July when males prepare chronic problem since NANFA’s inception is not having enough infested streams (Mississippi and Pine Rivers), but the drought and defend large nests of pebbles. Several fishes utilize the material to publish the next issue. I’m sure no one wants a Fritz will undoubtedly drive another nail in the coffin, not only Hornyhead Chub nest for spawning or egg predation and include: & Kon Show every issue. Write about things you know best such for Hornyhead Chubs, but also Common Shiners (Luxilus cornu- Blacknose Dace, Blackside Darter, Bluntnose Minnow, Carmine tus).” Shiner, Common Shiner, Johnny Darter, Rainbow Darter, South- 3 4

Figure 1 Range and status of the Hornyhead Chub in North America (Source: NatureServe Explorer).

ern Redbelly Dace and stonerollers. Male Common Shiners often mens. However, smaller chubs are marketable down to about 3.5 share the nest-guarding responsibilities with the Hornyhead Chub in (89 mm) long (Barry Thoele, pers. comm.). At one time, 15-20 which must constantly leave in search of more pebbles. Because gallons of redtail chubs could be harvested per day from some of the high number of fishes dependent on Hornyhead Chub stream reaches where lengths up to 8 inches were not uncom- nests it is considered a keystone species, which if lost in a stream mon. However, recently the maximum catch per day has dropped Figure 2 community, many other species will likely decline or disappear to 1-2 gallons per day and large specimens are extremely rare. Distribution of Hornyhead Chub in Minnesota. (Hatch et al. in prep). The Common Shiner is an example of While the supply has decreased, the demand has not and redtail one species that seems to be experiencing a similar decline due chubs have recently sold for as much as $150.00/gallon whole- to the reduction or loss of the mutualistic nest association with sale and $15.00/dozen retail. However, as larger wild-caught prior to 2008 are anecdotal and claims of widespread decline dotal reports of decline. The designation does not provide legal the Hornyhead Chub. In Wisconsin, the Hornyhead Chub has a individuals have declined some bait harvesters have attempted to have never been confirmed. In 2000 and 2001, several resident protection, but SGCN are eligible for federal and state funding maximum lifespan of 4 years and the largest specimen reported market redtail chubs as small as 64 mm (2.5 in) long. Commer- anglers and some commercial harvesters in north-central Minne- to conduct research studies and implement projects that enhance was 225 mm (8.9 in) in total length. In Iowa (Harlan and Speaker cial harvesters are required to submit reports to the DNR listing sota expressed concerns to Pollution Control Agency (PCA) and populations. However, the review committee concluded that there 1956) and Minnesota (Eddy and Underhill 1974), the species the gallons of minnows sold each year. However, the “chub” cat- DNR stream survey crews that redtail chubs had either vanished was insufficient data to list the Hornyhead Chub. Barry Thoele once reached a length of about 305 mm (ca 12 in). egory includes other species besides Hornyhead Chubs. In 1998, from streams or the once common large chubs were now ex- reported his first observation of Hornyhead Chub decline to DNR Redtail Chub Demand and Harvest: For decades, chub harvest peaked at 10,297 gallons, fell to 3,796 in 2004 and tremely rare. In 2005, a DNR committee reviewed the Hornyhead Fisheries in 2000. His follow-up reports suggesting worsening Hornyhead Chubs have been commercially harvested for the rebounded to 7,838 in 2006. Chub for designation as a Species in the Greatest Conservation conditions raised the level of concern within the DNR prompting “redtail chub” bait trade where there has been great demand from Reports of Decline in Abundance and Size: Most of the Need (SGCN) because of commercial exploitation and anec- limited surveys in 2008. Walleye and Northern Pike anglers, especially for larger speci- reports relative to Hornyhead Chub population characteristics 5 longest specimens at the other four stations ranged from 116-118 tion was spotty but diverse and emergents included reed canary 6 mm (4.6-4.7 in) and were between 2-3 years old. Only Station 1 grass and rush. There were no obvious environmental impacts or Methods and Materials (of the five stations) had a commercially harvestable population pollution sources at any of the stations. In September 2008, surveys were conducted at 5 stations where approximately 39% (132 individuals) of the sample were Additional Fish Data: A query of the PCA database on the Crow Wing (4) and Otter Tail (1) Rivers. Barry Thoele at least 89 mm (3.5 in) long. However, 82 Hornyhead Chubs were returned 590 records of Hornyhead Chubs in 43 major water- selected the sites based on where he had harvested Hornyhead two years old (maximum TL: 109 mm/4.3 in) and the largest indi- sheds. The data have been analyzed and summarized to report the Chubs for many years. Our sampling gear consisted of a seine (35 vidual of the remaining 50 was three years old (117 mm/4.6 in). status of several populations on a watershed basis (Figure 3 and feet long and 6 feet deep with ¼-inch mesh). Hornyhead Chubs The average weight of individuals at the five stations ranged from Appendix 1). were “chummed” into the stations using two net bags filled 4-9 g and an overall average of 7 g. The minimum harvestable Watershed surveys were conducted in 1999 and 2000 with chicken livers. Five seine hauls were made at each station; size Hornyhead Chub (89 mm) weighed an average of 8 g. Catch/ in the Crow Wing River where Hornyhead Chubs were sampled however, new schools of minnows were allowed sufficient time haul ranged from 25-55 individuals (mean=41.9). Ironically, the at 12 stations. The population structure was below statewide to move up on the bags between hauls. The catch was graded Otter Tail River station in the Hubbel Pond Wildlife Manage- averages in 7 areas (highlighted in gray) and the watershed was into three sizes (small, medium and large). For each size, data ment Area had been closed to harvest for a number of years and ranked poor. However, the average weight (9 g) was at the state- recorded included minimum and maximum total lengths (TL) the population structure appeared no better than the Crow Wing wide average and there were some fish entering their fourth year in millimeters (mm) and batch weights in grams (g). Associated River stations. of life (maximum TL: 150 mm/5.9 in). In contrast, the Rum River fish species were not tallied, measured or weighed, but noted as Habitat Data: In 2008, all stations were in a moderate to watershed was at or above statewide averages and ranked good. present. severe drought. In the Crow Wing River, stream flows below the On the drainage basin level, the Upper Mississippi River popu- Historical data for Hornyhead Chub population structure daily mean at USGS gauges ranged from 21-57%. Water trans- lations ranked fair. The Lake Superior and Red, Rainy and St. is virtually nonexistent. However, the PCA has compiled state- parencies were all greater than 1.2 m. Riffles and runs were the Croix River drainages were poor, but the Minnesota and Lower wide data from community stream surveys providing means and dominant habitats with lightly to moderately embedded substrates Mississippi Rivers ranked good. The longest Hornyhead Chub ranges of population structure meristics by watershed. However, of sand, gravel and cobble. Pools were rare, but when present sampled in the PCA dataset was 224 mm (8.8 in) from the Wild the bulk of this data was collected from 1990-2007 and is limited were often mostly covered with sand. Submergent vegetation was Rice River watershed (Red River of the North drainage) in 1994. to very few records for some watersheds. Survey sites should spotty to dense and diverse. Emergent vegetation included wild The second longest specimens were 181 mm (7.1 in) from the be revisited to gather additional data for improved assessments. rice and reed canary grass. There were no stream gauges near the Pomme de Terre River (Minnesota River drainage) in 2007 and Nevertheless, an attempt has been made to rank the status