DOCSLIB.ORG

Effects of Multiple Nonnative Fish on an Imperiled Cyprinid, Hornyhead Chub

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effects of Multiple Nonnative Fish on an Imperiled Cyprinid, Hornyhead Chub Transactions of the American Fisheries Society © 2019 American Fisheries Society ISSN: 0002-8487 print / 1548-8659 online DOI: 10.1002/tafs.10203 ARTICLE Effects of Multiple Nonnative Fish on an Imperiled Cyprinid, Hornyhead Chub Brian T. Hickerson* Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA Bryan M. Maitland Program in Ecology and Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA Annika W. Walters U.S. Geological Survey, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA Abstract Nonnative fish can have substantial negative effects on the abundance and distribution of native fishes through pre- dation and competition. Nonnative predators are of particular interest because they represent novel threats to native prey species that are not adapted to their presence. Prey species with limited distributions or population sizes may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of nonnative predators. In the Laramie River, four nonnative predators—Brown Trout Salmo trutta, Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis, and Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu are present along with a state-imperiled population of Hornyhead Chub Nocomis biguttatus. The abundance of Hornyhead Chub has declined with increasing abundance of nonnative predators, with the probabil- ity of occurrence of Hornyhead Chub dropping drastically when Smallmouth Bass were present. All four nonnative species preyed on native cyprinids, but Smallmouth Bass relied most heavily on fish as a prey item. Isotopic niche overlap occurred between Hornyhead Chub and all of the nonnative predator species. Our results demonstrate that nonnative predators have the potential to negatively affect the abundance and distribution of Hornyhead Chub through the mechanisms of predation and competition, and predator identity is important in determining the extent of effects. Smallmouth Bass are a greater concern than nonnative salmonids because of their more piscivorous behavior, and their recent upstream expansion may be limiting the downstream distribution of Hornyhead Chub in the Laramie River. Interactions between predator and prey species play an interactions for space or resources (Mills et al. 2004). important role in structuring aquatic communities Assessing the relative importance of competitive versus (Hoeinghaus and Pelicice 2010; Cucherousset and Olden predatory interactions in driving changes in the abundance 2011). Piscivorous fishes can cause declines in the abun- of prey species is difficult (Crowder 1980; Ross 2013), but dance and distribution of prey species through direct understanding the importance of these drivers is critical to predation (Garman and Nielsen 1982; Kershner and the effective management of fisheries resources, particu- Lodge 1995; Jackson et al. 2001) or through competitive larly in contemporary ecosystems with nonnative species. *Corresponding author: [email protected] Received June 27, 2019; accepted September 4, 2019 1 2 HICKERSON ET AL. Nonnative predators represent a novel threat to native Trout, Brown Trout, and Brook Trout occurring in the prey populations that are not adapted to their presence late 1930s and early 1940s (S. Gale, Wyoming Game and (Hughes and Herlihy 2012). The number of predator spe- Fish Department, personal communication). Smallmouth cies that are present in a local community and their Bass were first introduced into Grayrocks Reservoir, respective identities are likely important factors that deter- which impounds the Laramie River, in 1981, and they mine the extent of predator effects on prey species. Fur- have rapidly expanded their upstream distribution during ther, the identity of nonnative predators will be the last decade (Quist et al. 2005; Hickerson 2018). Small- particularly important when they vary in their feeding mouth Bass were not detected upstream of Grayrocks strategy or habitat use (MacRae and Jackson 2001; Reservoir during sampling in 2004 or 2005 (Bear and Bar- Hughes and Herlihy 2012). rineau 2007), but in 2008 and 2009 Smallmouth Bass were Understanding the competitive and predatory effects of detected 19 and 26 km upstream, respectively (Moan et al. nonnative predators is especially important for native spe- 2010; Bestgen 2013). By 2015, Smallmouth Bass had cies that are of conservation concern. These species are moved approximately 47 km upstream (Peterson 2017). inherently less resilient to new threats because they typi- Currently, the recruitment of Smallmouth Bass occurs cally have limited distributions and small population sizes throughout the lower Laramie River and individuals have (Labbe and Fausch 2000). For example, nonnative Brook