DOCSLIB.ORG

Watershed-Scale Conservation of Native Fishes in the Brazos River Basin, Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Watershed-Scale Conservation of Native Fishes in the Brazos River Basin, Texas Watershed-scale Conservation of Native Fishes in the Brazos River Basin, Texas Kevin Mayes, TPWD Gene Wilde, TTU Monica McGarrity, TPWD Brad Wolaver and Todd Caldwell, UT-BEG American Fisheries Society Tampa FL August 24, 2017 Brazos RiverBrazos BasinBrazos River River Basin Basin Lubbock • 2,060 km from New Mexico,Possum through Kingdom Lakethe heart of Texas, to the Gulf of Mexico Lake Granbury Abilene Lake Whitney • Sixteen major reservoirs control streamflow Waco and create distinct, disconnected fragments. Lake Waco 2,060 km from New Mexico to the Gulf of Mexico 16 major reservoirs (4 on mainstem) Over 60 fishes (2 listed shiners) Upper Brazos River Watershed • Spans 8 ecoregions • Over 60 fishes • Two endangered cyprinids Brazos River Native Fishes Silverband Shiner Plains Minnow Shoal Chub Sharpnose Shiner (End.) Smalleye Shiner (End.) Non-Native Invasives Sheepshead Minnow hybrids Red River Pupfish Non-Native Invasives Gulf Killifish Sharpnose shiner Shoal chub 25 rs = -0.85, P = 0.004 8 rs = -0.37, P = 0.332 20 6 Pelagophils 15 4 10 5 2 1990Smalleye shiner 2000 2010 1990Red shiner 2000 2010 25 rs = -0.62, P = 0.077 rs = 0.97, P < 0.001 30 20 15 20 10 10 5 1990Chub shiner 2000 2010 1990Red River pupfish 2000 2010 rs = -0.41, P = 0.277 rs = 0.67, P = 0.050 0.3 30 0.2 20 0.1 10 Plains minnow Plains killifish 60 1990 2000 2010 rs = -0.67, P = 0.050 rs = 0.27, P = 0.488 15 Percent (%) of Fish (%) AssemblagePercent 40 of Fish (%) AssemblagePercent 10 20 5 Silver chub 1990Western mosquitofish 2000 2010 0.8 rs = -0.54, P = 0.127 Rs = 0.82, P = 0.007 Nesting and 15 0.6 10 live-bearers 0.4 5 0.2 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 Year Year Source: Wilde and Mayes 2015 Brazos River Annual Discharge Discharge = 206.605 - 0.100 x Year ) 50 r2 = 0.115; P =0.0006; N = 91 3 -s 50 40 40 30 30 20 10 nual discharge (m discharge nual Mean an Mean 10 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source: Wilde and Mayes 2015 Smalleye Shiner and Sharpnose Shiner Brief Timeline • Texas endemics once thought to be extirpated (mid-late 80s) • TPWD confirms both species abundant in upper Brazos; absent from middle; and low numbers of sharpnose in lower • Federal candidates since 2002 • TTU initiates long-term monitoring and research program Smalleye Shiner and Sharpnose Shiner Species and Population Requirements • Wide, shallow, sandy, flowing habitat • Short life span, typically 2 yrs • Pelagic broadcast spawners • Spawning season Apr-Sept • River reaches ~ 275 km (171 miles) • Streamflows consisting of base & pulse flows (227 cfs SES, 62 cfs SNS) 2011 Drought Shiner Rescue September 15-16, 2011 Captive Spawning Facility Possum Kingdom Fish Hatchery 2011 Drought Repatriated ~800 Sharpnose and Smalleye Shiners Lower Brazos River near Hearne 5/29/12 2014 ESA Listing Endangered Smalleye and Sharpnose Shiners Factors • severe range reduction • river fragmentation • alterations of the natural streamflow regime (by impoundments, drought, groundwater withdrawal, and saltcedar encroachment) • water quality degradation • commercial harvesting for fish bait Nongame Fish Permits Barrier Mitigation Barrier Mitigation Barrier Mitigation Flows and Water Levels Opportunities • Validating/improving flow standards • Flow and water level agreements: releases, pool reallocations, hydropower relicensing • Surface water permits and groundwater rights with high conservation value • Leases, improved irrigation, conservation easements, donations Flows and Water Levels Fish Conservation in the “John Graves” Segment of the Brazos River • Loss of native fish assemblage following dam construction • Minimum flows agreement and hydropower decommissioning offers restoration opportunity Surface-Groundwater Interactions Riparian Management/Research • Surveys and control of invasive salt cedar • Landowner contacts and logistics • Quantify changes in instream habitat and riparian vegetation • Monitor changes in groundwater • Develop surface water budget/model Riparian Management/Research Potential Benefits • Improve riparian habitat: plant diversity, wildlife, livestock, and people • Improve river function: channel shape, hydraulics, geomorphology, fish habitat • Improve base flows: river flows, flows into Possum Kingdom • Model calibration and increase odds for future funding Brazos River NFDMF Salt Fork Double Mountain Fork Groundwater Monitoring and Modeling • Three