of all Otter Tail station, but Barry Thoele estimated the flow to be about Cedar River (Lower Mississippi River) in 2002. The recent take populations as good, fair or poor based on structure metrics of 1/3 of normal for September. The water was moderately turbid of large specimens is encouraging; however, no historical data statewide averages. (transparency tube=0.4 m). Dominant habitats included runs and exist to determine if the large size class occurred in an absence or Results and Discussion pools having substrates of sand and gravel. Submergent vegeta- presence of commercial harvest. Fish Data: In the 2008 surveys, the longest Hornyhead Drought and Changes in Habitat Usage: As suitable Chub collected was 128 mm (5.0 in) at age 3 (Table 1). The habitat is lost, fish species will migrate out of smaller tributaries to larger rivers during extended periods of below normal stream flows. Since 2004, low flow conditions in the Crow Wing River have coincided with the Hornyhead Chub spawning period in 4 out of 5 years: the two worst were 2004 and 2006 (Figure 4). Barry Thoele has observed during drought periods the absence of Figure 4. Hornyhead Chubs in smaller streams where they normally spawn Crow Wing River 2004 and 2006 stream flows. and found them utilizing large rivers with little cover where they are far more vulnerable to predation and harvest. An effective monitoring program must be developed and Additional Factors Causing Decline: At this time, the implemented to document trends in populations. Nest abundance primary factors suspected of causing the decline in abundance could be a practical surrogate measure instead of standardized and size of Hornyhead Chubs appears to be the combination of fisheries stream surveys. Nest counts or fish surveys could be extended drought and harvest during the spawning season. Al- coordinated, conducted or contracted through area fisheries of- though data are not readily available, other factors may have also fices on an annual basis. Another vital monitoring component affected abundance and size of this species including predation, would be to require commercial harvesters to submit detailed and diseases, competition due to increased abundance of associ- accurate annual reports. Currently, “chubs” is the only category ated species or rising water temperatures resulting from climate listed in annual reports which lumps several chub-like species change. into a single category. At a minimum, Hornyhead Chubs should Recommendations be listed separately and gallons reported as cultured versus wild Short-term: Where poor populations of Hornyhead with the latter listing harvest localities by watersheds (e.g., Crow Chubs occur, harvest bans during the spawning period should Wing). be implemented. However, scheduling optimum dates for such To assure there will be sound, science-based manage- bans in advance can be problematic. Depending on water tem- ment in the future, basic research should be undertaken to better peratures, the date Hornyhead Chubs begin to spawn each year understand the ecology of the Hornyhead Chub. Information can vary up to a month (Barry Thoele, pers. comm.). In 2007, on life history, nest associates, genetic analysis of populations during an unusually early and warm spring, spawning began on and water quality and habitat assessment are needed. Funding May 20th, but in 2008 (a late and cold spring), spawning was not opportunities must be explored for graduate students to conduct observed until June 16. If harvest seasons must be published or research. One possible funding source could come from license Figure 3. Hornyhead Chub population status in Min- announced earlier, Barry Thoele recommends a ban from June 15 fees commercial harvesters annually pay. Other options could be neosta watersheds. through August 1 which should cover 90% of the species’ spawn- adding a surcharge only to those who harvest Hornyhead Chubs ing period. or permit an annual quota (e.g., 100 gallons). Exceeding the 5 longest specimens at the other four stations ranged from 116-118 tion was spotty but diverse and emergents included reed canary 6 mm (4.6-4.7 in) and were between 2-3 years old. Only Station 1 grass and rush. There were no obvious environmental impacts or Methods and Materials (of the five stations) had a commercially harvestable population pollution sources at any of the stations. In September 2008, surveys were conducted at 5 stations where approximately 39% (132 individuals) of the sample were Additional Fish Data: A query of the PCA database on the Crow Wing (4) and Otter Tail (1) Rivers. Barry Thoele at least 89 mm (3.5 in) long. However, 82 Hornyhead Chubs were returned 590 records of Hornyhead Chubs in 43 major water- selected the sites based on where he had harvested Hornyhead two years old (maximum TL: 109 mm/4.3 in) and the largest indi- sheds. The data have been analyzed and summarized to report the Chubs for many years. Our sampling gear consisted of a seine (35 vidual of the remaining 50 was three years old (117 mm/4.6 in). status of several populations on a watershed basis (Figure 3 and feet long and 6 feet deep with ¼-inch mesh). Hornyhead Chubs The average weight of individuals at the five stations ranged from Appendix 1). were “chummed” into the stations using two net bags filled 4-9 g and an overall average of 7 g. The minimum harvestable Watershed surveys were conducted in 1999 and 2000 with chicken livers. Five seine hauls were made at each station; size Hornyhead Chub (89 mm) weighed an average of 8 g. Catch/ in the Crow Wing River where Hornyhead Chubs were sampled however, new schools of minnows were allowed sufficient time haul ranged from 25-55 individuals (mean=41.9). Ironically, the at 12 stations. The population structure was below statewide to move up on the bags between hauls. The catch was graded Otter Tail River station in the Hubbel Pond Wildlife Manage- averages in 7 areas (highlighted in gray) and the watershed was into three sizes (small, medium and large). For each size, data ment Area had been closed to harvest for a number of years and ranked poor. However, the average weight (9 g) was at the state- recorded included minimum and maximum total lengths (TL) the population structure appeared no better than the Crow Wing wide average and there were some fish entering their fourth year in millimeters (mm) and batch weights in grams (g). Associated River stations. of life (maximum TL: 150 mm/5.9 in). In contrast, the Rum River fish species were not tallied, measured or weighed, but noted as Habitat Data: In 2008, all stations were in a moderate to watershed was at or above statewide averages and ranked good. present. severe drought. In the Crow Wing River, stream flows below the On the drainage basin level, the Upper Mississippi River popu- Historical data for Hornyhead Chub population structure daily mean at USGS gauges ranged from 21-57%. Water trans- lations ranked fair. The Lake Superior and Red, Rainy and St. is virtually nonexistent. However, the PCA has compiled state- parencies were all greater than 1.2 m. Riffles and runs were the Croix River drainages were poor, but the Minnesota and Lower wide data from community stream surveys providing means and dominant habitats with lightly to moderately embedded substrates Mississippi Rivers ranked good. The longest Hornyhead Chub ranges of population structure meristics by watershed. However, of sand, gravel and cobble. Pools were rare, but when present sampled in the PCA dataset was 224 mm (8.8 in) from the Wild the bulk of this data was collected from 1990-2007 and is limited were often mostly covered with sand. Submergent vegetation was Rice River watershed (Red River of the North drainage) in 1994. to very few records for some watersheds. Survey sites should spotty to dense and diverse. Emergent vegetation included wild The second longest specimens were 181 mm (7.1 in) from the be revisited to gather additional data for improved assessments. rice and reed canary grass. There were no stream gauges near the Pomme de Terre River (Minnesota River drainage) in 2007 and Nevertheless, an attempt has been made to rank the status of all Otter Tail station, but Barry Thoele estimated the