been captured more than 71 river km upstream of Gray- Trout Salvelinus fontinalis displace native Cutthroat Trout rocks Reservoir (Hickerson 2018). The increased upstream Oncorhynchus clarkii populations from important habitats movement coincided with a rapidly expanding Small- through competitive exclusion (Shepard et al. 2002; mouth Bass population in Grayrocks Reservoir after 2009, McGrath and Lewis 2007). Elsewhere, the introduction of which is attributed to filling Grayrocks Reservoir after a nonnative Northern Pike Esox lucius has led to the decline number of drought years and higher flows—which also of geographically isolated and regionally imperiled cypri- likely facilitated the upstream dispersal of Smallmouth nids in Montana and darters in Colorado due to predation Bass (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2011). (Labbe and Fausch 2000; Stringer 2018). Similarly, studies Our objectives were to (1) quantify the relationships have shown that nonnative Brown Trout Salmo trutta and between the abundance and distributions of Hornyhead Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss negatively affect Chub and nonnative predatory species and (2) evaluate populations of endangered Humpback Chub Gila cypha, the potential for competition, predation, or both between primarily through predation (Yard et al. 2011). Therefore, the nonnative predator species and Hornyhead Chub. We species with geographically restricted distributions may be examined the four nonnative predator species individually at an increased extirpation risk from nonnative predators and combined to determine the importance of predator due to a lack of population redundancy across the land- identity. scape. Hornyhead Chub Nocomis biguttatus, with its highly restricted range, is a species that is greatly in need of con- METHODS servation efforts in Wyoming (Bestgen 2013). Western Study area.— The Laramie River flows northeast from populations of Hornyhead Chub have historically the Medicine Bow Mountains in Colorado through south- occurred in the Platte River tributaries in Wyoming, Col- east Wyoming, and it is impounded by two major reser- orado, western Nebraska, and western Kansas. Western voirs before reaching its confluence with the North Platte populations are currently restricted to the Laramie and River near Fort Laramie, Wyoming (Figure 1A). The North Laramie rivers in Wyoming (Propst and Carlson lower Laramie River, downstream of the Wheatland Tun- 1986; Baxter and Stone 1995; Bestgen 2013). The Laramie nel Diversion, has one of the most intact and diverse River also has naturally reproducing populations of four native fish communities in the North Platte River water- nonnative predatory species: Brown Trout, Rainbow shed of Wyoming, where sensitive species like Common Trout, Brook Trout, and Smallmouth Bass Micropterus Shiner Luxilus cornutus and Stonecat Noturus flavus are dolomieu. These four nonnatives can all negatively affect relatively abundant (Quist et al. 2005). The flows in this the distribution and abundance of the native fish popula- reach are regulated year-round by a series of reservoirs tions (Garman and Nielsen 1982; Dunham et al. 2002; and diversion dams. Historically, Hornyhead Chub were Fritts and Pearsons 2006; Johnson et al. 2008; Yard et al. found in the Laramie River from the Wheatland Tunnel 2011). The sympatric occurrence of these four species pro- Diversion downstream approximately 126 km to the con- vides a rare opportunity to study the effects of multiple fluence with the North Platte River near Fort Laramie, nonnative predators and predator identity on a native fish Wyoming (Baxter and Simon 1970; Baxter and Stone species that is of significant conservation concern. 1995; Quist et al. 2005; Figure 1A). We sampled the cur- Nonnative salmonids have inhabited in the lower Lara- rent occupied range, a 42-km reach of the Laramie River mie River for decades, with the first stockings of Rainbow from the Wheatland Tunnel Diversion to just downstream NONNATIVE FISH AND DECLINE OF IMPERILED CYPRINID 3 to 1,417 meters (Bestgen 2013). The mean stream tempera- ture in August within the study reach ranges from 17.6°C near the Wheatland Tunnel diversion to 19.8°C down- stream near Palmer Canyon Road, which is well within the reported thermal range for Hornyhead Chub (spawn- ing: 16–26°C; Vives 1990; thermal maximum: 35.6°C; Smale and Rabeni 1995) from other parts of their range. The Laramie River sampling reach was stratified into three subreaches to account for variations in stream habi- tat and fish community: (1) upper reach (11 km), (2) mid- dle reach (16 km), and (3) lower reach (15 km; Figure 1A). The upper reach is characterized by a moderate gradient; it has few nonnative predatory fish, and Smallmouth
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • The Eastern Belted Kingfisher in the Maritime 1?
