population structulre and habitat use ofbenthic~fishes ......age and growth ofmissouri river benthic...

Population Structulre andHabitat Use of Benthic~Fishesalong the Missouri and. Lower

Yellowstone Rivers

Annual Report -1997Year 3 of5

Big Bend

Report Available From:

Citation Formats:

Entire Report:

David Galat, CoordinatorCooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Urut302 ABNR BuildingUniversity of Missouri-ColumbiaColumbia, MO [email protected]

Entire report can be downloaded from the internet athttp://www.cerc.cr.usgs.gov/pubs/pubs.html

Young, B.A., T.L. Welker, M.L. Wildhaber, c.R. Berry, and D. Scamecchia, editors.1997. Population structure and habitat use of benthic fIshe~i along the Missouri andLower Yellowstone Rivers. 1997 Annual Report of Missouri River Benthic FishStudy PD-95-5832 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation.

Age and Growth Section:

Pegg, M.A., L. Coyle, c.L. Pierce, P.J. Braaten, M. Doeringsfeld, and C.S. Guy. 1997.Age and growth of Missouri River benthic fIshes. Pages 175-199 In Young, B.A.,T.L. Welker, M.L. Wildhaber, c.R. Berry, and D. Scamecchia, editors. 1997.Population structure and habitat use of benthic fIshes along the Missouri andLower Yellowstone Rivers. 1997 Annual Report of Misso uri River Benthic FishStudy PD-95-5832 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation.

1

POPULATION STRUCTURE AND HABITAT USE OF BENTHIC FISHESALONG THE MISSOURI AND LOWER YELLOWSTOl'E RIVERS

1997 Annual Report

Edited by: Bradley A. Young, Timothy L. Welker, Mark L. Wildhaber,Charles R. Berry, and Dennis Scarnecchia

Missouri River Benthic Fish Consortium Member:;:

Section 1: Missouri River Headwater Mainstem, MontanaLee C. Bergstedt and Robert G. White

Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit

Sections 2 & 3:Upper Inter-Reservoir I and Lower Yellowstone River, MontanaMike P.. Ruggles

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Sections 4 & 5:Upper Inter-Reservoir II, North DakotaTim L. Welker and Dennis Scarnecchia

Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Section 6: Upper Inter-Reservoir III and Unchannelized Area, South DakotaBradley A. Young and Charles R. Berry Jr.

South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Section 7: Channelized I, IowaMark A. Pegg and Clay L. Pierce

Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Section 8: Channelized II, KansasPatrick J. Braaten and Christopher S. Guy

Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Section 9: Channelized III, MissouriDoug J. Dieterman and David L. Galat

Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Section: Database Management and Data AnalysesLinda C. Sappington and Mark L. Wildhaber

Environmental and Contaminants Research Center

August 1998

ii

Executive Summary

The Benthic Fish Study is a multi-year, basin-wide research effort tJ help resource

managers assess the status of benthic ftshes, and to evaluate how channel and flow alteration

affects Missouri River ftshes. Benthic ftshes (or bottom-dwelling ftshes) were targeted because

they include most species listed as "at risk" of extinction by resource agencies (e.g., pallid

sturgeon, blue sucker, sicklefm chub), and important recreational and commercial ftshes (e.g.,

catftshes, sauger, buffaloes). Data from the entire Missouri and Lower YeUowstone rivers will be

useful for river managers because factors associated with healthy populaticns of ftshes in one area

of the river may provide the best model for conservation in other areas.

Overall research objectives are to: (1) describe and evaluate recruitment, growth, size

structure, body condition, and relative abundance of selected benthic ftshes, (2) measure physical

habitat features (e.g., velocity, turbidity) in dominant habitats where ftshes are collected, and (3)

describe the use of dominant habitats by benthic ftshes. Other objectives of the 1997 study were

to: 1) suggest and implement any necessary improvements to existing methods learned from the

1996 season, 2) continue standardized fteld sampling for a second year, and 3) communicate

project design and preliminary results to interested agencies and at professional meetings and

conferences.

The benthic ftsh study team accomplished 100% of its ftsh collection plan again in 1997.

This report only summarizes ftsh habitat and population data collected dwing the 1997 fteld

season as well as age and growth data for ftsh collected during the 1996 fteld season. We have

made only limited comparisons between the ftrst two years of the study. The fmal fteld season,

1998, is required to thoroughly evaluate results of the 1996 and 1997 fteld seasons and synthesize

111

temporal trends.

Methods Synopsis

Fieldwork was conducted in late summer and early fall (e.g., mid-July - October)

depending on water temperature at each section. This period was selected because flows are

generally low and all macrohabitats are present. The second year of field sampling began on July

13 and was completed in 13 weeks. The sampling schedule should reduce variability of fish and

macrohabitat measurements, and insure that the majority of the young-of-year fishes were

recruited to our gears. Fish collection gears include set gill nets, drifting trammel nets, boat

electrofishing, seining, and trawling. All fish are identified and enumerated, but length and weight

are measured only on the 26 taxa in the benthic guild. Physical habitat variables measured at all

fish collection sites were depth, velocity, substrate type, air and water temperature, turbidity,

conductivity, geographic location, river stage, and weather.

For analyses, the entire river was divided into three zones: least-inlpacted, inter-reservoir,

and channelized. In each zone were segments (27 for the entire river) dehneated by geomorphic

and constructed features (e.g., major tributaries, dams). Six macrohabitats were sampled for fish

in each segment. Macrohabitats were: main channel cross-over, outside bend, inside bend,

tributary mouth, secondary channel: connected, and secondary channel: non-connected.

Results: Habitat

Physical habitat measurements at fish collection sites were compared among segments and

macrohabitats. Depth increased gradually from upstream to downstream in the three main-

iv

channel macrohabitats (channel cross-over, outside bend, inside bend). Velocity was higher in

channelized segments than other segments. Water temperature gradually increased from upstream

to downstream with the exception of the Fort Peck and Lake Sakakawea tailwaters where flowing

water kept temperatures below 16°C in four macrohabitats (channel cro~;s-over, outside bend,

inside bend, secondary channels: connected). Conductivity measurements were in two groups:

400-600 /-is/cm from Montana to Lake Oahe, and 750-900 uS from Lake Francis Case to the

confluence with the Mississippi River. Turbidity increased gradually from upstream to

downstream with the exception of the inter-reservoir Segments in North Dakota and South

Dakota where the readings were < 10 NTU's. Sand dominated all inter-reservoir and channelized

segments, but gravel formed a much higher proportion of the total substrate in the least-impacted

segments.

Results: Fish

We collected a total of 56,185 ftshes representing at least 93 taxa, compared to 25,692

ftshes of 78 taxa collected in 1996. All benthic species were collected, induding a pallid sturgeon.

Eight introduced species were found: bighead carp, chinook salmon, ciscl)e, grass carp, mosquito

ftsh, rainbow smelt, striped bass, and white bass. Hybrids were rarely found (22 ftsh) and were

usually centrarchid sunftshes or suspected walleye-sauger hybrids. Species richness was highest

(54 species) in downstream segments and lowest (27 species) in each of the Montana segments.

In upper river sections, dominant taxa included flathead chub and Hybogl1athus species. In

downstream sections, dominant species were gizzard shad, channel catftsh, and flathead catftsh.

Habitat use data from 1997 was similar to that found in 1996. Catch-per-unit-effort,

v

habitat use, and size structure data are presented for 25 benthic fIsh species. As an example, 382

flathead catfIsh were captured in 1997, whereas 535 were captured in 1996. The fIsh were only

found downstream from Gavins Point Dam. Most (40%) were captured in the Kansas section of

the River. Flathead catfIsh were usually captured by electrofIshing in outside bends, but fIsh were

found in all macrohabitats except channel cross-overs, which are main river reaches where depth

(x =4.3 m) and velocity (x =1.23 mls) were higher than in other macrohabitats. Most flathead

catfIsh were captured where depths were < 3 m, where velocities were < 0.6 mis, where turbidity

was 10-100 NTUs, and where temperatures were 24-30 0c. The length of the captured fIsh

ranged from 50 to 1150 mm. The presence of many sizes indicates natural reproduction has been

successful.

Age and growth analysis for fIsh collected in 1996 was done on 16 of the 26 benthic

species using rays, spines, scales, or otoliths. We present preliminary results here reported as age

frequency histograms and mean back-calculated length fIgures that compare fIsh population

metrics among least impacted, inter-reservoir, and channelized segments. For example, the mean

length (standard error) of age-l emerald shiners was 51(0.7) mm in the least-impacted zone,

53(1.3) mm in the inter-reservoir zone, and 51(3.2) mm in the channelized zone. There was no

signifIcant difference between zones in emerald shiner length at age-I.

Other Accomplishments

Participants in the project made 15 presentations to management agencies or as scientifIc

papers at professional meetings. Several members have been instrumental in establishing the fIrst

(Columbia, MO), second (Nebraska City, NE), and in 1999, the third (Pierre, SD) annual

vi

Missouri River Natural Resources Conference. Two Co-Principal Investigators served as liaison

scientists to a group drafting the Missouri River Environmental Assessment Program. Project

staff attended a June workshop at Yankton, SD to discuss the 1996 data, suggest improvements

for the 1997 season, and report on individual Ph.D. projects. Six PhD projects that are being

done at no extra cost to the funding agencies will add tremendously to the information about

Missouri River ftshes.

Participants

Research is being conducted by six Cooperative Research Units (Montana, Idaho, South

Dakota, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri) in the Biological Resources Division ofthe U. S. Geological

Survey, and by the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Department. Data management, data analysis,

and quality assurance/quality control is done by the Environmental and Contaminants Research

Center ofthe U. S. Geological Survey. Funding through 1997 was received from the U. S. Army

Corps of Engineers, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, and U. S. Geological Survey- Biological Resources Division. The

Cooperative Units are jointly supported by the six state universities (which waived partial

overhead charges for this project), six state game and ftsh agencies, the Wildlife Management

Institute, and U. S. Geological Survey-Biological Resources Division.

Vll

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. iii

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Xlll

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. XVI

List of Appendices xxiv

Introduction 1

Methods 2

Habitat Designations and Study Design 5

Fish Collection 9

Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Standard Operating Procedures 13

Presentations and Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Fieldwork: Physical Habitat Variables 17

Depth 22

Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Water Temperature 28

Conductivity 31

Turbidity 34

Substrate 37

Habitat Data Summary 47

Fieldwork: Fish Sampling 48

Population Structure and Habitat Use of Benthic Fishes Taxa 56

Target Benthic Taxa - Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Habitat Use 172

Size Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Physical H,abitat Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Age and Growth 175

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Appendices 201

Vill

List of Tables

Table 1. Sampling schedule for Missouri River benthic ftsh and physical datacollection in 1997 4

Table 2. List of designated sections and segments in theMissouri and Lower Yellowstone Rivers 6

Table 3. The number of replicate macro- and meso-habitats sampled in MRBFCstudy segments in 1997 8

Table 4. List of ftshes in the Missouri River benthic ftsh guild showing geographic ranges .... 10

Table 5. Fish collection gears used in each Missouri Rivermacro- and meso-habitat during 1997 12

Table 6. Standard operating procedures developed for data collection and analysesin 1997 and personnel responsible for them 14

Table 7. Oral and poster presentations given by Missouri River Benthic Fish Consortiummembers in 1997 15

Table 8. Summary statistics for depth, velocity, water temperature, turbidity,and conductivity in six macrohabitats across allMissouri and Yellowstone River study segments in 1997 21

Table 9. Total numbers of all ftshes collected in each Missouri River andLower Yellowstone Study Segments in 1997 50

Table 10. The ftve numerically dominant ftsh taxa, expressed as the percentage of total catchwithin each Missouri and Lower Yellowstone River study segment in 1997 55