flow to be about Cedar River (Lower Mississippi River) in 2002. The recent take populations as good, fair or poor based on structure metrics of 1/3 of normal for September. The water was moderately turbid of large specimens is encouraging; however, no historical data statewide averages. (transparency tube=0.4 m). Dominant habitats included runs and exist to determine if the large size class occurred in an absence or Results and Discussion pools having substrates of sand and gravel. Submergent vegeta- presence of commercial harvest. Fish Data: In the 2008 surveys, the longest Hornyhead Drought and Changes in Habitat Usage: As suitable Chub collected was 128 mm (5.0 in) at age 3 (Table 1). The habitat is lost, fish species will migrate out of smaller tributaries to larger rivers during extended periods of below normal stream flows. Since 2004, low flow conditions in the Crow Wing River have coincided with the Hornyhead Chub spawning period in 4 out of 5 years: the two worst were 2004 and 2006 (Figure 4). Barry Thoele has observed during drought periods the absence of Figure 4. Hornyhead Chubs in smaller streams where they normally spawn Crow Wing River 2004 and 2006 stream flows. Watersheds ranked with poor popula- and found them utilizing large rivers with little cover where they are far more vulnerable to predation and harvest. An effective monitoring program must be developed and tions. Additional Factors Causing Decline: At this time, the implemented to document trends in populations. Nest abundance 1. Rainy River-Baudette primary factors suspected of causing the decline in abundance could be a practical surrogate measure instead of standardized 2. Rapid River and size of Hornyhead Chubs appears to be the combination of fisheries stream surveys. Nest counts or fish surveys could be 3. Rainy River-Manitou extended drought and harvest during the spawning season. Al- coordinated, conducted or contracted through area fisheries of- 4. Little Fork River though data are not readily available, other factors may have also fices on an annual basis. Another vital monitoring component affected abundance and size of this species including predation, would be to require commercial harvesters to submit detailed and 5. St. Louis River diseases, competition due to increased abundance of associ- accurate annual reports. Currently, “chubs” is the only category 6. Nemadji River ated species or rising water temperatures resulting from climate listed in annual reports which lumps several chub-like species 7. St. Croix River-Upper change. into a single category. At a minimum, Hornyhead Chubs should 8. St. Croix River-Stillwater Recommendations be listed separately and gallons reported as cultured versus wild 9. Mississippi River-Metro Short-term: Where poor populations of Hornyhead with the latter listing harvest localities by watersheds (e.g., Crow Chubs occur, harvest bans during the spawning period should Wing). 10. Minnesota River-Shakopee be implemented. However, scheduling optimum dates for such To assure there will be sound, science-based manage- 11. Minnesota River-Granite Falls bans in advance can be problematic. Depending on water tem- ment in the future, basic research should be undertaken to better 12. Lac qui Parle River peratures, the date Hornyhead Chubs begin to spawn each year understand the ecology of the Hornyhead Chub. Information 13. Sauk River can vary up to a month (Barry Thoele, pers. comm.). In 2007, on life history, nest associates, genetic analysis of populations during an unusually early and warm spring, spawning began on and water quality and habitat assessment are needed. Funding May 20th, but in 2008 (a late and cold spring), spawning was not opportunities must be explored for graduate students to conduct observed until June 16. If harvest seasons must be published or research. One possible funding source could come from license Figure 3. Hornyhead Chub population status in Min- announced earlier, Barry Thoele recommends a ban from June 15 fees commercial harvesters annually pay. Other options could be neosta watersheds. through August 1 which should cover 90% of the species’ spawn- adding a surcharge only to those who harvest Hornyhead Chubs ing period. or permit an annual quota (e.g., 100 gallons). Exceeding the 7 8 quota would require purchasing additional licenses or surcharges. Table 1. 2008 Hornyhead Chub Survey Data A final avenue would be listing the Hornyhead Chub a Species in the Greatest Conservation Need which would provide eligibil- ity for state and federal funding. However, this could eventually result in listing the Hornyhead Chub a State Threatened or En- Date Basin Hauls Sation County Stream dangered species if the research supports and warrants protective Location Watershed Ave #/Hauls Graded Catch Graded Ave Weight (g) % Composition Age Range Class Batch Weight (g) Min Length (mm) Length Min status. This designation would prohibit all harvest of the species. (mm) Length Max Long-term: If the demand for Hornyhead Chubs contin- Crow Anderson Upper ues, the emphasis on harvesting wild populations eventually must 1 Wing Crossing Wadena Crow Wing Mississippi 9/12/2008 17 5.0 10 39 47 0 13 0.8 shift to aquaculture. Preliminary research has already proven the 25 7.3 45 65 0-1 53 2.1 species can be reared profitably and sold at competitive prices 59 17.3 45 75 0-2 333 5.6 paid for wild harvest sources (Gunderson et al 2008). Funding for 16 4.7 60 71 1 59 3.7 research to refine aquaculture techniques that boost production 49 14.3 67 81 1-2 343 7.0 and reduce the rearing period to marketable size should be a high 44 12.9 72 92 1-2 385 8.8 priority. 79 23.1 92 97 2 864 10.9 3 0.9 95 109 2 34 11.3 Acknowledgements 50 14.6 97 117 2-3 750 15.0 The field data collected for this report could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Barry Thoele who Station took time off from his business to serve as a guide to former Summary 342 34.2 39 117 0-3 2834 8.3 Hornyhead Chub hotspots. He also provided invaluable input and information for the report based on his 20 years of experience Crow Upper as a commercial bait harvester. Other contributors to this report 2 Wing Nimrod Wadena Crow Wing Mississippi 9/12/2008 42 33.1 5 41 71 0-1 201 4.8 include Nick Proulx (DNR) who produced the Minnesota range 57 44.9 72 83 1-2 540 9.5 map, Mike Feist (PCA) who provided the dataset used to create 28 22.0 85 128 1-3 310 11.1 Appendix 2, Matt Haworth (DNR) who assisted in the surveys and Robert Hrabik (Missouri Department of Conservation) who Station Summary reviewed and provided editorial comment for this adaption to the 127 25.4 41 128 0-3 1051 8.3 American Currents article. Crow Little White Upper 3 Wing Dog Wadena Crow Wing Mississippi 9/22/2008 103 37.7 5 38 67 0-1 128 1.2 Literature Cited 119 43.6 61 93 1-2 617 5.2 Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, 51 18.7 80 116 1-3 446 8.7 Madison. 1052 p. Cochran, P. A., and M. A. Zoller. 2009. “Willow cats” for sale? Station Madtoms (genus Noturus) as bait in the Summary 273 54.6 38 116 0-3 1191 4.4 upper Mississippi River Valley. American Currents 35(2):1–8. Crow Upper Eddy, S. and J.C. Underhill. 1974. Northern Fishes. Univ. Min 4 Wing Sylvan Dam Morisson Crow Wing Mississippi 9/22/2008 16 7.5 5 38 58 0-1 26 1.6 nesota Press, Minneapolis. 414 p. 100 47.2 69 84 1-2 758 7.6 Gunderson, J., P. Tucker, and C. Richards. 2008. Aquaculture 91 42.9 82 99 1-2 1105 12.1 Potential for Hornyhead (Redtail) Chubs. Minnesota Sea 5 2.4 106 118 2-3 87 17.4 Grant Web-based technical report A 24. 38 p. Station Harlan, J.R. and E.B. Speaker. 1956. Iowa Fish and Fishing. Iowa Summary 212 42.4 38 118 0-3 1976 9.3 Conservation Commission. 377 p. Hatch, J.T., G.L.Phillips, and K.P. Schmidt. In preparation. Fishes Otter Red River of of Minnesota. 5 Tail Hubbel Pond Becker Otter Tail the North 9/23/2008 11 4.2 5 45 47 0 13 1.2 NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclope 197 74.6 66 87 1-2 958 4.9 dia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, 48 18.2 80 101 1-2 363 7.6 Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve. 8 3.0 103 118 2-3 124 15.5 org/explorer. (Accessed: November 1, 2008). Station Summary 264 40.6 45 118 0-3 1458 5.5