wells per site for water levels and chemistry • Surface soil moisture and chemistry loggers • Water budget developed to predict water availability Prairie Stream Fish Conservation Research and Propagation Laboratory Conservation Research • Conservation Genetics • VIE marking and tracking • Larval and juvenile tolerances/preferences • Captive spawning/propagation techniques • Repatriation Captive Spawning in 5 Easy Steps Prairie Stream Fish Conservation Research and Propagation Laboratory Plains Minnow (Hybognathus placitus) - repatriation Sharpnose Shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) Smalleye Shiner (Notropis buccula) Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) Red River Shiner (Notropis bairdi) Sand Shiner (Notropis stramineus) Prairie Chub (Macrhybopsis australis) Shoal Chub (Macrhybopsis hyostoma) - repatriation Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema) Red Shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis) Source: Urbanczyk et al. (2017) BrazosAcknowledgements River Basin Very special thanks to: TTU PhD candidate Aaron Urbanczyk and other members of the Wilde Lab; TPWD Wildlife Division,Other recovery Watershed efforts Conservation Branch, AIS Team, River Studies, PK and Dundee hatcheries; USFWS Partners in Wildlife Program and ES Arlington; NRCS, and the many cooperating Brazos River landowners. Partial funding for the Prairie Stream Initiative provided through State AIS funds, GPLCC, and Texas State Wildlife Grants and Section 6 programs in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Factors Influencing Community Structure of Riverine
    FACTORS INFLUENCING COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OF RIVERINE ORGANISMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPERILED SPECIES MANAGEMENT by David S. Ruppel, M.S. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Council of Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a Major in Aquatic Resources and Integrative Biology May 2019 Committee Members: Timothy H. Bonner, Chair Noland H. Martin Joseph A. Veech Kenneth G. Ostrand James A. Stoeckel COPYRIGHT by David S. Ruppel 2019 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, David S. Ruppel, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I thank my major advisor, Timothy H. Bonner, who has been a great mentor throughout my time at Texas State University. He has passed along his vast knowledge and has provided exceptional professional guidance and support with will benefit me immensely as I continue to pursue an academic career. I also thank my committee members Dr. Noland H. Martin, Dr. Joseph A. Veech, Dr. Kenneth G. Ostrand, and Dr. James A. Stoeckel who provided great comments on my dissertation and have helped in shaping manuscripts that will be produced in the future from each one of my chapters.
    [Show full text]
  • Fws–R2–Es–2020–N040; Fxes11130200000–201–Ff02eneh00]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 11/24/2020 and available online at Billing Code 4333–15 federalregister.gov/d/2020-25918, and on govinfo.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS–R2–ES–2020–N040; FXES11130200000–201–FF02ENEH00] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft Recovery Plan for Sharpnose Shiner and Smalleye Shiner AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comment. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of our draft recovery plan for sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner, two fish species listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The two species are broadcast-spawning minnows currently restricted to the upper Brazos River Basin in north-central Texas. We provide this notice to seek comments from the public and Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments. DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive written comments on or before [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. However, we will accept information about any species at any time. ADDRESSES: Reviewing document: You may obtain a copy of the draft recovery plan by any one of the following methods: Internet: Download a copy at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arlingtontexas/. U.S. mail: Send a request to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington Ecological Services Field Office, 2005 NE Green Oaks Blvd, Suite 140, Arlington, TX 76006–6247. Telephone: 817–277–1100. U.S. mail: Project Leader, at the above U.S. mail address; Submitting comments: Submit your comments on the draft document in writing by any one of the following methods: U.S.