Table 11. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for bigmouth buffalo by gear,across macrohabitats 57

Table 12. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for blue catftsh by gear, across macrohabitats ..... 62

Table 13. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for blue sucker by gear, across macrohabitats ..... 67

Table 14. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for burbot by gear, across macrohabitats 72

IX

Table 15. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for channel catftsh by gear, across macrohabitats ... 77

Table 16. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for common carp by gear, across macrohabitats ... 82

Table 17. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for emerald shiner by gear, across macrohabitats ... 87

Table 18. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for fathead minnow by gear, across macrohabitats .. 92

Table 19. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for flathead catftsh by gear, across macrohabitats .. 97

Table 20. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for flathead chub by gear, across macrohabitats ... 102

Table 21. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for freshwater drum by gear,across macrohabitats 107

Table 22. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for Hybognathus spp. by gear,across macrohabitats 112

Table 23. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for river carpsucker by gear,across macrohabitats 117

Table 24. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for sand shiner by gear, across macrohabitats .... 122

Table 25. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for sauger by gear, across macrohabitats 127

Table 26. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for shorthead redhorse by gear,across macrohabitats 132

Table 27. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for shovelnose sturgeon by gear,across macrohabitats 137

Table 28. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for sicklefm chub by gear, across macrohabitats .. 142

Table 29. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for smallmouth buffalo by gear,across macrohabitats 147

Table 30. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for stonecat by gear, across macrohabitats 152

Table 31. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for sturgeon chub by gear, across macrohabitats .. 157

Table 32. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for walleye by gear, across macrohabitats 162

Table 33. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for white sucker by gear, across macrohabitats ... 167

x

Table 34. Missouri River benthic fIsh species used for age and growth analysis 177

Table 35. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the1991 year-class of channel catfIsh among three Missouri River zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Table 36. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the1995 year-class of emerald shiners among three Missouri River zones 181

Table 37. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the1995 year-class of flathead chubs among three Missouri River zones 183

Table 38. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the1991 year-class of freshwater drum among three Missouri River zones . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Table 39. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the1995 year-class of western silvery minnows among three Missouri River zones ..... 187

Table 40. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the1991 year-class of river carpsuckers among three Missouri River zones 190

Table 41. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the1986 year-class of shovelnose sturgeon among three Missouri River zones 194

Table 42. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the1994 year-class of sicklefIn chubs among three Missouri River zones 196

Table 43. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the1990 year-class of smallmouth buffalo among three Missouri River zones 198

Xl

List of Figures

Figure 1. Historic mean monthly discharge for four locations along the Missouri River 18

Figure 2. Average depth in Missouri and Yellowstone River study segmentsmeasured in 1997 in six macrohabitats 23

Figure 3. Depth comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segments where depth wasmeasured in 1997 24

Figure 4. Average water velocity in Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments measured in 1997 in six macrohabitats 26

Figure 5. Velocity comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segments where velocitywas measured in 1997 27

Figure 6. Average water temperatures in Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments measured in 1997 in six macrohabitats 29

Figure 7. Water temperature comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segmentswhere water temperature was measured in 1997 30

Figure 8. Average conductivity in Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments measured in 1997 in six macrohabitats 32

Figure 9. Conductivity comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segments whereconductivity was measured in 1997 33

Figure 10. Average turbidity in macrohabitats of the Missouri and Yellowstone Riversstudy segments measured in 1997 in six macrohabitats .35

Figure 11. Turbidity comparisons matrix for 18 Missouri River study segments whereturbidity was measured in 1997 36

Figure 12. Proportional gravel substrate occurrence in Missouri and Yellowstonestudy segments measured in 1997 in six macrohabitats .39

Figure 13. Gravel comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segments wheregravel was measured in 1997 40

xii

Figure 14. Proportional sand substrate occurrence in Missouri and Yellowstonestudy segments measured in 1997 in six macrohabitats .41

Figure 15. Sand comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segments wheresand was measured in 1997 42

Figure 16. Proportional silt-clay substrate occurrence in Missouri and Yellowstonestudy segments measured in 1997 in six macrohabitats .43

Figure 17. Silt-clay comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segments wheresilt-clay was measured in 1997 44

Figure 18. Average segment substrate proportions in Missouri and Yellowstonestudy segments 45

Figure 19. Segment averaged values for physical habitat (depth and velocity) andwater quality (temperature and turbidity) variables collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone study segments .46

Figure 20. Trends of bigmouth buffalo catch rates among Missouri andYellowstone River study segments and macrohabitats in 1997 58

Figure 21. Length-frequency histograms of bigmouth buffalo collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 59

Figure 22. Frequency of occurrence of bigmouth buffalo in variousdepth, velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals fromMissouri and Yellowstone River collections 60

Figure 23. Trends of blue catfish catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 63

Figure 24. Length-frequency histograms of blue catfish collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 64

Figure 25. Frequency of occurrence of blue catftsh in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri andYellowstone River collections 65

Figure 26. Trends of blue sucker catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 68

xiii

Figure 27. Length-frequency histograms of blue sucker collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 69

Figure 28. Frequency of occurrence of blue sucker in variousdepth, velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals fromMissouri and Yellowstone River collections 70

Figure 29. Trends of burbot catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 73

Figure 30. Length-frequency histograms of burbot collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 74

Figure 31. Frequency of occurrence of burbot in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri andYellowstone River collections 75

Figure 32. Trends of channel catfIsh catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 78

Figure 33. Length-frequency histograms of channel catfIsh collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 79

Figure 34. Frequency of occurrence of channel catfIsh in variousdepth, velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals fromMissouri and Yellowstone River collections 80

Figure 35. Trends of common carp catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 83

Figure 36. Length-frequency histograms of common carp collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 84

Figure 37. Frequency of occurrence of common carp in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri andYellowstone River collections 85

Figure 38. Trends of emerald shiner catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 88

Figure 39. Length-frequency histograms of emerald shiner collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 89

XlV

Figure 40. Frequency of occurrence of emerald shiner in variousdepth, velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals fromMissouri and Yellowstone River collections 90

Figure 41. Trends of fathead minnow catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 93

Figure 42. Length-frequency histograms of fathead minnow collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 94

Figure 43. Frequency of occurrence of fathead minnow in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri andYellowstone River collections 95

Figure 44. Trends of flathead catfish catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 98

Figure 45. Length-frequency histograms of flathead catfish collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 99

Figure 46. Frequency of occurrence of flathead catfish in variousdepth. velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals fromMissouri and Yellowstone River collections 100

Figure 47. Trends of flathead chub catch rates among Missouri andYellowstone River study segments and macrohabitats in 1997 103

Figure 48. Length-frequency histograms of flathead chub collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 104

Figure 49. Frequency of occurrence of flathead chub in variousdepth, velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals fromMissouri and Yellowstone River collections 105

Figure 50. Trends of freshwater drum catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 108

Figure 51. Length-frequency histograms of freshwater drum collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 109

Figure 52. Frequency of occurrence of freshwater drum in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri andYellowstone River collections 110

xv

Figure 53. Trends of Hybognathus spp. catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 113

Figure 54 Length-frequency histograms of Hybognathus spp. collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 114

Figure 55. Frequency of occurrence of Hybognathus spp. in variousdepth, velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals fromMissouri and Yellowstone River collections 115

Figure 56. Trends of river carpsucker catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 118

Figure 57. Length-frequency histograms of river carpsucker collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 119

Figure 58. Frequency of occurrence of river carpsucker in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri andYellowstone River collections 120

Figure 59. Trends of sand shiner catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 123

Figure 60. Length-frequency histograms of sand shiner collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 124

Figure 61. Frequency of occurrence of sand shiner in variousdepth, velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals fromMissouri and Yellowstone River collections 125

Figure 62. Trends of sauger catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 128

Figure 63. Length-frequency histograms of sauger collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 129

Figure 64. Frequency of occurrence of sauger in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri andYellowstone River collections " 130

Figure 65. Trends of shorthead redhorse catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 133

xvi

Figure 66. Length-frequency histograms of shorthead redhorse collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 134

Figure 67. Frequency of occurrence of shorthead redhorse in variousdepth, velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals fromMissouri and Yellowstone River collections 135

Figure 68. Trends of shovelnose sturgeon catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 138

Figure 69. Length-frequency histograms of shovelnose sturgeon collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 139

Figure 70. Frequency of occurrence of shovelnose sturgeon in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri and

Yellowstone River collections 140

Figure 71. Trends of sicklefin chub catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 143

Figure 72. Length-frequency histograms of sicklefm chub collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 144

Figure 73. Frequency of occurrence of sicklefin chub in variousdepth, velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals fromMissouri and Yellowstone River collections 145

Figure 74. Trends of smallmouth buffalo catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 148

Figure 75. Length-frequency histograms of smallmouth buffalo collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 149

Figure 76. Frequency of occurrence of smallmouth buffalo in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri andYellowstone River collections 150

Figure 77. Trends of stonecat catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 153

Figure 78. Length-frequency histograms of stonecat collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 154

xvii

Figure 79. Frequency of occurrence of stonecat in variousdepth, velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals fromMissouri and Yellowstone River collections 155

Figure 80. Trends of sturgeon chub catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 158

Figure 81. Length-frequency histograms of sturgeon chub collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 159

Figure 82. Frequency of occurrence of sturgeon chub in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri andYellowstone River collections 160

Figure 83. Trends of walleye catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 163

Figure 84. Length-frequency histograms of walleye collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 164

Figure 85. Frequency of occurrence of walleye in variousdepth, velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals fromMissouri and Yellowstone River collections 165

Figure 86. Trends of white sucker catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997 168

Figure 87. Length-frequency histograms of white sucker collected from theMissouri and Yellowstone River sections 169

Figure 88. Frequency of occurrence of white sucker in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri andYellowstone River collections 170

Figure 89. Age frequency distribution and mean back-calculated lengths at agefor blue suckers collected in 1996 178

Figure 90. Age frequency distribution and mean back-calculated length at agefor channel catftsh collected in 1996 180

Figure 91. Age frequency distribution and mean back-calculated length at agefor emerald shiners collected in 1996 182

XVlll

Figure 92. Age frequency distribution and mean back-calculated length at agefor flathead chub collected in 1996 184

Figure 93. Age frequency distribution and mean back-calculated length at agefor freshwater drum collected in 1996 186

Figure 94. Age frequency distributions for brassy minnows and plains minnowscollected in 1996 188

Figure 95. Age frequency distribution and mean back-calculated length at agefor western silvery minnows collected in 1996 189

Figure 96. Age frequency distribution and mean back-calculated length at agefor river carpsuckers collected in 1996 191

Figure 97. Age frequency distribution for sand shiners collected in 1996 192

Figure 98. Age frequency distribution and mean back-calculated length at agefor sauger collected in 1996 193

Figure 99. Age frequency distribution and mean back-calculated length at agefor shovelnose sturgeon collected in 1996 195

Figure 100. Age frequency distribution and mean back-calculated length at agefor sicklefin chub collected in 1996 197

Figure 101. Age frequency distribution and mean back-calculated length at agefor sma1lmouth buffalo collected in 1996 199

XIX

List of Appendices

Appendix A.. Acronyms for Missouri River Benthic Fish Consortium cooperating agencies,macro- and mesohabitats, fish collection gears, and fIshes (including scientifIc names) usedin this report 201

Appendix B. Riverine habitat category diagram 207

xx

Introduction

Modifications to the free-flowing Missouri River since the 1950's are well documented

(Benson 1988). River management that includes conserving and restoring part of the natural river

ecosystem necessitates knowledge of habitat requirements and population dynamics of ftshes.