Overall Sum 1218 30 min=38 max=128 0-3 8510 Summary Average 244 41.9 1702 7.0

Harvest Size: >3.5 in/89 mm Age classes based on Becker (1983) 7 8 quota would require purchasing additional licenses or surcharges. Table 1. 2008 Hornyhead Chub Survey Data A final avenue would be listing the Hornyhead Chub a Species in the Greatest Conservation Need which would provide eligibil- ity for state and federal funding. However, this could eventually result in listing the Hornyhead Chub a State Threatened or En- Date Basin Hauls Sation County Stream dangered species if the research supports and warrants protective Location Watershed Ave #/Hauls Graded Catch Graded Ave Weight (g) % Composition Age Range Class Batch Weight (g) Min Length (mm) Length Min status. This designation would prohibit all harvest of the species. (mm) Length Max Long-term: If the demand for Hornyhead Chubs contin- Crow Anderson Upper ues, the emphasis on harvesting wild populations eventually must 1 Wing Crossing Wadena Crow Wing Mississippi 9/12/2008 17 5.0 10 39 47 0 13 0.8 shift to aquaculture. Preliminary research has already proven the 25 7.3 45 65 0-1 53 2.1 species can be reared profitably and sold at competitive prices 59 17.3 45 75 0-2 333 5.6 paid for wild harvest sources (Gunderson et al 2008). Funding for 16 4.7 60 71 1 59 3.7 research to refine aquaculture techniques that boost production 49 14.3 67 81 1-2 343 7.0 and reduce the rearing period to marketable size should be a high 44 12.9 72 92 1-2 385 8.8 priority. 79 23.1 92 97 2 864 10.9 3 0.9 95 109 2 34 11.3 Acknowledgements 50 14.6 97 117 2-3 750 15.0 The field data collected for this report could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Barry Thoele who Station took time off from his business to serve as a guide to former Summary 342 34.2 39 117 0-3 2834 8.3 Hornyhead Chub hotspots. He also provided invaluable input and information for the report based on his 20 years of experience Crow Upper as a commercial bait harvester. Other contributors to this report 2 Wing Nimrod Wadena Crow Wing Mississippi 9/12/2008 42 33.1 5 41 71 0-1 201 4.8 include Nick Proulx (DNR) who produced the Minnesota range 57 44.9 72 83 1-2 540 9.5 map, Mike Feist (PCA) who provided the dataset used to create 28 22.0 85 128 1-3 310 11.1 Appendix 2, Matt Haworth (DNR) who assisted in the surveys and Robert Hrabik (Missouri Department of Conservation) who Station Summary reviewed and provided editorial comment for this adaption to the 127 25.4 41 128 0-3 1051 8.3 American Currents article. Crow Little White Upper 3 Wing Dog Wadena Crow Wing Mississippi 9/22/2008 103 37.7 5 38 67 0-1 128 1.2 Literature Cited 119 43.6 61 93 1-2 617 5.2 Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, 51 18.7 80 116 1-3 446 8.7 Madison. 1052 p. Cochran, P. A., and M. A. Zoller. 2009. “Willow cats” for sale? Station Madtoms (genus Noturus) as bait in the Summary 273 54.6 38 116 0-3 1191 4.4 upper Mississippi River Valley. American Currents 35(2):1–8. Crow Upper Eddy, S. and J.C. Underhill. 1974. Northern Fishes. Univ. Min 4 Wing Sylvan Dam Morisson Crow Wing Mississippi 9/22/2008 16 7.5 5 38 58 0-1 26 1.6 nesota Press, Minneapolis. 414 p. 100 47.2 69 84 1-2 758 7.6 Gunderson, J., P. Tucker, and C. Richards. 2008. Aquaculture 91 42.9 82 99 1-2 1105 12.1 Potential for Hornyhead (Redtail) Chubs. Minnesota Sea 5 2.4 106 118 2-3 87 17.4 Grant Web-based technical report A 24. 38 p. Station Harlan, J.R. and E.B. Speaker. 1956. Iowa Fish and Fishing. Iowa Summary 212 42.4 38 118 0-3 1976 9.3 Conservation Commission. 377 p. Hatch, J.T., G.L.Phillips, and K.P. Schmidt. In preparation. Fishes Otter Red River of of Minnesota. 5 Tail Hubbel Pond Becker Otter Tail the North 9/23/2008 11 4.2 5 45 47 0 13 1.2 NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclope 197 74.6 66 87 1-2 958 4.9 dia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, 48 18.2 80 101 1-2 363 7.6 Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve. 8 3.0 103 118 2-3 124 15.5 org/explorer. (Accessed: November 1, 2008). Station Summary 264 40.6 45 118 0-3 1458 5.5