    BULLETIN NO. 97 The Eastern Belted Kingfisher - in the Maritime 1?rovinces BY H. C. WHITE Atlantic Biological Station PUBLISHED BY THE FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD OF CANADA UNDER THE CONTROL OF TH E HON. THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES fTAWA, 1953 II BULLETIN NO. 97 The Eastern Belted I(ingfisher in the Maritime Provinces BY H. C. WHITE Atlantic Biological Station PUBLISHED BY THE FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD OF CANADA UND ER THE CONTROL OF THE HON. THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES OTTAWA, 1953 Printed by THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PREss . for the FISHERIES REsEARCH BOARD OF CANADA CO N TENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Hand-rearing young kingfishers 2 LIFE HISTORY 4 Migration, flights and dispersal 4 Distribution 5 Nesting sites 5 Making the burrow 9 Nest cavity and nest 10 Incubation and nestlings 11 Activities in nest 13 Sanitation 14 Enemies 16 Night roosts 19 Feeding 19 ANALYSES OF PELLETS AND STOMACH CONTENTS 21 Analyses 22 FOOD 25 Trout-rearing streams 27 Small salmon-rearing streams 29 Medium and large salmon rivers 33 Marginal salmon waters 37 Lakes and ponds 38 Sea shore 40 ECONOMIC STATUS 41 REFERENCES 43 INTROD UCTION THIS STUDY of the life history and food of the kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon alcyon L. ) in the "Maritimes", i.e. the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, is part of a general study of the relation of fish­ eating birds to the production of salmon and trout and is based on observations and material colleoted over a period of many years. We have received help from many of our co-workers and others and we wish to express special gratitude to A.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S
    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Habitat and Fish Report Baseline Conditions
    Interprovincial Crossings Environmental Assessment Study Aquatic Habitat and Fish Report Baseline Conditions Final Report November 18, 2008 AQUATIC HABITAT AND FISH REPORT BASELINE CONDITIONS REPORT NOVEMBER 2008 F INAL REPORT AQUATIC HABITAT AND FISH (BASELINE CONDITIONS) Table of Contents GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS..................... 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................... 1-1 1.1 Methodology ........................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Baseline Environmental Conditions ........................... 1-1 1.1.2 Study Area .................................................................. 1-4 1.1.3 Assessment of Environmental Constraints ................. 1-4 2.0 OTTAWA RIVER GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS..................................... 2-1 2.1 Hydrography – General Description ....................................... 2-1 2.2 Natural environment, recreation and tourism.......................... 2-2 2.3 Water quality........................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Variations between corridors................................................... 2-3 3.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF FISH SPECIES ...... 3-1 3.1 Fish species found in the Ottawa River................................... 3-1 3.2 Characterization of spawning sites.......................................... 3-8 4.0 SPECIES WITH SPECIAL STATUS ................. 4-1 4.1 The Channel Darter ................................................................. 4-2 4.2 The River Redhorse................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cutlip Minnow,Exoglossum Maxillingua
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Cutlip Minnow Exoglossum maxillingua in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2013 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. 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Cutlip Minnow Exoglossum maxillingua in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 35 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Previous report(s): Crossman, E.J.1994. COSEWIC status report on the Cutlip Minnow Exoglossum maxillingua in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 32 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Dr. Nicholas Mandrak, Lynn D. Bouvier, Mary Burridge and Erling Holm for writing the status report on the Cutlip Minnow, Exoglossum maxillingue, in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Dr. Eric Taylor, Co- chair of the COSEWIC Freshwater Fishes Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le Bec-de-lièvre (Exoglossum maxillingua) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Cutlip Minnow — Reproduced with permission by Bureau of Fisheries, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2014. Catalogue No. CW69-14/683-2014E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-23553-0 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – November 2013 Common name Cutlip Minnow Scientific name Exoglossum maxillingua Status Special Concern Reason for designation This small-bodied freshwater fish occurs across a relatively small area in eastern Ontario and Quebec where it has been lost from two watersheds over the last 10 years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Blackside Dace (Chrosomus Cumberlandensis) and the Cumberland Arrow Darter (Etheostoma Sagitta) in Northeast Tennessee