The overall goal of this study is to provide natural resource agencies and their managers with

fundamental biological and habitat use information for important bottom dwelling ftshes collected

in a standardized format for the entire Missouri and Lower Yellowstone rivers. The project is

being performed by 1) a consortium of Cooperative Research Units in Montana, Idaho, South

Dakota, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri, 2) the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks,

and 3) the Environmental and Contaminants Research Center. The Units and Center are in the

Biological Resources Division of the U. S. Geological Survey. Hereafter the study participants

will be collectively referred to as the Missouri River Benthic Fishes Consortium (MRBFC). Other

acronyms for ftsh (including scientific names), participating agencies, ftsh collection gears and

macro- and mesohabitats used in this report can be found in Appendix A.

The Missouri River "benthic ftsh study" is designed to evaluate population structure and

habitat use of bottom-dwelling fIShes along the main-stem Missouri and Lower Yellowstone

rivers, exclusive of reservoirs. Project objectives are to 1) describe and evaluate recruitment,

growth, size structure, body condition, and relative abundance of selected benthic fIShes, 2)

measure physical habitat features in dominant macrohabitats where fIShes are collected, and 3)

describe the use of dominant macrohabitats by benthic fIShes. This group of fIShes was selected

because it contains eight species identified as "at risk" by state and federal agencies (pallid

sturgeon, lake sturgeon, blue sucker, western silvery minnow, plains minnow, sturgeon chub,

1

sicklefin chub, flathead chub) as well as important recreational and commercial species (e.g.

catfIshes, walleye, sauger, paddlefIsh, buffalo fIshes).

The benthic fIsh study has a duration of 5 years. Two Annual Reports are complete and

available (Braaten and Guy 1995, Dieterman et al. 1996). Objectives in 1995 were 1) establish

the study design including hierarchical delineation of Missouri and Lower Yellowstone rivers

study sections, segments, and macrohabitats, 2) establish a target list of benthic fIshes, and 3)

acquire equipment and evaluate fIsh sampling gears (Braaten and Guy 1995). Objectives in 1996

were to: 1) fmalize study segments 2) develop and test Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for

data collection and analysis, 3) continue preliminary sampling and gear testing, 4) conduct the fIrst

standardized fIeld season, and 5) communicate project design and preliminary results to interested

agencies (Dieterman et al. 1996). Objectives in 1997 were to: 1) suggest and implement any

necessary improvements to existing methods learned from the 1996 season, 2) continue

standardized field sampling for a second year, and 3) communicate project design and preliminary

results to interested agencies and at professional meetings and conferences.

Methods

Sampling was conducted in late summer and early autumn. This time period was chosen

because juveniles of most fIshes would be present and recruited to collection gears, and water

levels are typically low and relatively stable. Field sampling was completed within 13 weeks,

which was within the planned interval for sampling (Table 1). All sampling was done according

to Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that were reviewed by the whole consortium, and

approved by the Principal Investigator (D. Galat) and Quality Assurance Officer (L. Sappington).

2

The SOP manual also contains information on experimental design, coding for data sheets, and

resumes for all project staff. We present only a synopsis of the methods below.

3

Table 1. Sampling schedule for Missouri River benthic fish and physical data collection in 1997. Bold numbers are transition weeks between months.

Week of

Segment July Aug. Sept. Oct.

Al:ency 13- 20- 7127-812 3-9 10-16 17- 24- 8131-9/6 7-13 14-20 21-27 9128-1014 5-11 12-18

3,5 X X X X X X X X X X

MTCRU

7,8,9 X X X X X X X X X X X X X

MTFWP

10,12 X X X X X X X X X

IDCRU

14, 15 X X X X X X X

SDCRU

17,19 X X X X X X X X

IACRU

22,23 X X X X X X X X X

KSCRU

25,27 X X X X X X X X X X X X X

MOCRU

4

Habitat Designations and Study Design

A spatial hierarchical structure (Frissell et al. 1986) composed of nine sections, 27

segments, and six macrohabitats was developed based on geomorphic, hydrologic, and

constructed features (e.g., major tributaries, dams) along the Missouri and Lower Yellowstone

rivers (Table 2). Study sections and segments were grouped into least-impacted, inter-reservoir,

and channelized zones, which are treated in this report in the following manner, least-impacted

sections and segments are underlined, inter-reservoir sections and segments are in bold, and

channelized sections and segments are in italics.

The six macrohabitats (see figure in Appendix B) common to all river segments are

channel cross-overs (CHXO), inside bends (ISB), outside bends (OSB), tributary mouths (TRM),

secondary channels connected (SCC) and secondary channels non-connected (SCN). Because

some macrohabitats are very complex, they were further divided into smaller units termed

mesohabitats. These include inside bend-sand bars (ISB-BARS), inside bend-channel borders

(ISB-CHNB), inside bend-deep pools (ISB-POOL), inside bend-steep shorelines (ISB-STPS),

large and small tributary mouths (TRM-LRGE and TRM-SMLL), deep secondary channels

connected (SCC-DEEP), and shallow secondary channels connected (SCC-SHLW). Finally, a

"wild card" macrohabitat (WILD) was identified for unusual macrohabitats (e.g., dam tailraces)

that are unique to some segments. Five representatives of each macrohabitat and mesohabitat

were sampled, when present, within a segment (Table 3).

A suite of physical habitat variables including bed form, depth (m), velocity (rnIs),

substrate, turbidity (NTU's), water temperature (OC), conductivity (uS/cm), macrohabitat latitude

and longitude coordinates, time, weather conditions, and air temperature eC) were measured at

each fish collection site.

5

Table 2. List of designated sections and segments in the Missouri and Lower Yellowstone Rivers. Study sectionsand segments are grouped into three zones and highlighted in the following manner, least-impacted sections andsegments are underlined, inter-reservoir sections and segments are in bold, and channelized sections andsegments are in italics. Segments indicated by * were sampled in 1997. rmi =river miles.

Section (Agency)Description

1 (MTCRU)Missouri River headwatermainstem (170 rmi)

2 (MTFWP)Upper Inter-Reservoir I(188rmi)

.2 (MTFWP) (71 rmi)Lower Yellowstone River

4 (IDCRU)

Upper Inter- Reservoir n(47 rmi)

5 (IDCRU)Upper Inter-Reservoir m(114 rmi)

6 (SDCRU)Inter-Reservoir IV andUnchannelized Area

(115 rmi)

7 (IACRU)Channelized I(242 rmi)

8 (KSCRU)Channelized II(278 rmi)

Segment and Description (location by rmi) (total segment length)

ill Lorna Ferry - Rattlesnake Coulee (rmi 2052.8-2023.1) (29.7 rmi)02 Rattlesnake Coulee-Arrow Creek (rmi 2023.1-1999.4) (23.7 rmi)03* Arrow Creek-Birch Creek (rmi 1999.4-1980.6) (18.8 rmi)04 Birch Creek-Sturgeon Island (rmi 1980.6-1952.2) (28.4 rmi)05* Sturgeon Island-Beauchamp Coulee (rmi 1952.2-1882.7) (69.5 rmi)

Fort Peck Reservoir (rmi 1882.7-1770.0)

06 Fort Peck Dam-Milk River (rmi 1770.0-1760.0) (10 rmi)07* Milk River-Hwy 13 bridge (Wolf Pt.) (rmi 1760.0-1701.0) (59 rmi)08* Wolf Pt.-Yellowstone River (rmi 1701.0-1582.0) (199 rmi)

09* Intake Diversion Dam-Missouri River Confluence (rmi 71.0-0.0)

10* Yellowstone River-Lake Sakakawea Headwaters (rmi 1582.0-1552.0)(30 rmi)

11 Lake Sakakawea Headwaters-Lake Sakakawea (rmi 1552.0-1535.0)(17 rmi)

Lake Sakakawea (rmi 1535-1389)

12* Garrison Dam-Lake Oahe Headwaters (rmi 1389.0-1304.0) (85 rmi)13 Lake Oahe Headwaters-Lake Oahe (rmi 1304.0-1275.0) (29 rmi)

Lakes Oahe, Sharpe, and Francis Case (rmi 1275.0-880.0)

14* Fort Randall Dam-Lewis and Clark Lake Headwaters (rm 880.0-835.0)(45 rmi)

Lewis and Clark Lake (rmi 835.0-810.0)

15* Gavins Point Dam-Ponca, Nebraska (rmi 810.0-753.0) (57 rmi)16 Ponca, Nebraska-Big Sioux River (rmi 753.0-740.0) (13 rmi)

17* Big Sioux River-Little Sioux River (rmi 740-669.2) (70.8 rmi)18 Little Sioux River-Platte River (rmi 669.2-595.5) (73.7 rmi)19* Platte River-Nishnabotna River (rmi 595.5-542.0) (53.5 rmi)20 Nishnabotna River-Tarkio River (rmi 542.0-498.0) (44 rmi)

21 Rulo, Ne-St. Joseph, MO (rm 498.0-440.0) (58 rmi)22* St. Joseph, MO-Kansas City, MO (rm 440.0-367.5) (72.5 rmi)23* Kansas City, MO-Grand River, MO (rm 367.5-250.0) (117.5 rmi)24 Grand River, MO-Glasgow, MO (rm 250.0-220.0) (30 rmi)

6

Table 1. Continued.

Section (agency)Description

9 (MOCRU)Channelized III

(220 rmi)

Segment and Description (location by rmi) (total segment length)

25* Glasgow River, MO-Osage River (rm 220.0-130.4) (89.6 rmi)26 Osage River-about 20 mi upstream of St. Charles, MO (rm 130.4-50.0)

(80.4 rmi)27* River mile 50.0-Mississippi River Confluence (rm 0.0)

7

Table 3. The number of replicate macro- and meso-habitats sampled in MRBFC study segments in 1997 (CHXO=Channel Crossover, ISB-BARS=Inside Bend-sand bar, ISB-CHNB=Inside Bend-channel border, ISB-POOL=Inside Bend-pool, ISB-STPS=InsideBend-steep shoreline, OSB=Outside Bend, SCC-DEEP=Secondary Channel Connected-Deep, SCC-SHLW=Secondary ChannelConnected-shallow, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-connected, TRM-SMLL=Tributary Mouth-small, TRM-LRGE=Tributary Mouthlarge). Least-impacted segment numbers = underlined, inter-reservoir segment numbers = bold font, and channelized segmentnumbers = italic font.

Macro- and Meso-habitats

ISB- ISB- ISB- ISB- scc- scc- TRM- TRM-n rHXO RAR~ rHNR POOT ~TP~ O~R DEEP ~HT.w ~rN .<i:MTJ TRr.E

3 5 5 5 1 5 1 5 1

5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 3

7 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5

8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1

9 5 5 5 5 5 5 6

10 5 2 3 4 1 5 4 1

12 5 2 3 4 5 5 2

14 5 5 3 5 5 1 1 5

15 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 5

17 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1

19 5 5 5 5 2 5 1

22 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 2

23 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 1

25 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2

27 "i "i "i "i "i "i "i "i "i 4

8

Two study designs were drafted in 1995, a full study that included all 27 segments and a

reduced study that included fewer segments for study (Braaten and Guy 1995). Due to fmancial

and logistic constraints, a design that included 18 segments was chosen in 1996, whereas in 1997,

15 segments were sampled.