Overall Sum 1218 30 min=38 max=128 0-3 8510 Summary Average 244 41.9 1702 7.0

Harvest Size: >3.5 in/89 mm Age classes based on Becker (1983) 9 Red River Drainage [P] Summary Superior Drainage [F] Summary Drainage [G] Summary Drainage [P] Summary Minnesota Rainy Drainage Summar pe issip rwRvr[]19-072 41383 -0 213870144 -64 48 1 9112>3 2 59-161 114 24-86 49 1-16 7 1-4142 740 1-328 72 1-205 30 1-398 84 21 1996-2007 Crow River [F] Upper Mississippi

Drainage Basin y [P] idRc F 9420 43 -7 4<-63 -0 3 -23621 42-1195-2 - >3 2-3 57-224 119 21-61 34 2-14 6 2-1243 232 1-108 37 <1-36 14 1-173 35 24 1994-2007 Wild Rice[F] Marsh [P] Red Lake [F] Otter Tail [F] Buffalo [P] St. Louis[P] Nemadji [P] isS.Cod[]19-0735 -43 -811425214483153 55 74-3 - >3 1-2 46-137 87 25-51 36 1-5 3 4-488 201 4-205 131 1-58 32 5-94 52 Sauk [P] 3 1999-2007 Miss-St. Cloud[F] isSrel[]19-031 92107<-03 -7 4 4561 -45 910169-4 >3 3 96-148 126 29-110 52 5-24 11 44-556 243 4-177 38 <1-30 7 2-110 29 13 1996-2003 Miss-Sartell [F] Rum [G] Pine [G] elwMdcn P 9020 919 113 421518244621 74-2155-4 >3 >3 2 2-3 52-147 50-170 105 118 40-52 24-114 47 61 2-11 2-22 6 9 2-474 2-834 188 135 2-115 1-159 44 29 1-30 <1-51 11 9 1-91 1-121 29 17 43 5 1990-2007 1990-2003 Yellow Medicine[P] Redwood [F] isMto[]19-076912 11 715 62135295 56 35-4 >3 2 56-142 93 25-67 54 2-9 5 2-143 46 1-58 17 <1-14 4 1-26 9 6 1999-2007 Miss-Metro [P] inSaoe P 9020 -72<-21 -32 -0 -57 5179 51712>3 1-2 45-137 >3 90 45-107 >3 105-148 71 137 1-15 25-116 6 57 11-28 1-105 17 27 59-696 1-53 226 10 3-59 <1-12 20 2 1-32 1-17 9 3-67 5 21 7 Pomme deTerre [F] 1990-2007 11 1991-2007 Minn-Shakopee [P] Minn-Mankato [F] isHawtr G 9920 2 1262 -78 -6 028-098893 63 5 4-6 3>3 >3 140-166 153 36-39 38 8-9 8 84-2099 1092 5-167 86 3-47 25 11-246 129 2 1999-2000 Miss-Headwaters [G] inGaieFls[]19-048713 11 716 2110712 13-39 1122>3 2 41-152 96 >3 39-83 >3 61 109-145 1-24 >3 131 3 7 3 42-78 1-2 1-120 38-159 57 63-123 130 32 7-9 81 25-91 1-60 8 38-81 55 322-1167 17 66 1-17 691 <1-11 4-13 52-125 9 79 4 7 1-5203 1156 13-34 1-32 5-65 1-1287 22 185 22 7 46-132 1-295 1-5 82 44 8 2 1990-2004 1-707 3 Minn-Granite Falls [P] <1-1 2001-2003 105 Minn-Headwaters [G] <1 13 1990-2007 1-5 Cottonwood [F] 3 Chippewa [G] 6 2002-2006 Rainy-Baudette [P] Rainy-Manitou [P] isBanr P 9820 514 11 112 1 -3 -24 18 94-5 - >3 >3 1-2 1-2 45-159 46-139 89 83 31-80 25-81 49 45 1-12 1-7 5 4 2-336 4-1159 113 245 1-24 2-236 11 54 <1-11 <1-95 4 21 2-219 1-41 51 15 5 5 1998-2000 1998-2000 Miss-Grand Rapids[F] Miss-Brainerd [P] Little Fork [P] a u al P 9020 01 -26<-72 -3 2 -9 3<-96 515123-7 >3 2 31-175 112 25-135 65 <1-49 13 2-495 120 >3 1-131 >3 25 125-145 135 <1-47 25-36 6 31 1-72 7-8 7 14 383-561 10 472 1990-2003 44-88 66 Lac quiParle [P] 23-29 26 48-83 66 2 1998-2005 Rainy-Rainy Lake [G] rwWn P 9920 23 -5 13 821328750921 42-5194-5 >3 2 44-150 109 25-75 44 2-17 9 7-590 258 2-103 28 <1-30 8 2-150 33 12 1999-2000 Leech Lake [G] Crow Wing[P] Rapid [P] Big Fork [F]

Major Watershed 9620 32 -8 14 311326116 -34 09 1 81923>3 2-3 28-159 116 20-95 45 1-23 8 1-1267 246 1-193 23 <1-41 8 1-181 22 43 1976-2007 9120 02 -7 11 61-5273-0 -53 54 4 2-6 3>3 >3 126-161 144 25-46 36 1-15 8 31-601 247 10-45 36 <1-19 5 1-176 29 10 1991-2005 9420 714 -63 -1 81-9 -85 511197-4 >3 2 74-142 109 25-111 52 3-18 8 18-295 98 2-115 37 1-16 8 1-40 17 7 1994-2007 9019 4111912 1514125-3 -25 09 0 11322 2 91-113 104 20-94 50 2-12 6 58-238 122 5-154 61 1-29 9 1-111 34 4 1990-1998 9019 -02141 -36 87 -26 59 99-0 2 2 91-107 99 35-94 65 4-12 8 58-71 65 5-23 14 1-4 2 1-20 9 3 1990-1997 9620 35 -9 6<-0 913846144 -44 410134-6 >3 2 44-166 113 24-110 49 1-24 8 1-4142 426 1-328 49 <1-205 16 1-398 50 83 1996-2007 0020 -9214611 6 -6 031 26-5156-3 3 2 66-130 105 64-85 72 3-14 10 3-165 263 1-14 6 1-4 2 1-19 7 4 2000-2007 9720 42181 -84 -2 1 413 472 72-0197-4 >3 3 >3 78-147 >3 129 121-152 29-90 137 57 33-50 7-20 42 14 2-10 14-1330 6 415 81-1170 3-125 626 43 54-73 1-38 64 12 8-25 2-118 16 34 40-123 82 9 1997-2000 2 1999-2000 9020 2 21771 1254 -2722150 0<-96 416183-8 - >3 2-3 >3 31-181 >3 118 95-181 24-136 143 63 28-136 <1-49 10 90 1-5203 6-33 272 17 1-1287 33-506 48 243 <1-295 1-60 >3 13 30 2 1-707 <1-24 49-147 32 96 9 25-121 124 1-47 1990-2007 54 2-24 19 6 5 2-561 2003-2007 111 1-88 17 <1-29 6 1-83 18 25 1998-2006 9020 91 -81 13 911714848922 24-2 1 11223>3 2-3 61-152 116 40-127 62 2-22 9 8-498 154 1-117 39 <1-33 10 1-68 17 19 1990-2007 0520 115 11 514 2 039932 72-2 1 6162>3 2 96-136 114 26-121 67 3-24 9 10-389 128 1-41 15 <1-10 4 1-52 21 9 2005-2006 1976-2007 9412 1 1994 98111 2 5 238 154 29 111 1 1998 0521 -44161 -6181-8 -25 15 0 4172>3 2 64-147 106 51-59 55 6-12 9 11-285 148 3-16 10 1-6 4 2-24 13 2 2005 0511 1 2005 001297 1 2000 055611 14611 0215421 63-58 91212>3 1-2 49-132 80 34-55 46 2-11 4 2-105 30 1-10 6 <1-4 2 1-10 6 5 2005 Sampling Period 52 -8 14 811622116 -84 011122-2 >3 2 28-224 112 20-111 40 1-18 6 1-1267 222 1-196 28 <1-41 7 1-181 21 85 Records