    WATER QUALITY’S INFLUENCE ON THE OCCUPANCY OF TWO JEOPARDIZED FISHES: THE BLACKSIDE DACE (CHROSOMUS CUMBERLANDENSIS) AND THE CUMBERLAND ARROW DARTER (ETHEOSTOMA SAGITTA) IN NORTHEAST TENNESSEE __________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the College of Science Morehead State University _________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science _________________________ by Brandon L. Yates July 5, 2017 ProQuest Number:10605069 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ProQuest 10605069 Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 Accepted by the faculty of the College of Science, Morehead State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree. ______________________________ David J. Eisenhour Director of Thesis Master’s Committee: ________________________________, Chair David J. Eisenhour _________________________________ Brian C. Reeder _________________________________ David P. Smith _________________________________ Michael C. Compton ________________________ Date WATER QUALITY’S INFLUENCE ON THE OCCUPANCY OF TWO JEOPARDIZED FISHES: THE BLACKSIDE DACE (CHROSOMUS CUMBERLANDENSIS) AND THE CUMBERLAND ARROW DARTER (ETHEOSTOMA SAGITTA) IN NORTHEAST TENNESSEE Brandon L. Yates Morehead State University, 2017 Director of Thesis: __________________________________________________ David J.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Species Mapping in North Carolina Using Maxent
    Aquatic Species Mapping in North Carolina Using Maxent Mark Endries U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, Asheville North Carolina INTRODUCTION The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the lead governmental agency involved in the recovery of federally endangered and threatened species in freshwater and terrestrial habitats. To meet its recovery and protection goals, the Service: (1) works with other federal agencies to minimize or eliminate impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants from projects they authorize, fund, or carry out; (2) supports the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat on private land through technical and financial assistance; and (3) provides scientific knowledge and analyses to help guide the conservation, development, and management of the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources. Freshwater ecosystems present unique management challenges due to their linear spatial orientation and their association with upland habitat variables. On broad scales, the movement of aquatic species within the stream environment is limited to upstream and downstream migration. The inability of aquatic species to circumnavigate man-made obstacles causes them to be particularly vulnerable to habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation has a major influence on species distribution and complicates distribution mapping. To better understand the spatial distributions of freshwater aquatic species in North Carolina, the Service created predictive habitat maps for 226 different aquatic species using geographic information systems (GIS) and maximum entropy (Maxent) modeling. These maps were derived by comparing known species occurrences with a suite of stream- or land-cover-derived environmental variables.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from The
    Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from the 1940s to the 1990s by MATTHEW R. WINSTON Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO 65201 February 2003 CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 10 Methods……………………………………………………………………………….. 17 The Data Used………………………………………………………………… 17 General Patterns in Species Change…………………………………………... 23 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 26 Results………………………………………………………………………………… 34 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 30 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 46 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 63 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 53 Conservation Status of Species………………………………………………. 63 Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………. 66 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………………….. 66 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………… 72 FIGURES 1. Distribution of samples by principal investigator…………………………. 20 2. Areas of greatest average decline…………………………………………. 33 3. Areas of greatest average expansion………………………………………. 34 4. The relationship between number of basins and ……………………….. 39 5. The distribution of for each reproductive group………………………... 40 2 6. The distribution of for each family……………………………………… 41 7. The distribution of for each trophic group……………...………………. 42 8. The distribution of for each faunal region………………………………. 43 9. The distribution of for each stream type………………………………… 44 10. The distribution of for each range edge…………………………………. 45 11. Modified
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Fish Taxonomic Key 2017 Edition
    Minnesota Fish Taxonomic Key 2017 Edition Pictures from – NANFA (2017) Warren Lamb Aquatic Biology Program Bemidji State University Bemidji, MN 56601 Introduction Minnesota’s landscape is maze of lakes and river that are home to a recorded total of 163 species of fish. This document is a complete and current dichotomous taxonomic key of the Minnesota fishes. This key was based on the 1972 “Northern Fishes” key (Eddy 1972), and updated based on Dr. Jay Hatch’s article “Minnesota Fishes: Just How Many Are There?” (Hatch 2016). Any new species or family additions were also referenced to the 7th edition of the American Fisheries society “Names of North American Fishes” (Page et al. 2013) to assess whether a fish species is currently recognized by the scientific community. Identifying characteristics for new additions were compared to those found in Page and Burr (2011). In total five species and one family have been added to the taxonomic key, while three have been removed since the last publication. Species pictures within the keys have been provide from either Bemidji State University Ichthyology Students or North American Native Fish Association (NANFA). My hope is that this document will offer an accurate and simple key so anyone can identify the fish they may encounter in Minnesota. Warren Lamb – 2017 Pictures from – NANFA (2017) References Eddy, S. and J. C. Underhill. 1974. Northern Fishes. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 414 pp. Hatch, J. 2015. Minnesota fishes: just how many are there anyway? American Currents 40:10-21. Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America North of Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 2E - Revised Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Hudson River Pcbs Reassessment