Fish Collection

Twenty-six benthic fishes historically present in five of the six states under study, were

targeted for sampling (Table 4). Age and growth analyses were conducted on 15 of the 26

species. Five gears were used for fish collection: experimental gill nets (30.5 m long x 1.8 m

high, with four 7.6 m panels of 19,38,51, and 76 mm square mesh), trammel nets (22.9 m long,

with an inner wall 2.4 m deep with 25 mm bar mesh and a 1.8 m deep outer wall of 203 mm bar

mesh), bag seines (10.7 m long x 1.8 m high with 5 mm mesh and a 1.8 x 1.8 x 1.8 m bag), a

benthic trawl (2 m wide x 0.5 m high x 5.5 m long with 3.2 mm inner mesh), and boat

electrofishing (5,000 watt generator using pulsed DC current and 2 netters with 5 mm mesh dip

nets) (Table 5). A minimum oftwo fish collection gears were used in each mesohabitat. The

exception was SCC-SHLW and ISB-BARS where only a seine was used.

We increased sampling effort in 1997, thinking that more effort concentrated in fewer

segments would allow better estimated of fish population and community structure, and would

provide more fish for age and growth analysis. Consequently, we worked on 15 segments in 1997

instead of 18. The number of gear subsamples in macro- and mesohabitats was increased from

two to three for all gears except electroftshing and stationary gill net; for these gears, we

increased effort, which is the amount the gear was used in a macro- or mesohabitat. Most

electroftshing subsamples were increased from 5 minutes to 10 minutes and gill net sets were

9

Table 4. List of fishes in the Missouri River benthic fish guild showing geographic ranges (from Hesse et al.1989), and functional category. An * indicates species used for age and growth analysis.

Species

Pallid sturgeon

Scaphirhynchus albus

Shovelnose Sturgeon*

Scaphirhynchus platorynchus

Common carp

Cyprinus carpio

Flathead chub*

Platygobio gracilis

Sturgeon chub

Macrhybopsis gelida

Sicldefin chub*

Macrhybopsis meeki

Emerald shiner*

Notropis atherinoides

Sand shiner

Notropis stranimeus

Western silvery minnow*

Hybognathus argyritis

Plains minnow*

Hybognathus placitus

Brassy minnow*

Hybognathus hankinsoni

Fathead minnow

Pimephales promelas

Blue sucker*

Cycloptus elongatus

Bigmouth buffalo

Ictiobus cyprinellus

Geographic Range"

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, IA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, IA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

10

Functional Category"

TE

C

TE&P

TE&P

TE&P

P

P

TE&P

TE&P

P

P

TE

C

Table 4. Continued.

Species

Smallmouth buffalo*

lctiobus bubalus

River carpsucker*

Carpiodes carpio

White sucker

Catostomus commersoni

Shorthead redhorse

Moxostoma macrolepidotum

Flathead catfish*

Pylodictus olivarus

Channel catfish*

lctalurus punctatus

Blue catfish

Ictalurus furcatus

Stonecat

Noturus flavus

Burbot

Lota Iota

Walleye

Stizostedion vitreum

Sauger*

Stizostedion canadense

Freshwater drum*

Geographic Range"

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, IA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

ND,MT

MO, KS, lA, SD,

Functional CategorY'

C

C

p

R

R

R

p

TE

R

R

Aplodinotus grunniens ND, MT C & R

" MO (Missouri), KS (Kansas), IA (Iowa), SD (South Dakota), ND (North Dakota, MT (Montana)bTE (species at risk), P (prey species), C (commercial species), R (recreational species)

11

Table 5. Fish collection gears used in each Missouri River macro- and meso-habitat during 1997.

Macro- and meso-habitats

Channel cross-overs

Outside bends

Inside bends

channel border

bars

pools

steep shorelines

Tributary mouths

small

deep

Secondary channels:

non-connected

Secondary channels:

connected

shallow

deep

Bag

seine

x

X

X

X

Experimental

gill net

x

x

X

12

Collection gears

Boat

electrofishing

x

x

x

X

X

X

Benthic

trawl

x

x

x

X

X

Drifting

trammel net

x

x

x

X

X

changed from 3-hour daytime sets to 12-18-hour overnight sets. In addition, electroftshing was

added as a ftsh collection technique in SCN and SCC-DEEP habitats.

Accomplishments

Standard Operating Procedures

Standard Operating Procedures were modifted for the 1997 fteld season (Sappington et al.

1997). The SOPs covered the experimental design, aquatic macrohabitat classiftcation,

standardized use of ftsh collecting gears, ftsh identiftcation, measurement, and sampling, including

collection of age and growth structures, standardized measurement of physical habitat variables,

data collection and quality assurance and quality control procedures, and data analysis (Table 6).

Presentations and Workshops

From January 1, 1997 to January 1, 1998, the Missouri River Benthic Fish Consortium

members made 15 presentations about the benthic ftsh study and participated in several

workshops and meetings (Table 7). Two workshops were held prior to the 1998 fteld season.

The ftrst was held in Yankton, South Dakota at the Corps of Engineers Office in June 1997.

Doug Dieterman and Mike Ruggles presented data from the 1996 fteld season to MRBFC

members and attendees from state and federal agencies. Additionally, changes to SOPs were

discussed, Ph.D. candidates presented dissertation proposals, and Mark Wildhaber presented an

overview of statistical analysis and hypothesis testing. The group went over SOPs and

macrohabitat delineation and classiftcation on a fteld trip.

13

Table 6. Standard operating procedures developed for data collection and analyses in 1997 and personnelresponsible for them. Summarized from Sappington et al. (1997).

Standard operating procedure

Aquatic Macrohabitat Classification

Sampling Strategy

Bag seining

Benthic trawl

Electrofishing

Gill net

Trammel net

Population structure, age, and growth

Fish Treatment

Pallid sturgeon handling

Bedform

Depth and velocity

Global positioning system

Substrate

Time

Turbidity

Water temperature & conductivity

Weather and air temperature

Responsible agency (Personnel)

Sample Design

MOCRU (Doug Dieterman, David Galat)

SDCRU (Brad Young. Chuck Berry)Fish Collection

IACRU (Mark Pegg, Clay Pierce)

MTCRU (Lee Bergstedt, Bob White)

KSCRU (Pat Braaten, Chris Guy)

SDCRU (Brad Young, Chuck Berry)

MTFWP (Mike Ruggles)Fish Identification and Measurement

IACRU (Mark Pegg, Clay Pierce)


ECRC (Linda Sappington)Physical habitat Measurements

MOCRU (Doug Dietermann, David Galat)

MOCRU (Doug Dietermann, David Galat)



IDCRU (Tim Welker, Dennis Scarnecchia)



MTCRU (Lee Bergstedt, Bob White)

Experimental design

Fish attribute and physical habitat factors

Hypotheses

Statistical analyses

Data Analyses

ECRC (Mark Wildhaber)



ECRC (Mark Wildhaber)Data Collection and QNQC Standard Operating Procedures

Data sheet coding instructions ECRC (Linda Sappington)

Chain of custody ECRC (Linda Sappington)

14

Table 7. Oral and poster presentations given by Missouri River Benthic Fish Consortium members in 1997, exclusive ofbi-annual consortium workshops.MTCRU-Montana Coop Unit, MTFWP-Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, IDCRU-Idaho Coop Unit, SDCRU-South Dakota Coop Unit, IACRU-Iowa CoopUnit, KSCRU-Kansas Coop Unit, MOCRU-Missouri Coop Unit.

Presentation Title AgencylMeeting Presenter Format Location and Date

Ecology and Structure of Fish Communities in the Missouri University of Idaho Faculty IDCRU Oral Moscow,IDand Lower Yellowstone Rivers and Students October 1997

1996 Benthic Fish of the Missouri and Lower Yellowstone Great Plains Fisheries MTFWP Oral Bozeman, MTRivers Workers Association February 1997

1997 Benthic Fish of the Yellowstone and Lower Missouri USGS & BOR Decision MTFWP Oral Fort Collins, CORivers in Montana Support System Meeting December 1997

1997 Benthic Fish Review for the Missouri and Upper Basin Pallid Sturgeon MTFWP Oral Miles City, MTYellowstone Rivers in Montana Working Group December 1997

Distribution of Benthic Fishes in the Missouri River Annual Meeting of the SDCRU Oral Fargo, NODakota Chapter of the AFS February 1997

Population Structure and Habitat Use of Benthic Fishes in Annual Meeting of the SDCRU Poster Fargo, NOthe Missouri River Dakota Chapter of the AFS February 1997

Overview of the Benthic Fish Study - Objectives and South Dakota Missouri River SDCRU Oral Brookings, SDPreliminary Results and Reservoir Management March 1997

Conference

The Benthic Fish Study: An Example of Cooperative Information Management SDCRU Oral Sioux Falls, SDInformation Management Workshop May 1997

The Status of the Benthic Fish Study on the Missouri River Annual Meeting of the SDCRU Oral Sioux City, IAMissouri River Coalition October 1997

Longitudinal Age and Growth Comparison of Missouri 59th Midwest Fish and IACRU Oral Milwaukee, WIRiver Shovelnose Sturgeon Wildlife Conference December 1997

15

Presentation Title AgencylMeeting Presenter Format Location and Date

Population Structure and Habitat Use of Benthic Fishes 59th Midwest Fish and KSCRU Poster Milwaukee, WIAlong the Missouri and Lower Yellowstone Rivers Wildlife Conference December 1997

Population Structure and Habitat Use of Benthic Fishes 1st Annual Conference on MOCRU Poster Columbia, MOAlong the Missouri River Natural Resources of the January 1997

Missouri River Basin

Population Structure and Habitat Use of Benthic Fishes Missouri Forest, Fish, and MOCRU Poster Osage Beach, MOAlong the Missouri River Wildlife Conference February 1997

Population Structure and Habitat Use of Benthic Fishes USGS-BRD MOCRU Oral Reston, VIAlong the Missouri River July 1997

Population Structure and Habitat Use of Benthic Fishes Lower Mississippi River MOCRU Oral Cape Girardeau, MOAlong the Missouri River Conservation Commission July 1997

Annual Meeting

16

The second workshop was held in March 1998 in conjunction with the Second Annual

Conference on Natural Resources of the Missouri River Basin at the Lied Conference Center in

Nebraska City, Nebraska. Several presentations were given at the conference by MRBFC

members that discussed the study. The workshop was held at the conclusion of the conference.

Topics discussed included final forms of SOPs, the degree of access contributing agencies had to

data, synthesis of data basin wide, and the 1997 annual report. Ph. D. candidates gave

presentations on dissertations proposals and preliminary data analysis.

Fieldwork: Physical Habitat Variables

The physical conditions of the river in 1997 were not typical but sampling was completed

as scheduled. A harsh winter throughout the basin and deep snow packs in the mountains yielded

unusually high flows. The upper and inter-reservoir zones were most affected (Figure 1),

however the channelized zone where flows are governed by large tributaries

(e.g. Platte River) did not experience as much flow increase. The high flows caused the river to

widen and thus habitat conditions changed. For example, high water reduced the number of ISB

BAR, but increased the number of flooded backwaters (Table 3). The number of replicate

mesohabitats sampled varied due to availability in each section (Table 3).

Physical habitat measurements were compared among segments and macrohabitats by first

averaging subsamples (i.e., sites within replicate macrohabitats where an individual gear is

deployed and physical habitat measurements taken) by gear within each mesohabitat. These gear

values were then averaged to produce a value for each mesohabitat. For example, ISB-BARS

and ISB-CHNB mesohabitats were averaged for an ISB macrohabitat. Thus, data were collapsed

17

across macrohabitats and segments. The 5 macrohabitat replicate means were then averaged

within each segment.