Average Catch

Range 59 <1 1 Average #/100 m

Range 182 6 1 Average #/hour

Range 2735 2 2 Average Batch Weight (g)

Range 1 2 9 2 Average Indi- vidual Weight (g)

Range 47 20 25 0 60 60 Ave Min Length (mm)

Range 1 01322 2 20-113 113 147 54 Ave Max Length (mm)

Range 3>3 >3 1 1 1 1 Ave Max Age Class

Max Age Class Population Status Statewide Summary Drainage [G] Summary oe issip Cannon[F] Lower Mississippi Drainage [P] Summary St. Croix

Drainage Basin Elizabe SANT Gus Lane, Fran Patrick H Greg G Josep Matthe Pas De Ernie Anthon Kim Cre Ca Sam Josep Brian Brie Fran John Be Step Terry Ba pe oa[]20-043185-2 636 94-5 8 3-369601 82-1151411> >3 >3 134-171 155 25-61 38 6.0-11 9 530-1356 887 46-155 89 3-61 26 50-225 118 3 2002-2004 Upper Iowa [G] Zumbro [F] Root [F] Cedar [G] St. Croix-Stillwater [P] t ri-pe P 9620 51 -35<-51 -0 0 -8 -04 015172-4 >3 2 25-145 107 20-125 43 1-20 7 1-485 107 1-102 19 <1-35 5 1-73 15 65 1966-2006 St. Croix-Upper [P] Snake [F] Kettle [G] hen Beaman, CENTRAL, SC CENTRAL, hen Beaman, k Borsuk,WHEELING, WV k Kroenke, MUENCHEN, BAVARIA h Franke, ALBUQUERQUE, NM h Broderick, ETNA, PA runa, EAUruna, WI CLAIRE, w Dickinson, MURRAY, KY th Lee, TUSCALOOSA, AL TUSCALOOSA, th Lee, llahan, INDEPENDENCE,llahan, IA y Cuiffo, ISLIP, CENTRAL NY ausang, STANFORD, CA ws, HORNBEAK, TN rber, DAWSONVILLE, GA eekin, CINCINNATI,eekin, OH

rley, PEABODY, MA Major Watershed cale, ATHENS,cale, GA A CLARA,CA 9620 9 41771 1254 -2726150 16 22-5 1 52423>3 2-3 25-224 115 20-152 52 <1-61 9 1-5203 296 1-1287 43 <1-295 12 1-707 34 590 1966-2007 0020 95 -0 6<-7 215241120 013 32-2 3 611> >3 >3 >3 >3 46-181 >3 92-176 134 133 3 25-125 25-114 72-168 53 61 124 1-34 1-21 25-110 10 10 58 1-2406 8-1221 1-16 411 289 9 1-502 1-58 3-1133 52 245 24 <1-175 1-59 <1-33 16 11 24 1-400 <1-27 1-85 55 8 25 59 1-83 2000-2007 10 2002-2007 24 11 2002-2004 0220 38 -0 8<-7 815267120 113 32-2 3 611> >3 >3 46-181 137 25-125 53 1-34 11 1-2406 637 1-502 98 <1-175 28 1-400 83 23 2002-2007 0020 22 -4 13 6127146331 -15 59 2 1133>3 3 71-163 121 25-98 54 2-31 11 6-373 114 1-207 26 <1-33 5 1-140 23 12 2000-2007 9620 0 41411 1133 -6 6 -339<-15 012142-6 >3 2 25-168 114 20-152 50 <1-61 9 1-3353 268 1-569 37 <1-133 10 1-491 34 205 1966-2007 9920 71 -2 13 011019113 0<-15 014132-6 >3 2 25-161 103 20-134 55 <1-61 10 1-1739 199 1-140 20 <1-38 6 1-121 19 57 1989-2007 9720 95 -9 7<-3 715943135 13 81-5 1 5182>3 2 25-168 114 17-152 48 <1-38 9 1-3353 403 1-569 57 <1-133 17 1-491 52 69 1987-2007 9720 45 -1 2<-15 -9 0 518 152 62-4109-4 >3 3 96-148 130 20-94 56 5-23 11 55-1880 502 1-197 53 <1-41 12 1-210 51 14 1967-2006 Good Good (0-2) [G] Sampling Period Fair (3- 5) [F] Records WELCOME NEWMEMBERS (6-8) [P]

Poor

Average Catch

Range

Below Statewide Average

Average #/100 m

Range

Average #/hour Justin W WelsDaniel Gordo Matthe Melissa St Sara Richard S Jason S Matthe Heathe Thomas Mar Jere Matthe LeMo Michale Stev Range my Mackay, SALEM,OR e Leitkam, BROWNSVILLE,e Leitkam, PA h Smith, LANSING,MI

Harvest Size: >3.5in Average Batch n Watkins, PARTHENON, AR r Noel, WALLA WALLA, WA w Thomas, FRANKFORT, KY w Piteo, AL TUSCALOOSA, w Livingston, MOUNT VERNON, MA eitz, GAINESVILLE,AL Weight (g) olbert, KNOXVILLE,olbert, TN (89 mm) humate, EUGENE, OR eele, WAATKINSVILLE,eele, GA Range h, URBANA, IL quis, BELLEFONTAINE, OH ine, HAMILTON, MT Average Indi- vidual Weight (g)

Range

Ave Min Length Age classesbased onBecker (1983) (mm)

Range

Ave Max Length (mm)