    PHASE 2 REPORT FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS VOLUME 2E - REVISED BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT HUDSON RIVER PCBS REASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2000 For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District Book 2 of 2 Tables, Figures and Plates TAMS Consultants, Inc. Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. PHASE 2 REPORT FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS VOLUME 2E- REVISED BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS CONTENTS Volume 2E (Book 1 of 2) Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................ i LIST OF TABLES ........................................................... xiii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................... xxv LIST OF PLATES .......................................................... xxvi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................1 1.1 Purpose of Report .................................................1 1.2 Site History ......................................................2 1.2.1 Summary of PCB Sources to the Upper and Lower Hudson River ......4 1.2.2 Summary of Phase 2 Geochemical Analyses .......................5 1.2.3 Extent of Contamination in the Upper Hudson River ................5 1.2.3.1 PCBs in Sediment .....................................5 1.2.3.2 PCBs in the Water Column ..............................6 1.2.3.3 PCBs in Fish .........................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Use and Distribution of Lithophilic Spawning and 1 Riffle Fishes in the East Fork Black River 2
    1 HABITAT USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF LITHOPHILIC SPAWNING AND 2 RIFFLE FISHES IN THE EAST FORK BLACK RIVER 3 ____________________________________ 4 A Thesis 5 presented to 6 the Faculty of the Graduate School 7 at the University of Missouri-Columbia 8 _______________________________________________________ 9 In Fulfillment 10 of the Requirements for the Degree 11 Master of Science 12 _____________________________________________________ 13 by 14 JOHN BRANT 15 Dr. Craig Paukert, Thesis Supervisor 16 AUGUST 2020 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the 31 thesis entitled 32 33 34 HABITAT USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF LITHOPHILIC SPAWNING AND 35 RIFFLE FISHES IN THE EAST FORK BLACK RIVER 36 37 38 39 Presented by John Brant, 40 a candidate for the degree of master of science, 41 and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. 42 43 44 _______________________________________ 45 Dr. Craig Paukert (Advisor) 46 47 _______________________________________ 48 Dr. Thomas Bonnot 49 50 _______________________________________ 51 Dr. Alba Argerich 52 53 _______________________________________ 54 Dr. Robert Jacobson 55 56 57 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 58 There are many people that I would like to thank for their help in the completion 59 of this project. First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Craig Paukert for providing 60 guidance from the beginning of project design through the final revisions to my thesis. In 61 addition, I would like to thank Dr. Thomas Bonnot, Dr. Robert Jacobson, and Dr. 62 Argerich for serving on my committee, sharing their knowledge, and providing 63 constructive criticism for the design of the project and interpretation of the results.
    [Show full text]
  • Hornyhead Chub (Nocomis Biguttatus)
    Hornyhead chub (Nocomis biguttatus) Freshwater Fish Species of Concern State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled) Global Rank: G5 (secure) Description The hornyhead chub takes its name from the pronounced white tuberacles that develop on the heads of breeding males. The males reach a maximum length of 12 inches but are typically between 6-9 inches with the females being smaller. It is a stout bodied fish with a dark lateral band from the eye to the base of the tail, ending in a prominent dark spot. Its color is olive brown on the back and silvery on the sides with a creamy belly. There is a distinctive red patch behind each eye © Native Fish Conservancy in breeding males. Its fins have an orangish coloring and it has a terminal mouth (rook.org). Prominent pearl organs are developed on the snout and posterior of head of breeding males (Cooper 1983). Behavior Males construct and guard large mound-nests in early summer in gravel riffles. Males defend these mounds from other hornyhead chubs but other minnow species use these convenient spawning sites and hybridization is prevalent. Following the spawning, where one male may spawn with several females, the nests are abandoned (Cooper 1983). Diet The principal food items consist of invertebrates, but small amounts of plant material, which may be of little nutritional value, are taken incidentally (Cooper 1983). Threats and Protection Needs The hornyhead chub is critically imperiled in Pennsylvania but globally secure (natureserve.org). It is a candidate for rare listing in Pennsylvania (naturalheritage.state.pa.us). The hornyhead is common in much of its range and little data is available on possible threats and protection needs for this species.
    [Show full text]