Average depths across segments and macrohabitats ranged from 0.1-6.84 m, average

velocities from 0.0-3.91 mis, average water temperatures from 12.8-30.1 °C, and average

turbidities from 3-832 NTUs (Table 8). Means of physical habitat variables were compared

among segments and macrohabitats using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In order to

stabilize variance, turbidity and conductivity were transformed using 10g lO and proportions of

gravel, sand, and silt were transformed using arcsine of the square root. We did not address

homogeneity of variance due to the robustness of ANOVA when replicates are equal or near

equal as is the case across segments in this study (Miliken and Johnson 1984). If segment by

macrohabitat interactions were detected, plots of each physical habitat variable by segment were

examined for each macrohabitat to discern where interactions occurred. These interaction plots

are presented below to help provide segment trends and linkages to fIsh data in subsequent report

sections. Fisher's Least SignifIcant Difference test for preplanned comparisons was used to

evaluated mean differences. An alpha of 0.05 was selected as evidence of signifIcance in all

comparisons. Summary statistics for depth, velocity, water temperature, turbidity, and

conductivity for the entire Missouri River and Lower Yellowstone River can be found in Table 8.

Although physical habitat variables were measured at each fIsh collection location to

characterize the habitats where fIsh were sampled, they also provide an index to trends in physical

habitat conditions among segments and macrohabitats. Our stratifIed random sampling approach

to measuring physical habitat variables does not yield an accurate representation of habitat

availability in each segment because habitats were not sampled in proportion to their availability.

18

Landusky. MT -lDli 1.921.6_....------------------------------------

OIL.....- -............

-+------------------------,=-------------

-t:=;..-=:;::::;::~==-~::::I~==="""*..<;;;;;-:::::...~.....i::~~~_=~~:.~-====~.+-__..... .....r~ ..r~--___,---,....--__._--__,_---~--rT~----r~r-_---,_.

-.- __ 1117

Bismarck. NO - rmi 1.314.5- ~ ..- ---- ~ ~ ~...~ ~- --

•_. --. ... - - .....-.- - _t117

Omaha. NE - rmi 615.9- ..- /' ----/ - -- - -~ --- ~ ~--~~~ ~--

r .. ' .. .... ~ ....- ~.... ~ r

•_.Doo. .... Pol.

_. ... - - 1IIr ..... OIL

-.- - _ tII7

Boonville. MO - nni 196.6-- -/ --.-.- -/ "8-....... ~ ~ ---~ '- ~ ./' .......~ .... ....- '.~

•-. Doo. .... .... _. ... -- - .... ..... OIL

-.- - _ 1117

Figure 1. Historic (X's: LIndusky- 1934-1996; Bismarck- 1954-1996; Omaha-I953-1996; BoooCYillo- 1953-1996) II1d1997 (llqIUIRII) DlC8Il moothly disclwp for' four locatiOllllI101lB the Miuouri Riva'. Note y-axis scalcs VII)' withgausing staIioo locatioo.

19

In the following discussion of each habitat variable we have included a figure showing the

habitat value plotted by macrohabitat across all segments, and a matrix table that shows statistical

similarities between segments for that variable. Some figures have gaps in the habitat value lines

because that macrohabitat was absent from that segment. Specifically, tributary mouths were not

sampled in segments .3. or 2, secondary channels: non-connected were not sampled in segments

17, 19, 23, and 25, and secondary channels-connected were not sampled in segment 17.

20

Table 8. Summary statistics for depth, velocity, water temperature, turbidity and conductivity in sixmacrohabitats across all Missouri and Yellowstone River study segments in 1997. Turbidity andconductivity means and SD's are loglO transformed. Minimum and maximum values are segment averages.

Maerohabitat Characteristic N Mean SD Minimum-Maximum

CHXO Depth (m) 75 4.30 1.83 1.07 - 8.15

Velocity (m/s) 73 1.23 0.55 0.28 - 3.91

Water temperature (C) 75 22.02 4.38 12.87 - 28.17

Turbidity (NTUs) 75 1.55 0.53 0.50 - 2.88

Conductivity (yS/cm) 73 2.80 0.13 2.52 - 2.97

OSB Depth (m) 73 4.43 1.51 0.82 - 6.84

Velocity (m/s) 73 1.04 0.35 0.28 - 2.01


Turbidity (NTUs) 73 1.51 0.50 0.57 - 2.85


ISB Depth (m) 75 2.48 1.29 0.34 - 5.94

Velocity (m/s) 75 0.57 0.23 0.15 - 1.60


Turbidity (NTUs) 75 1.59 0.51 0.49 - 2.91


TRM Depth (m) 60 2.03 1.12 0.49 - 0.03

Velocity (m/s) 57 0.04 0.09 0.0 - 0.61


Turbidity (NTUs) 60 1.54 0.39 0.85 - 2.81


SCC Depth (m) 98 1.27 0.95 0.10 - 3.62

Velocity (m/s) 98 0.41 0.24 0.0 - 1.05


Turbidity (NTUs) 95 1.57 0.42 0.60 - 2.92


SCN Depth (m) 40 1.08 0.53 0.31 - 3.00

Velocity (m/s) 40 0.03 0.06 0.0 - 0.32


Turbidity (NTUs) 40 1.54 0.44 0.70 - 2.92

Conductivny(yS/cm) 40 2.79 0.10 2.56 - 3.07

21

Depth

Depth (m) differed significantly among segments (P =0.(01), and macrohabitats (P =

0.(01), but there was a significant interaction (P =0.0001). Depth increased in continuous

macrohabitats (CHXO, ISB, and OSB) from upper to lower segments while discrete

macrohabitats (TRM, SCC, and SCN) showed no longitudinal trends (Figure 2). Macrohabitats

were significantly different (P < 0.05) from each other except for OSB and CHXO, and SCC and

SCN. Depth decreased in macrohabitats in the following order; OSB, CHXO, ISB, TRM, SCC,

and SCN (Table 8). Channelized, inter-reservoir, and least-impacted segments generally grouped

together in segment only comparisons (Figure 3). Depth (m) was greatest in segment 19 (sample

mean =4.06) followed in order by 17 (4.02 m), 22 (3.80 m), 23 (3.75 m), 14 (3.14 m), 25 (2.84

m), 15 (2.70 m), 27 (2.64 m), 10 (2.63 m), 8 (2.28 m), 7 (2.23 m), 12 (2.16 m), 2 (1.75 m), ~

(1.52 m), and J (1.10 m). In general, segment depths were shallowest in least-impacted segments

and deepest in channelized segments.

22

Depth

CHXO OSB8

7

6

'i 5

j:2

1

o

_/-........./ "--

'" .A I- / • 'II

/' -.........1

8

7

6

'i 5

i:2

1

o

/ ~~ ~

i/

,../'

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27Segment

ISH

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27Segment

SCC8

7

6

~5

t:2

1

o

A~ '-.-----

----JO.. J

....---- ....-

I I I I I I I I

8

7

6

'i 5

i:2

1

o

.. •... / "." ... I'\.~ --- .........., ""I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27Segment

TRM

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27Segment

SCN

7

6

'i 5

j:2

1

o

A....... / ~ ...'"

........ "- •I I I I

8

7

6

'i 5

j:2

1

o

............... ..... ~ •..............- . .... .

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27Segment

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27Segment

Figure 2. Average depth (m) in Missouri and Yellowstone (segment 9) River study segments measured in1997 in six macrohabitats. CHXO-channel crossover, OSB-outside bend, ISB-inside bend, SCCsecondary channel connected, TRM-tnbutary mouth, SCN-secondary channel non-connected. Leastimpacted segments: 3, 5, and 9; Inter-reservoir segments: 7,8, 10, 12, 14, and 15; Channelized segments:17, 19,22,23,25, and 27.

23

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

3 N N

5 N N

7 I I X X X

8 I I I I X

9 N X

10 I I I X X

12 I

14 I I X

15 I X X

17 C C C C

19 C C C

22 C C

23 C

25 C C

27 C

Figure 3. Depth comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segments where depth wasmeasured in 1997. A box with a letter in it means that those segments are not statisticallydifferent from each other. N =natural or least-impacted segments, I =inter-reservoir segments,and C = channelized segments. C, I, and N indicate where two channelized, inter-reservoir, orleast-impacted segments are not different from each other. An X indicates 2 segments nototherwise grouped are statistically the same.

24

Velocity

Velocity (m1s) differed significantly among segments (P = 0.00(1), macrohabitats (P =

0.001), and had a significant interaction (P =0.001). Velocity increased in channelized segments

in CHXOs and OSBs, especially in the transition area between inter-reservoir and channelized

segments, but showed no trends across segments in ISBs, SCC, SCN, and TRMs (Figure 4).

Average velocities were slowest in SCN and TRMs, while CHXOs and OSBs exhibited the

greatest average velocities (Table 8). ISBs and SCC all had intermediate average velocities. In

general, most least-impacted and inter-reservoir segments were not significantly (P < 0.05)

different from each other. However, channelized segments 17 and 19 were significantly different

from most all other segments (Figure 5). Mean velocities decreased across segments in the

following order; segment 19 (0.99 m1s), 17 (0.90 m1s), 23 (0.85 m1s), J (0.81 m1s), 22 (0.68 m1s),

25 (0.57 m1s), 27 (0.56 m1s), 10 (0.55 m1s), 12 (0.54 m1s), 15 (0.52 m1s), 2 (0.48 m1s), 7 (0.48

m1s), 8 (0.47 m1s), and.2 (0.43 m1s). In general, the highest average current velocities were found

in channelized segments.

25

CHXO

Velocity

OSB

/'\

" \./ .....

oJ' ------...--...... / ......... /'..... .-- •

I

-""- .----- 1'-- "- /' "---.. / • ...~

2.22

1.1....us11.4

1.2

f 10••

>0.60.40.2

o

2.22

I .•.... 1.6~·1.4

Su

fo.~>0.6

0.40.2

o

. ./ " /'

JI . ./'

\. ----.. /\. '\. 1.. ......

I I I I I I I

3 5 7 • 9 W U U ~ ~ ~ n n ~ vlIcrpI-

ISB

""- --- r ""-- "-..,/ ........ -----./357 • 9 W n U ~ ~ ~ n n ~ ~

s...-a

TRM

2.22

I .•_1.6:,&1.4

f""'I.2. 1

0••>0.6

0.40.2

o3 5 7 • 9 wnw ~ n ~ n n ~ ~

s...-

scc2.2

2I .•

_1.6:,&1.4

:f~-10.•> 0.6

0.40.2

o3 5 7 • 9 W U W ~ n ~ n D ~ ~

s...-

SCN

I\./ \.... ~ ~ ... • •

2.22

1.1-.1.6j 1.4"'" 1.2

fo.~> 0.6

0.40.2

o357 • 9 W n U ~ ~ ~ n D ~ ~

s...-a

2.22

I .•-.1.6j 1.4

f""'l~

0••>0.6

0.40.2

o3 5 7 • 9 W U W ~ n ~ n D ~ ~

s.-t

Figure 4. Avaage water velocity (mla) in Missouri and Ye1loWBtone (segmcm 9) Riva' study segmentsmeasured in 1997 in six macrohabitats. CHX().cbarmeJ CI'OIISOVa', OSB-outside bend, ISB-inside bend,sec-secondary channel connected, TRM-tributary mouth, SCN-secondary Maund non-ccmnected. Leastimpectecl segmarts: 3,5, and 9; Inter-reservoir segments: 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 15; CbenneJized segmarts:17, 19,22,23,25, and 27.

26

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

3 N X X X

5 N N N N X X X X X X X

7 I I N X X X X X X

8 I X I I I I X X

9 N X X X X

10 I I I I X X

12 I I I X X

14 I I X X

15 I X X

17 C C C

19 C

22 C C

23 C

25 C C

27 C

Figure 5. Velocity comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segments where velocity wasmeasured in 1997. A box with a letter in it means that those segments are not statisticallydifferent from each other. N =natural or least-impacted segments, I =inter-reservoir segments,and C = channelized segments. C, I, and N indicate where two channelized, inter-reservoir, orleast-impacted segments are not different from each other. An X indicates 2 segments nototherwise grouped are statistically the same.