Range

Ave Max Age Class 10 Max Age Class 9 Red River Drainage [P] Summary Superior Drainage [F] Summary riaeSmay[]Drainage [P] Summary Drainage [G] Summary Minnesota Rainy Drainage [P] Summary pe issip rwRvr[]19-072 41383 -0 213870144 -64 48 1 9112>3 2 59-161 114 24-86 49 1-16 7 1-4142 740 1-328 72 1-205 30 1-398 84 21 1996-2007 Crow River [F] Upper Mississippi

Drainage Basin Marsh [P] idRc F 9420 43 -7 4<-63 -0 3 -23621 42-1195-2 - >3 2-3 57-224 119 21-61 34 2-14 6 2-1243 232 1-108 37 <1-36 14 1-173 35 24 1994-2007 Wild Rice[F] Otter Tail [F] Red Lake [F] Buffalo [P] St. Louis[P] Nemadji [P] isS.Cod[]19-0735 -43 -811425214483153 55 74-3 - >3 1-2 46-137 87 25-51 36 1-5 3 4-488 201 4-205 131 1-58 32 5-94 52 3 1999-2007 Miss-St. Cloud[F] Sauk [P] isSrel[]19-031 92107<-03 -7 4 4561 -45 910169-4 >3 3 96-148 126 29-110 52 5-24 11 44-556 243 4-177 38 <1-30 7 2-110 29 Rum [G] 13 Pine [G] 1996-2003 Miss-Sartell [F] elwMdcn P 9020 919 113 421518244621 74-2155-4 >3 >3 2 2-3 52-147 50-170 105 118 40-52 24-114 47 61 2-11 2-22 6 9 2-474 2-834 188 135 2-115 1-159 44 29 1-30 <1-51 11 9 1-91 1-121 29 17 43 5 1990-2007 1990-2003 Yellow Medicine[P] Redwood [F] isMto[]19-076912 11 715 62135295 56 35-4 >3 2 56-142 93 25-67 54 2-9 5 2-143 46 1-58 17 <1-14 4 1-26 9 6 1999-2007 Miss-Metro [P] inSaoe P 9020 -72<-21 -32 -0 -57 5179 51712>3 1-2 45-137 >3 90 45-107 >3 105-148 71 137 1-15 25-116 6 57 11-28 1-105 17 27 59-696 1-53 226 10 3-59 <1-12 20 2 1-32 1-17 9 3-67 5 21 7 Pomme deTerre [F] 1990-2007 11 1991-2007 Minn-Shakopee [P] Minn-Mankato [F] isHawtr G 9920 2 1262 -78 -6 028-098893 63 5 4-6 3>3 >3 140-166 153 36-39 38 8-9 8 84-2099 1092 5-167 86 3-47 25 11-246 129 2 1999-2000 Miss-Headwaters [G] an-aio P 0220 - 1<- - 256 -36 88 16-2 - 3 1-2 63-123 81 38-81 66 4-13 7 5-65 22 1-5 2 <1-1 <1 1-5 3 6 2002-2006 Rainy-Baudette [P] Rainy-Manitou [P] inGaieFls[]19-048713 11 716 2110712 13-39 1122>3 2 41-152 96 >3 39-83 >3 61 109-145 1-24 >3 131 7 3 42-78 1-120 38-159 57 130 32 7-9 25-91 1-60 8 55 322-1167 17 1-17 691 <1-11 52-125 9 79 4 1-5203 1156 13-34 1-32 1-1287 22 185 7 46-132 1-295 82 44 8 1990-2004 1-707 3 Minn-Granite Falls [P] 2001-2003 105 Minn-Headwaters [G] 13 1990-2007 Cottonwood [F] Chippewa [G] isBanr P 9820 514 11 112 1 -3 -24 18 94-5 - >3 >3 1-2 1-2 45-159 46-139 89 83 31-80 25-81 49 45 1-12 1-7 5 4 2-336 4-1159 113 245 1-24 2-236 11 54 <1-11 <1-95 4 21 2-219 1-41 51 15 5 5 1998-2000 1998-2000 Miss-Grand Rapids[F] Miss-Brainerd [P] Little Fork [P] an-an ae[]19-0526 88 62-96 48 7 8-6 - 12-6151515> >3 >3 125-145 135 25-36 31 7-8 7 383-561 472 44-88 66 23-29 26 48-83 66 2 1998-2005 Rainy-Rainy Lake [G] a u al P 9020 01 -26<-72 -3 2 -9 3<-96 515123-7 >3 2 31-175 112 25-135 65 <1-49 13 2-495 120 1-131 25 <1-47 6 1-72 14 10 1990-2003 Lac quiParle [P] rwWn P 9920 23 -5 13 821328750921 42-5194-5 >3 2 44-150 109 25-75 44 2-17 9 7-590 258 2-103 28 <1-30 8 2-150 33 12 1999-2000 Leech Lake [G] Crow Wing[P] Big Fork [F] Rapid [P]

Major Watershed 9120 02 -7 11 61-5273-0 -53 54 4 2-6 3>3 >3 126-161 144 25-46 36 1-15 8 31-601 247 10-45 36 <1-19 5 1-176 29 10 1991-2005 9620 32 -8 14 311326116 -34 09 1 81923>3 2-3 28-159 116 20-95 45 1-23 8 1-1267 246 1-193 23 <1-41 8 1-181 22 43 1976-2007 9420 714 -63 -1 81-9 -85 511197-4 >3 2 74-142 109 25-111 52 3-18 8 18-295 98 2-115 37 1-16 8 1-40 17 7 1994-2007 9019 4111912 1514125-3 -25 09 0 11322 2 91-113 104 20-94 50 2-12 6 58-238 122 5-154 61 1-29 9 1-111 34 4 1990-1998 9019 -02141 -36 87 -26 59 99-0 2 2 91-107 99 35-94 65 4-12 8 58-71 65 5-23 14 1-4 2 1-20 9 3 1990-1997 9620 35 -9 6<-0 913846144 -44 410134-6 >3 2 44-166 113 24-110 49 1-24 8 1-4142 426 1-328 49 <1-205 16 1-398 50 83 1996-2007 0020 -9214611 6 -6 031 26-5156-3 3 2 66-130 105 64-85 72 3-14 10 3-165 263 1-14 6 1-4 2 1-19 7 4 2000-2007 9720 42181 -84 -2 1 413 472 72-0197-4 >3 3 >3 78-147 >3 129 121-152 29-90 137 57 33-50 7-20 42 14 2-10 14-1330 6 415 81-1170 3-125 626 43 54-73 1-38 64 12 8-25 2-118 16 34 40-123 82 9 1997-2000 2 1999-2000 0320 914 12 016 4 3561 -39 816139-8 3>3 >3 95-181 143 28-136 90 6-33 17 33-506 243 1-60 >3 30 2 <1-24 49-147 96 9 25-121 1-47 54 2-24 19 6 5 2-561 2003-2007 111 1-88 17 <1-29 6 1-83 18 25 1998-2006 9020 2 21771 1254 -2722150 0<-96 416183-8 - >3 2-3 31-181 118 24-136 63 <1-49 10 1-5203 272 1-1287 48 <1-295 13 1-707 32 124 1990-2007 9020 91 -81 13 911714848922 24-2 1 11223>3 2-3 61-152 116 40-127 62 2-22 9 8-498 154 1-117 39 <1-33 10 1-68 17 19 1990-2007 0520 115 11 514 2 039932 72-2 1 6162>3 2 96-136 114 26-121 67 3-24 9 10-389 128 1-41 15 <1-10 4 1-52 21 9 2005-2006 9620 52 -8 <1-41 7 1-181 21 85 1976-2007 9412 1 1994 98111 2 5 238 154 29 111 1 1998 0521 -44161 -6181-8 -25 15 0 4172>3 2 64-147 106 51-59 55 6-12 9 11-285 148 3-16 10 1-6 4 2-24 13 2 2005 0511 1 2005 001297 1 2000 055611 14611 0215421 63-58 91212>3 1-2 49-132 80 34-55 46 2-11 4 2-105 30 1-10 6 <1-4 2 1-10 6 5 2005 Sampling Period