    [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]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Sharpnose Shiner (Notropis Oxyrhynchus) and Smalleye Shiner (N
    Species Status Assessment Report For the Sharpnose Shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) And Smalleye Shiner (N. buccula) Prepared by the Arlington, Texas Ecological Services Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date of last revision: June 10, 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This species status assessment reports the results of the comprehensive status review for the sharpnose shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) and smalleye shiner (N. buccula) and provides a thorough account of the species’ overall viability and, conversely, extinction risk. Sharpnose and smalleye shiners are small minnows currently restricted to the contiguous river segments of the upper Brazos River basin in north-central Texas. In conducting our status assessment we first considered what the two shiners need to ensure viability. We generally define viability as the ability of the species to persist over the long term and, conversely, to avoid extinction. We then evaluated whether those needs currently exist and the repercussions to the species when those needs are missing, diminished, or inaccessible. We next consider the factors that are causing the species to lack what it needs, included historical, current, and future factors. Finally, considering the information reviewed, we evaluated the current status and future viability of the species in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand stochastic events and, in the case of the shiners, is best measured by the extent of suitable habitat in terms of stream length. Redundancy is the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events by spreading the risk and can be measured through the duplication and distribution of resilient populations across its range.
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Basin Checklists and Dichotomous Keys for Inland Fishes of Texas
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 874: 31–45Drainage (2019) basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas 31 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.874.35618 CHECKLIST http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas Cody Andrew Craig1, Timothy Hallman Bonner1 1 Department of Biology/Aquatic Station, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666, USA Corresponding author: Cody A. Craig ([email protected]) Academic editor: Kyle Piller | Received 22 April 2019 | Accepted 23 July 2019 | Published 2 September 2019 http://zoobank.org/B4110086-4AF6-4E76-BDAC-EA710AF766E6 Citation: Craig CA, Bonner TH (2019) Drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas. ZooKeys 874: 31–45. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.874.35618 Abstract Species checklists and dichotomous keys are valuable tools that provide many services for ecological stud- ies and management through tracking native and non-native species through time. We developed nine drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for 196 inland fishes of Texas, consisting of 171 native fishes and 25 non-native fishes. Our checklists were updated from previous checklists and revised using reports of new established native and non-native fishes in Texas, reports of new fish occurrences among drainages, and changes in species taxonomic nomenclature. We provided the first dichotomous keys for major drainage basins in Texas. Among the 171 native inland fishes, 6 species are considered extinct or extirpated, 13 species are listed as threatened or endangered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 59 spe- cies are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) by the state of Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • LIFE HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS of THREE OBLIGATE RIVERINE SPECIES and DRIFT PATTERNS of LOWER BRAZOS RIVER FISHES Dissertation Pr
    LIFE HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE OBLIGATE RIVERINE SPECIES AND DRIFT PATTERNS OF LOWER BRAZOS RIVER FISHES Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of Texas State University-San Marcos in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of PHILOSOPHY by Casey S. Williams, B.S., M.S. San Marcos, Texas May 2011 LIFE HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE OBLIGATE RIVERINE SPECIES AND DRIFT PATTERNS OF LOWER BRAZOS RIVER FISHES Committee Members Approved: ______________________________ Timothy H. Bonner, Chair ______________________________ John T. Baccus ______________________________ Joanna C. Curran ______________________________ Alan W. Groeger ______________________________ Floyd W. Weckerly Approved: __________________________ J. Michael Willoughby Dean of the Graduate College COPYRIGHT by Casey Shawn Williams 2011 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Casey S. Williams, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to thank the faculty and staff of the Freeman Aquatic Building and Texas State Biology Department. Most importantly, I would like to thank my major advisor, Tim Bonner. Tim has been very patient and a great mentor throughout my graduate career. He helped instill and feed a need for learning and research, enabling me to make and attain goals that were once inconceivable.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Altered Water Quality on Populations of Smalleye Shiner and Sharpnose Shiner in the Upper Brazos River