27

Water Temperature

Water temperature(OC) differed significantly among segments (P =O.(XH), but not

macrohabitats (P =0.8823). However, there was a significant (P =0.0003) interaction between

segments and macrohabitats. Water temperatures in all macrohabitats displayed similar trends of

increasing temperature from upper to lower Missouri River (Figure 6). However, lowest average

water temperatures for most macrohabitats were found in segments below Fort Peck Dam

(segment 7) and Garrison Dam (segment 12). Fort Peck Reservoir and Garrison Reservoir (Lake

Sakakawea) are the two largest impoundments in this study and exhibit hypolimnetic releases.

Generally, most least-impacted and inter-reservoir segments were significantly (P < 0.05) different

from each other, whereas differences among channelized segments tended to have similar

temperatures (Figure 7). Temperatures decreased across segments in the following order; 27

(25.79 °C), 19 (25.09 °C), 17 (24.68 °C), 25 (24.56 °C), 22 (24.52 °C), 23 (24.43 °C), 15

(24.05 °C), 14 (23.76 °C), J (21.64 °C), ~ (20.90 °C),.2 (20.47 °C), 10 (20.11 °C),8 (17.48

°C), 12 (16.51 °C), and 7 (14.40 °C). Average segment temperatures were generally warmest in

the lower, channelized segments and coldest in segments below Fort Peck (segment 7) and

Garrison (Segment 12) Dams.

28

CHXO

Temperature

OSB302126

014

-J:II16

,",141210I

- --............. "-- ./- ,.V\ /'... /

\ / • /.. "\..// ..

3 5 7 • 9 W 12 ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ ~ ~......

ISB

302.26

014-I:II

~ ::1210

•

~

---- --------,......--, ~ /\ / "\ /\ ~ \ /\/ \/.

3 5 7 I 9 W 12 ~ ~ ~ ~ II n ~ ~......

SCC

....~ -------...... i

\ /'... // ... /

~ "\..//

---- /"--a....... ......./ fa'

'\ /.. --- '\/

'\ / '\/Y -

f I I I I I I I I I I I I I

......

'" ,-- """-~ -.......----/ "\..../'

/j

.......

./\

J'. / \/ '\ \

" r \/V

302126

0'14

J~:

]614]2]0

•3 5 7 • 9 10 ]2 ]4 ]5 17 ]9 22 ~ ~ 27

lIeaa-t

TRM302126

0'14

-I:16

,",141210I

3 5 7 8 8 10 12 14 15 17 18 22 23 215 278egment

302126

0 14

~I~]6

'"' ]4]2]0I

3 5 7 • 9 ro 12 " ~ ~ " 22 ~ ~ ~IllIpMat

SCN302126

0'14

~I:16

,",141210I

3 5 7 8 8 10 12 14 15 17 18 22 23 215 278egmInt

YJgUre 6. Average water temperatures COC) in Missouri and Yellowstone (segment 9) River study segmentsmeasured in 1997 in six III8ClObabitata. CHXO-ebannel~, OSB-outside bald, lSD-inside bead,SCC-secondIry dvumel connected, TRM-tributary mouth, SCN-secondIry cbannel DOD-CODDeCted. Leastimpacted segmnrta: 3, S, and 9; Inter-reservoir segments: 7, S, 10, 12, 14, aad 15; Channelized segmnrta:17, 19,22,23,25, and 27.

29

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

3 N N N

5 N N X

7 I

8 I I

9 N X

10 I

12 I

14 I I X X X X

15 I X X X X X

17 C C C C C C

19 C C C C C

22 C C C

23 C C

25 C

27 C

Figure 7. Water temperature comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segments wherewater temperature was measured in 1997. A box with a letter in it means that those segments arenot statistically different from each other. N = natural or least-impacted segments, 1= interreservoir segments, and C = channelized segments. C, I, and N indicate where two channelized,inter-reservoir, or least-impacted segments are not different from each other. An X indicates 2segments not otherwise grouped are statistically the same.

30

Conductivity

Conductivity <J,tS/cm) differed significantly among segments (P =0.00(1), but not

macrohabitats (P =0.6426). However, there was a significant interaction between segments and

macrohabitats (P =0.00(1). Conductivity was higher in CHXOs, OSBs, ISBs, and SCC in

channelized segments (Figure 8), and exhibited the greatest increase in these macrohabitats in the

transition area between inter-reservoir and channelized segments. In general, TRM conductivities

were lower in channelized segments than in natural or inter-reservoir segments. Tributary mouths

had the highest average conductivity (682.69 /-lS/cm) across segments, whereas SCC had the

lowest (613/-lS/cm). Other macrohabitats had intermediate average conductivities. Generally,

most inter-reservoir segments were not significantly (P < 0.05) different from each other (Figure

9). Mean conductivities decreased across segments in the following order; 14 (853.53 /-lS/cm), 15

(848.41/-lS/cm), 17 (797.61/-lS/cm), 19 (796.83/-lS/cm), 23 (748.67 /-lS/cm), 27 (748.14/-lS/cm),

25 (746.65 /-lS/cm), 22 (719.79 /-lS/cm), 7 (629.42/-lS/cm), 8 (627.24/-lS/cm), 9 (557 /-lS/cm), 12

(529.33/-lS/cm), 10 (495.74/-lS/cm), 3 (436.02/-lS/cm), and 5 (397.14/-lS/cm).

31

Conductivity

CHXO OSSf200 f200

1000 1000

I: J:... -

/ / ....

/ ........... -i / "----J

200 200

0 0 I

3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S 27 357 • 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27.... s...-

ISS secf200 1 1200

1000 31000...

f: I: - -/

.../ ---

~/ ""-- ----I / -...:::.....-I

200 200

o4--r--r--r--r--,--,..----,.--,,.....--,---.--.---r--r--,

3 5 7 • 9 W 12 M 15 U a 22 23 2S 27s...-

TRM.....1200.--------------110004-----.'\----------

J:+------\-1~~200+--------------

o+--.---.-....----r--..---.-r--lr--T---.--.----r--r3 57. 9 W 12 W 15 U a 22 23 2S ~.....

o I

3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S 27.....SCN

1 1200

31000-+-------------I:+-_/-I-J'--~~__=__,--I-7---------·---.

2004--------------

0 1 -,

3 5 7 • 9 W 12 W 15 U a 22 23 2S ~......FtgUre 8. Awrap CODductMty (J1S1cm) inMisIouri aDd YeI1owItoDe (sepvmt 9) Riwr study IelPJ""IUmeuured in 1997 in am IDIaObIbitatI. CHXO-cb.nneI croucMlI', OSB-outside bead, ISB-iDIide bead,SCe-secoDdary channel CODDeCted. TRM-tributiry mouth. SCN-recoDdary cJwmc1 oon-coDClCted. Leutimpected aegmenta: 3, S,IDd 9; Inter-raervoir 1egIJVI'tI: 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, IDd IS; Cbennetized aeamenta~ 17,19, 2.2. 23, 25, aDd 27.

32

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

3 N N

5 N

7 I I

8 I

9 N X

10 I I

12 I

14 I I X

15 I X X

17 C C C C

19 C C C

22 C C C C

23 , C C C

25 C C

27 C

Figure 9. Conductivity comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segments whereconductivity was measured in 1997. A box with a letter in it means that those segments are notstatistically different from each other. N = natural or least-impacted segments, I = inter-reservoirsegments, and C = channelized segments. C, I, and N indicate where two channelized, interreservoir, or least-impacted segments are not different from each other. An X indicates 2segments not otherwise grouped are statistically the same.

33

Turbidity

Turbidity (log transformed NTU's) differed significantly among segments (P = 0.00(1),

but not macrohabitats (P = 0.2621). The interaction term was significant (P = 0.00(7). Turbidity

generally increased in CHXOs, OSBs, ISBs, and SCC from river segments 3 to 10. Segment 12

showed a sharp decrease in all macrohabitats and remained low through segment 15. Segment 17

began a gradual increase again. Average segment turbidities followed the same pattern with

gradual downstream increases interrupted by extremely low turbidities in the lower inter-reservoir

segments. Secondary channels: non connected and TRMs displayed no turbidity trends across

segments. Comparisons among segments exhibited few generalized patterns (Figure 10).

Segments 12 (5<= 7.2 NTUs) and 14 (5<= 6.0 NTus) had the lowest segment average turbidities,

and were the only inter-reservoir segments that were not different from each other. Turbidity

(NTUs) decreased in the following segment order: 10 (5<=147.3), 2 (5<=88.0), 22 (5<=75.8), 23

(5<=69.4),27 (5<=64.4), 25 (5<=49.0), 8 (5<=48.8),19 (5<=43.2), .5. (5<=32.7), ~ (5<=31.7),17

(5<=28.7), 15 (5<=27.5), 7 (5<=17.3),12 (5<=8.4), and 14 (5<=17.3). Segments 12, 14, and 15 are

immediately downstream from reservoirs (Figure 11).

34

TurbidityCHXO OSB

210

240

200

:S IlIO

Ii: 120

10

40 ....-----"o+--r--r--r-,.---,,........Jl'='=:--.----r--,--,.---r--r---,

3 S 7 • , ~ n ~ un" D D D ~.....

210

Z40

200

IlIO

~ 12010

40

o+--,----r---r--r----,---lP='F-...---...,----.---,---r---r----.3 S 7 • , ~ n ~ un" D D D ~......

S 7 • 9 ~ n ~ un" D D D ~.....

see210

Z40

zao:S IlIO

Ii: 120

10

40

o+--,---r---r----,-....--~,.::..-,---r---r---,-....--~:I

ISB210

240

200

:S IlIO

Ii: 120

10

40

o+--,--,.-----r--r---,---ll'='F--r-...,---,---r--r--r--,3 S 7 • , ~ n ~ u U " D D D ~......

•

S 7 • 9 ~ n ~ u n W D D D ~.....

210

Z40

200

~:1040 - __~

o+--,--,.---r---,-----,----';'--...--...----.----.---,---r---r----.:I

SCNTRM'to

, ~ n ~ u U W D D D ~.....3 S 7 •

210

240

200

~:10

40

o+--.---r--r---,---,r-r-r-..........,.-r----r----r---,-

Figure 10. Average turbidity (NTU's) in macrohabitats of the Missouri andYellowstone (9) Rivers study segments. CHXC>-channel crossover; OSB-outsidebend; ISB-inside bend; SCC-secondary channel ccmnected; TRM-tributBly mouth;SCN=secondaJy cbaDDel non-eonnectecl. Least-impacted segments: 3, S, and 9;Inter-reservoir segments: 7, 8. 10, 12, 14, and IS; Channelized segments: 17. 19.22.23, 2S, and 27.

35

1 2 6 7 8 2 10 12 14 15 17 18 19 21 22 23 25 27

1 N N X X x

2 N X X X

6 I

7 I

8 I X X x

2 N X X X

10 I

12 I I

14 I

15 I X

17 C

18 C

19 C C

21 C

22 C C C

23 C C

25 C C

27 C

Figure 11. Turbidity comparisons matrix for 18 Missouri River study segments where turbiditywas measured in 1997. A box with a letter in it means that those segments are not statisticallydifferent from each other. N=natural or least-impacted segments, I=inter-reservoir segments, andC=ehannelized segments. C, I, and N indicate where two channelized, inter-reservoir, or 1eastimpacted segments are not different from each other. An X indicates 2 segments not otherwisegrouped are statistically the same.