Records

Average Catch

Range 59 <1 1 Average #/100 m

Range 182 28 6 1 Average #/hour -9 2 -27611 02-1 1 8242>3 2 28-224 112 20-111 40 1-18 6 1-1267 222 1-196 Range 2735 2 2 Average Batch Weight (g)

Range 1 2 9 2 Average Indi- vidual Weight (g)

Range 47 20 25 0 60 60 Ave Min Length (mm)

Range 1 01322 2 20-113 113 147 54 Ave Max Length (mm)

Range 3>3 >3 1 1 1 1 Ave Max Age Class

Max Age Class Population Status Statewide Summary Drainage [G] Summary oe issip Cannon[F] Lower Mississippi Drainage [P] Summary St. Croix

Drainage Basin Elizabeth Lee, TUSCALOOSA, AL TUSCALOOSA, Lee, Elizabeth SANTAGus Lane, CLARA,CA Frank Kroenk Patrick Heekin, CINCINNATI, O Greg EAU Gruna, WI CLAIRE, Joseph Franke, ALB Matthew Dickinson, MURRA Pascale, De ATHENS,Ernie GA Anthony Cuiffo, ISLIP CENTRAL Kim Crews, HORNBEAK, TN INDEPEND Callahan, Sam Joseph Broderick, ETNA, P Brian Brierley, PEABOD Frank Borsuk,WHEELING, WV John ST Beausang, Stephen CENTR Beaman, Terry Barber, DAW pe oa[]20-043185-2 636 94-5 8 3-369601 82-1151411> >3 >3 134-171 155 25-61 38 6.0-11 9 530-1356 887 46-155 89 3-61 26 50-225 118 3 2002-2004 Upper Iowa [G] Zumbro [F] Root [F] Cedar [G] St. Croix-Stillwater [P] t ri-pe P 9620 51 -35<-51 -0 0 -8 -04 015172-4 >3 2 25-145 107 20-125 43 1-20 7 1-485 107 1-102 19 <1-35 5 1-73 15 65 1966-2006 St. Croix-Upper [P] Snake [F] Kettle [G]

Major Watershed e, MUENCHEN, BAVARIA 9620 9 41771 1254 -2726150 16 22-5 1 52423>3 2-3 25-224 115 20-152 52 <1-61 9 1-5203 296 1-1287 43 <1-295 12 1-707 34 590 1966-2007 0020 95 -0 6<-7 215241120 013 32-2 3 611> >3 >3 >3 >3 46-181 >3 92-176 134 133 3 25-125 25-114 72-168 53 61 124 1-34 1-21 25-110 10 10 58 1-2406 8-1221 1-16 411 289 9 1-502 1-58 3-1133 52 245 24 <1-175 1-59 <1-33 16 11 24 1-400 <1-27 1-85 55 8 25 59 1-83 2000-2007 10 2002-2007 24 11 2002-2004 0220 38 -0 8<-7 815267120 113 32-2 3 611> >3 >3 46-181 137 25-125 53 1-34 11 1-2406 637 1-502 98 <1-175 28 1-400 83 23 2002-2007 0020 22 -4 13 6127146331 -15 59 2 1133>3 3 71-163 121 25-98 54 2-31 11 6-373 114 1-207 26 <1-33 5 1-140 23 12 2000-2007 9620 0 41411 1133 -6 6 -339<-15 012142-6 >3 2 25-168 114 20-152 50 <1-61 9 1-3353 268 1-569 37 <1-133 10 1-491 34 205 1966-2007 9920 71 -2 13 011019113 0<-15 014132-6 >3 2 25-161 103 20-134 55 <1-61 10 1-1739 199 1-140 20 <1-38 6 1-121 19 57 1989-2007 9720 95 -9 7<-3 715943135 13 81-5 1 5182>3 2 25-168 114 17-152 48 <1-38 9 1-3353 403 1-569 57 <1-133 17 1-491 52 69 1987-2007 9720 45 -1 2<-15 -9 0 518 152 62-4109-4 >3 3 96-148 130 20-94 56 5-23 11 55-1880 502 1-197 53 <1-41 12 1-210 51 14 1967-2006 Good Good (0-2) [G] ANFORD, CA SONVILLE, GA

UQUERQUE, NM Sampling Period Fair (3- 5) [F] Y, MA

AL, SC Records WELCOME NEWMEMBERS A ENCE, IA (6-8) [P]

Poor Y, KY

Average Catch

H , NY

Range

Below Statewide Average

Average #/100 m

Range

Average #/hour Justin Wolbert Welsh,Daniel URBANA, IL Gordon Watkins, PAR Matthew Thomas, FRANKFORT, KY Melissa Steele, WAATKINSVILLE, GA Smith,Sarah LANSING,MI Richard Shumate, EUGENE, OR Jason GAINESVILLE,AL Seitz, Matthew Piteo, TUSCAL Heather Noel, WALLA WALL Thomas Marquis, BELLEFONTAINE, OH Jeremy Mackay Matthew Livingsto LeMoine,Michale HAMILTON, MT Steve B Leitkam, Range

Harvest Size: >3.5in Average Batch Weight (g) (89 mm)

Range , KNOXVILLE, TN , SALEM,OR Average Indi-

ROWNSVILLE, PA vidual Weight (g) n, MOUNT VERNON, MA Range THENON, AR Ave Min Length OOSA, AL OOSA, Age classesbased onBecker (1983) (mm)

A, WA Range

Ave Max Length (mm)

Range

Ave Max Age Class 10 Max Age Class