    Effects of Altered Water Quality on Populations of Smalleye Shiner and Sharpnose Shiner in the Upper Brazos River Marty Kelly and Gene R. Wilde Water Resources Branch Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 August 2020 Water Quality Technical Series WQTS-2020-01 Suggested citation for this report: Kelly, Marty and Gene Wilde. 2020. Effects of Altered Water Quality on Populations of Smalleye Shiner and Sharpnose Shiner in the Upper Brazos River. Water Quality Technical Series Publication WQTS-2020-01. PWD RP V3400-2726 (8/20). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX. 2 Table of Contents Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................................8 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 8 Materials and Methods .....................................................................................................................9 Results ........................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Wednesday, December 10, 2008 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:55 Dec 09, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10DEP2.SGM 10DEP2 dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS2 75176 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR September 30, 2007, through September Species-specific information and 30, 2008. materials we receive will be available Fish and Wildlife Service We request additional status for public inspection by appointment, information that may be available for during normal business hours, at the 50 CFR Part 17 the 251 candidate species identified in appropriate Regional Office listed below [FWS-R9-ES-2008-0115; MO-9221050083 – this CNOR. in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General B2] DATES: We will accept information on information we receive will be available this Candidate Notice of Review at any at the Branch of Candidate Endangered and Threatened Wildlife time. Conservation, Arlington, VA (see and Plants; Review of Native Species ADDRESSES: This notice is available on address above). That Are Candidates for Listing as the Internet at http:// Candidate Notice of Review Endangered or Threatened; Annual www.regulations.gov, and http:// Notice of Findings on Resubmitted endangered.fws.gov/candidates/ Background Petitions; Annual Description of index.html. Species assessment forms The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Progress on Listing Actions with information and references on a as amended (16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Life History of Three Pelagic-Spawning Minnows Macrhybopsis Spp. in the Lower Missouri River T
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln US Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Defense 2016 Early life history of three pelagic-spawning minnows Macrhybopsis spp. in the lower Missouri River T. A. Starks Oklahoma State University, [email protected] M. L. Miller U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, MO J. M. Long USGS Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usarmyceomaha Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons, and the Environmental Engineering Commons Starks, T. A.; Miller, M. L.; and Long, J. M., "Early life history of three pelagic-spawning minnows Macrhybopsis spp. in the lower Missouri River" (2016). US Army Corps of Engineers. 174. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usarmyceomaha/174 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Defense at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in US Army Corps of Engineers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Journal of Fish Biology (2016) 88, 1335–1349 doi:10.1111/jfb.12892, available online at wileyonlinelibrary.com Early life history of three pelagic-spawning minnows Macrhybopsis spp. in the lower Missouri River T. A. Starks*†, M. L. Miller‡ and J. M. Long§ *Department of Natural Resources Ecology and Management, 008 Agriculture Hall, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, U.S.A., ‡Habitat and Assessment Monitoring Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 601 E. 12th St, Kansas City, MO 64106, U.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Endangered Status for the Sharpnose Shiner and Smalleye Shiner; Final Rule
    Vol. 79 Monday, No. 149 August 4, 2014 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Sharpnose Shiner and Smalleye Shiner; Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:01 Aug 01, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\04AUR3.SGM 04AUR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 45274 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Executive Summary warranted, but precluded, 12-month Why we need to publish a rule. Under finding (67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002). Fish and Wildlife Service the Endangered Species Act (Act), a Through the annual candidate review species or subspecies may warrant process (69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 70 50 CFR Part 17 protection through listing if it is FR 24870, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, endangered or threatened throughout all September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013– or a significant portion of its range. December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176, 0083;4500030113] Listing a species as an endangered or December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, threatened species can only be November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, RIN 1018–AY55 completed by issuing a rule. On August November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, 6, 2013 (78 FR 47582; 78 FR 47612), we October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife proposed to list the sharpnose shiner November 21, 2012), the U.S.
    [Show full text]