36

Substrate

The percentage of substrates composed of gravel (arc-sine of the square root transformed

proportion) was significantly different among macrohabitats (P = O.(XXH), segments (P = 0.00(1),

and the interaction term was also significant (P = 0.0394). At the 0.05 significance level, gravel

substrates in OSB and CHXO differed from each other and from all other macrohabitats, ISB

gravel substrates differed from all others except SCC, SCC gravel substrates differed from all

others except ISB, SCN gravel substrates differed from all others except TRM, and TRM gravel

substrates differed from all others except SCN (Figure 12). Gravel percentages by macrohabitat

decreased in the following order: OSB (5<=20.0%), CHXO (5<=16.1%), ISB (5<=9.6%), SCC

(5<=8.5%), SCN (5<=0.8%), and TRM (5<=0.2%). Least-impacted, upriver segments generally had

higher gravel percentages than inter-reservoir and channelized, down-river segments (Figure 13).

TRM and SCN habitats had little if any gravel component. The percent of substrate composed of

gravel decreased by segment in the following order: 1 (5<=66.4%),2 (5<=31.0%), 2 (5<=18.8%), 19

(5<=9.6%),27 (5<=8.6%),15 (5<=7.8%), 7 (5<=6.6%),14 (5<=5.0%), 17 (5<=4.6%),12 (5<=3.7%),

22 (5<=3.6%), 10 (5<=2.3%), 23 (5<=2.2%), 25 (5<=1.4%), and 8 (5<=0.4%).

The percentage of substrates composed of sand (arc-sine of the square root transformed

proportion) was significantly different among segments (P = 0.00(1), macrohabitats (P = 0.00(1),

and the interaction term was also significant (P = 0.00(1). At the 0.05 significance level. sand

substrates in CHXO differed from all other macrohabitats, OSB, ISB, and SCC sand substrates

did not differ from each other, but did differ from the other three macrohabitats, and SCN and

TRM habitats did not differ from each other, but did differ from the other four macrohabitats.

Sand substrate percentages erratically increased in CHXO and OSB macrohabitats from upper to

lower river segments (FigureI4). Other macrohabitats showed no discernable trends. Sand

percentages by macrohabitat decreased in the following order: CHXO (5<=83.3%), OSB

(5<=68.3%), ISB (5<=66.7%), SCC (5<=61.4%), SCN (5<=14.2%), and TRM (5<=9.2%). Sand was

the dominant substrate in all segments and provided little differentiation between segments

(Figure 15). The percent of substrate composed of sand decreased by segment in the following

order: 10 (5<=73.5%), 17 (5<=69.1 %),15 (5<=62.8%), 25 (5<=62.6%), 23 (5<=61.4%), 8

(5<=59.1%),14 (5<=57.6%),12 (5<=55.7%), 19 (5<=55.3%), 7 (5<=53.8%),27 (5<=53.4%),22

37

(5<=44.8%),2 (5<=34.0%), ~ (5<=31.1 %), and J (5<=22.3%).

The percentage of substrates composed of silt (arcsin of the square root transformed

proportion) was significantly different among segments (P = 0.0001), macrohabitats (P = 0.0001),

and the interaction term was also significant (P = 0.0001). At the 0.05 significance level, sand

substrates in CHXO and OSB significantly differed from each other and all other macrohabitats.

ISB, and SCC silt substrates did not differ from each other, but did differ from the other four

macrohabitats, and SCN and TRM sand substrates did not differ from each other, but did differ

from the other four macrohabitats (FigureI6). Silt percentages by macrohabitat decreased in the

following order: TRM (5<=89.4%), SCN (5<=84.2%), SCC (5<=26.6%), ISB (5<=20.6%), OSB

(5<=4.4%), and CHXO (5<=0.2%). There were no trends of increase or decrease in silt percentages

from the upper to lower river (Figure 17). Substrates in SCN and TRM habitats were generally

dominated by silt and CHXO and OSB habitats were practically void of silt. The percent of

substrate composed of silt decreased by segment in the following order: 22 (5<=51.5%),27

(5<=43.0%),12 (5<=39.9%), 8 (5<=39.6%),2 (5<=38.3%), 7 (5<=37.2%),23 (5<=33.7%),25

(5<=33.6%),19 (5<=33.1 %), ~ (5<=32.9%),14 (5<=32.9%),17 (5<=24.7%),15 (5<=23.5%),10

(5<=23.0%), and J (5<=20.2%). The percent of cobble substrate was determined, but data are not

available for this report.

38

CHXO

Gravel Substrate

OSB10090III10

I:'#,40

302010o+--r--.-*-r~----r--;----.----JtL..,,..--l!""""ip=~

3 S 7 • 9 W U U una D a ~ ~......

ISB10090III10

]:'#,40

302010o-+----,-......+--.-~~~~=t'==*=-p--..-.. .......

3 5 7 • 9 ~ U U una D ~ ~ ~.....

TRM10090III10

]:'#,40

3020100+--,-................................... ---................-..__

3 S 7 • 9 W U U una D ~ ~ ~.....

10090III10

]:'#,40

302010o-+-....,.....,.-"'--.--r--r-r----r---r---.----.---r-.c-i

3 S 7 • 9 W U U una D ~ ~ ~......

sec10090III10

I:'#,40

302010o+-....,..,:::¥-.-~--.-..,..-,...--.--<p----....~::::op=~

3 S 7 • • w U u una D ~ ~ ~.....

SCN10090III10

I:'#,40

302010o~_,__::....._....-=r=~........................__._-.--.---r---r-__.

3 S 7 • 9 W U U una D ~ ~ ~.....YJgUte 12. ProportioD8l gravel substrate occurrence in Missouri and Yellowstone (9) studysegments. Percentages are a proportioD8l representation ofthe occumnce ofgravel inrelation to saDd and siIt-clay. CHXO=cbanDel crossover; OSB=outside bend; ISB=iDsidebend; SCC=secondary cJwmel connected; TRM=tributary mouth; SCN=secondarycbarmel non-coonected. Leut-impactecI sqpnmta: 3. S. and 9; lDta'-reservoir sqpnmta:7. 8. 10. 12. 14. and IS; Channelized sqpnmta: 17. 19. 22. 23. 2S. and 27.

39

~ 2 7 8 2 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

~ N

2 N N

7 I I I I I X X X X X X

8 I I I X X X x

2 N

10 I I I I X X X X X

12 I I I X X X X X X

14 I I X X X X X X

15 I X X X X X X

17 C C C C C C

19 C C

22 C C C C

23 C C C

25 C C

27 C

Figure 13. Gravel comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segments where gravel wasmeasured in 1997. A box with a letter in it means that those segments are not statisticallydifferent from each other. N=natural or least-impacted segments, I=inter-reservoir segments, andC=ehannelized segments. C, I, and N indicate where two channelized, inter-reservoir, or leastimpacted segments are not different from each other. An X indicates 2 segments not otherwisegrouped are statistically the same.

40

Sand Substrate

CHXO OSB100901070

l:~40

302010o-+-......-......-.,--.,---.--.--r----.----.----,----,---,---,---,

3 5 7 • , W U " " n aDD D ~.....

100901070

l:~40

302010o+--.--......-......---.-.,---.--r--r----.----.----.----,--,---,

3 5 7 • , w u " " n aDD D ~.....

ISB SCC100901070

l:~40

302010o+-......-.,--.,---.--.--r--r----.---,....--,....--,....--,---,---,

3 5 7 • , w u " " n aDD D ~.....

100901070

l:~40

3020100+--.--....,..........,......-.--.--.----.--.-.---.----.---,....--,....--,

3 5 7 • , w u " " n aDD D ~.....

TRM SCN

•

5 7 • , w u " " n aDD D ~.....

100901070

l:~40

302010o+-.......,......,.,::::,..::::.,p..o::::r=T--r--.-r--.---,....--,....-,

33 5 7 • , w u " " n aDD D ~.....

100901070

l:~40

302010o-1-.----.==~+-.,----r=:::::.p-=,::~::::,..."""'-.....-,._

Figure 14. ProportioDal88Dd substrate occurrence in Missouri and Yellowstone (9)study segments. Percentages are a proportional representation ofthe 0CCUIreIlCe of88Dd in relation to gravel aDd silt-el8y.-·CHXO=c1wmd crouover; OSB=outaicle beDd;1SB=iDside beDd; SCC=secoDdaIy cJumnel CODDeCted; TRM=tribut8ry mouth;SCN=vcondery chllmcl DDJl-CODIlCCteC Leut-impected segments: 3, S. 8Dd 9; Jntrzreservoir segments: 7. 8, 10. 12, 14. aDd IS; Channelized segments: 17, 19.22, 23, 2S,aod27. .

41

~ .5- 7 8 2 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

~ N

.5- N N X

7 I I X I X X X X X

8 I I I I I X X X X x

2 N X X

10 I I I I X X

12 I I I X X X X X

14 I I X X X X

15 I X X

17 C C C C

19 C C C C

22 C C C

23 C C C

25 C C

27 C

Figure 15. Sand comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segments where turbidity wasmeasured in 1997. A box with a letter in it means that those segments are not statisticallydifferent from each other. N=natural or least-impacted segments, I=inter-reservoir segments, andC:channelized segments. C, I, and N indicate where two channelized, inter-reservoir, or leastimpacted segments are not different from each other. An X indicates 2 segments not otherwisegrouped are statistically the same.

42

Silt-Clay Substrate

CHXO OSB100

!lO10

:E-.40

302010O......__--.-......_--..__--<II~~....___..__

3 5 7 • , ~ U " una n ~ ~ ~

~

100!lO10

IE-.40

3020

1:-+--~~~-"=~~~:::::"'--<II~~;:::"_~3 5 7 • , ~ n " una n ~ ~ ~

~

5 7 • , ~ n " una n ~ ~ ~.....

sec100!lO10

IE-.40

302010o+--.----.--r--r---r-----,-,.._:;.--r---...---.---r---r---.

33 5 7 • , ~ n " una n ~ ~ ~

~

ISB100!lO10

IE-.40

3020

1: -+----,--.--~-.--~~.::::;::::::;~~r_,.._,_..,._,

SCN

5 7 • , ~ n " una n ~ ~ ~....

•

•100!lO10

IE-.40

302010o-l---.---.--r---r-~~~~-----,_r--~~~

3

TRM100!lO10

IE-.40

302010o+--.----.-.----r--r---r---r--,.---r_,.._,_,--..,---,

3 57. , ~ n " una n ~ ~ ~

~

43

J .5- 7 8 2 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

J N X X X x

.5- N X X N X X X X X X X

7 I I X I X X X X

8 I I X X X X x

2 N X X X X X X X

10 I I I I X X X

12 I I X X X X X

14 I I X X

15 I X

17 C C

19 C C C C

22 C C

23 C C C

25 C C

27 C

Figure 17. Silt-clay comparisons matrix for 15 Missouri River study segments where turbiditywas measured in 1997. A box with a letter in it means that those segments are not statisticallydifferent from each other. N=natural or least-impacted segments, I=inter-reservoir segments, andC=ehannelized segments. C, I, and N indicate where two channelized, inter-reservoir, or 1eastimpacted segments are not different from each other. An X indicates 2 segments not otherwisegrouped are statistically the same.

44

"/ " ----- -~¥ "~----" / .- ..... """'- . // '-- •

'" / \ ! ,-.~

e",-,... . e· ':" ..•. • .. .....

v""'" '" • ....... ..'" /'....

---..../ "- ..... ............ ~

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Proportional Substrate Composition (Overlapped)100908070

!~~40

302010o

3 S 7 8 9 W U W " " ~ n n ~ nSegmaIt

• ---- Sand • Silt-eJay

Proportional Substrate Composition (Stacked)

~ Silt-eJay [] SIDd ~ Gravel

45

Depth and Velocity Relationships1.2

191 i!... 3

gO.8 •.~~ loil M •JO.6 •• 22

~1°·4 15

::e 0.2

0

1 2 3 4 SMean Depth (mda'S)

• leist Impacted • In1a'-Rescrvoir • ChaDnclized

160

140

Temperature and Turbidity Relationships

i

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26Wiler Tcmpaature (C)

16 17

720 •O-+---.------r-=---,--r--.-,-----.---.-.------""T--.,.------,

14 IS

... 120

~100:fi' 80... 60

~40

• LeISt ImpIcted • 1n1a'-R.eservoir • ChlDllClized

FiglR 19. Segment averaged values fur physical habitat (depth 8Ddvelocity) 8Dd water quality (temperature and turbidity) vuiablescollected from the Missouri and Yellowstone (9) study segments.

46

Habitat Data Summary

Comparisons of physical habitat characteristics (depth, velocity, water temperature,

conductivity, turbidity, and substrate) showed significant segment differences and interactions for

all metrics, but comparisons among macrohabitats were only significant for depth, velocity, and

substrate measurements. Depth showed a gradual increase from upstream to downstream in the

three main channel macrohabitats (CHXO, osa, and ISa), while the other three macrohabitats

showed no patterns. Velocity measurements fluctuated more in the channelized segments than in

other segments. For example, segments 17 and 19 (IowalNebraska) showed peaks of high

velocity in CHXO and osa macrohabitats. Channelized segment velocities in CHXO and osa

macrohabitats slowed gradually further downstream, but were always higher than in all the non

channelized segments. Water temperature gradually increased from upstream to downstream

among all macrohabitats, except at segments 7 (Fort Peck tailwater) and 12 (between Lake

Sakakawea and Lake Oahe) where depressions in the temperature trend line occurred.

Conductivity ranged between 400 and 600 j..lS/cm in CHXO, osa, ISa, and SCC macrohabitats

from segment ~ to segment 12. From segment 14 to the confluence, measurements increased to

values between 750 and 900 j..lS/cm. Turbidity increased from segment ~ (x =31.7 NTU's) to

segment 10 (x =147.3 NTU's) in all flowing macrohabitats (CHXO, osa, Isa, and SCC).

Turbidity values then dropped to less than 10 NTU's in segments 12 and 14. From segment 15 to

the mouth, turbidity gradually returned to between 40 to 90 NTU's. Substrate was dominated by

sand in all inter-reservoir and channelized segments, but gravel formed a much higher proportion

ofthe total substrate composition in the least-impacted segments (Figure 18). Plotting depth and

velocity together (Figure 19) illustrated that channelized segments 17, 19,22, and 23 were both

deeper and faster than all the other segments. When temperature was plotted against turbidity,

the channelized segments grouped, the least-impacted segments also grouped, but inter-reservoir

segments were scattered (Figure 19). Inter-reservoir segments were the coldest, with the

exception of segments 14 and 15, the last two inter-reservoir segments. They were even colder

than least-impacted segments in Montana. Segments were grouped differently depending upon

the physical variable examined. Very few segments were grouped together when all physical

habitat data was combined.

47

Fieldwork: Fish Sampling

During 1997 we collected 56,185 fishes (Table 9) from reaches that represented 1,150

miles of riverine habitat, or 80% of the total river exclusive of reservoirs (Table 1). The catch

was about two times that caught in 1996, primarily because of increased sampling effort. A1l26

species of benthic fish that are the focus of this study were captured. The most commonly

collected fishes in the benthic fish guild were emerald shiner (12%), Hybognathus spp. (10%),

flathead chub (9%), river carpsucker (6%), channel catfish (4%), common carp (2%), and

freshwater drum (2%). Following are some general observations for the 1997-sampling year:

• High water in upper segments connected more oxbows to the river than in 1996, and the

oxbows held many benthic fish like blue suckers, channel catfish, and both buffalo

species.

• Flathead chubs were collected for the first time in the Iowa segments

• The Kansas Unit caught 22 shovelnose sturgeon in one gill net, and found logperch and

stonecats for the first time

• Twenty of 26 target species including a pallid sturgeon were found in Segment lOin

North Dakota

• In Montana, 160 sicklefin chubs were collected in 1997 compared to 33 in Montana in

1996 and 83 for all sections combined in 1996

• In Montana, sturgeon chub catches increased from 315 to 503; over 1,500 flathead chubs

were collected; new records were for shortnose gar and brook stickleback

• Two juvenile blue suckers were captured below tributaries in South Dakota, thus

indicating successful recent spawning of this species

• A 45-lb flathead catfish was collected byelectrofishing in a tributary mouth in South

Dakota

• 25 more species were collected in the Missouri segments in 1997 than in 1996 including

two target species (shorthead redhorse, blue sucker)

The catch in 1997 was comprised of93 taxa, compared to 78 species found in 1996. A

48

notable addition to the species list was the pallid sturgeon, which was collected at the mouth of

the Yellowstone River. Other new species include five shiners (bigeye, striped, mimic, silverband,

common), black buffalo, chestnut lamprey, freckled madtom, lake whitefish, lake sturgeon,

largescale stoneroller, logperch, muskellunge, skipjack herring, and yellow bass. No new

introduced species were found. Hybrids were rarely found (22 fish) and were mostly centrarchids

and sauger-walleye. About 2% of the fish could not be identified to species because of their small

size. This was a great improvement over the 9% unidentified in 1996.

Some changes in the fish community metrics were apparent among river segments.

Species richness increased in a fairly regular fashion from 27 species in the upper river to 54

species in lower river segments (Table 9). Segments 7 and 8 (between the Milk and Yellowstone

rivers in Montana) were the only segments where the catch fell below 1,500 fish. Emerald shiner

and fish in the genus Hybognathus were common throughout the river, making up >10% of the

sample at nine (emerald shiner) and six (Hybognathus) of our 17 study segments (Table 10).

Flathead chubs and goldeye were dominant components in the catch above Lake Sakakawea

whereas gizzard shad made up as much as 62% of the sample in seven segments downstream from

Lake Sakakawea. River carpsucker and channel catfish sometimes co~prised >10% of the

sample in the lower river, but never reached this proportion of the total sample in upstream

segments. These general trends were also found in 1996.

Following is a brief presentation of the findings for each species in 1997 with a cursory

comparison with similar data collected in 1996. Our preliminary interpretation is that the data

from both years are vet)' similar and lead to similar conclusions about the benthic fish populations

as characterized by their distribution, relative abundance, habitat association, and gear

vulnerability.

49

Table 9. Total numbers of all ftshes collected in each Missouri River and Lower Yellowstone Study Segments in 1997. Columns inbold font represent segments between and immediately downstream from impoundments.

State MT-----------------------------------------------ND----------------SD-----------------IAJNE------------KS/M0------------------------M0

Segment 3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27 Total

Tarpet Benthic FishBigmouth buffalo 2 1 97 112 32 2 14 15 7 2 1 5 290

Blue catfish 20 33 12 22 87

Blue sucker 3 3 6 1 6 1 15 31 7 11 11 1 96

Brassy minnow 1 13 14

Burbot 3 66 1 2 13 1 1 87

Channel catfish 28 124 22 42 190 67 16 210 161 112 47 210 374 173 333 2109

Common carp 62 63 20 209 8 29 46 137 176 20 59 90 98 113 105 1235

Emerald shiner 343 636 1 143 28 241 1598 204 514 647 685 1175 676 6891

Fathead minnow 102 2 84 5 7 5 9 3 1 1 219

Flathead catfish 2 57 42 61 74 80 32 50 398

Flathead chub 509 1360 69 124 2602 371 4 7 1 1 2 2 1 1 5054

Freshwater drum 69 44 1 2 2 2 7 70 5 17 331 186 95 115 946

Hybognathus spp. 64 1559 15 8 716 23 227 342 397 1784 301 5436

Pallid sturgeon 1 1

Plains minnow 2 20 14 1 37

River carpsucker 17 54 36 23 135 44 24 72 181 38 483 151 59 1286 915 3518

Sand shiner 7 236 27 1 4 1 5 85 366

Sauger 16 36 6 7 10 30 3 11 10 15 21 17 6 11 4 203

Shorthead redhorse 114 121 8 29 13 6 13 3 149 33 6 4 3 502

Shovelnose 16 55 43 22 93 20 6 4 11 78 24 68 63 43 19 565sturgeon

Sicklefin chub 109 18 34 7 3 4 13 24 212

Smallmouth buffalo 3 4 34 6 45 1 10 93 12 2 6 8 18 28 270

Stonecat 2 71 2 4 39 5 3 2 2 130

Sturgeon chub 161 9 48 285 17 2 4 11 8 1 546

Walleye 11 23 5 45 10 16 23 38 137 12 8 1 2 2 333

50

Table 9. Continued

State MT-----------------------------------------------ND----------------SD-----------------IA/NE------------KSIM0------------------------M0

Segment 3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27 Total

Western silvery 8 2 5 280 295

minnow

White sucker 44 2 64 45 1 1108 1 1 1266

Non-Target Fish (excluding hvbrids and introduced sneciesBigeye shiner 1 1 2

Bigmouth shiner 50 15 13 5 83

Black buffalo 2 2

Black bullhead 1 3 4

Black Crappie 1 52 2 7 2 2 5 5 76

Bluegill 3 12 28 11 67 53 124 81 379

Bluntnose minnow 1 6 13 20

Brook silverside 6 1 1 8

Brook stickleback 1 1

Bullhead minnow 2 1 3 6

Chestnut lamprey 2 2

Common shiner 2 2

Creek chub 3 1 2 6

Freckled madtom 3 3

Ghost shiner 1 1

Gizzard shad 3264 2175 1644 371 580 831 3700 12565

Golden shiner 2 1 3

Golden redhorse 1 2 14 17

Goldeye 43 206 121 274 133 249 25 37 112 221 77 34 50 33 50 1665

Green sunfish 2 1 9 2 55 48 9 9 135

Highfin carpsucker 1 1 2 4

Johnny darter 7 35 16 2 3 1 64

51

Table 9. Continued

State MT-----------------------------------------------ND----------------SD-----------------INNE------------KS/M0-----------------------M0

Segment 3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27 Total

Lake whitefish 2 2

Lake sturgeon 3 1 4

Largemouth bass 49 24 19 8 26 5 16 3 150

Largescale 2 2stoneroller

Logperch 1 4 5

Longnose sucker 129 9 23 2 2 1 2383 2549

Longnose dace 69 46 3 12 91 4 225

Longnose gar 18 2 3 4 15 13 15 70

Mimic shiner 3 2 3 57 65

Mottled sculpin 1 4 5

Muskellunge 1 1

Northern pike 3 20 20 18 8 27 4 7 12 3 2 124

Orangespotted 2 2 65 4 4 7 84sunfish

Paddlefish 1 1 2 1 1 6

Quillback 21 642 8 4 7 11 1 6 700

Rainbow trout 1 3 4

Red shiner 4 19 144 65 13 65 101 162 510 1083

River redhorse 1 1

River shiner 1 166 125 28 55 38 95 29 537

Rock bass 6 8 14

Shortnose gar 1 19 16 22 42 53 38 93 284

Silver chub 4 39 76 32 11 53 215

Silverband shiner 1 1 2

Skioiack herrinl! 1 3 4 8

52

Table 9. Continued

State MT-----------------------------------------------ND----------------SD-----------------IAlNE------------KSIMO-----------------------MO

Segment 3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27 Total

Smallmouth bass 1 77 138 2 218

Speckled chub 23 13 39 176 251

Spotfin shiner 513 554 94 8 2 1171

Spottail shiner 5 81 2 1 1 3 1 4 2 100

Spotted bass 1 24 17 42

Spotted gar 1 1

Striped shiner 1 1

Suckermouth 4 4 8minnow

White crappie 4 54 3 6 9 137 9 3 5 18 5 9 262

Yellow bass 4 4

Yellow bullhead 1 2 1 4

Yellow perch 2 23 1 6 289 118 7 446

Introduced Soecies (excludin~ Common cam'Bighead carp 1 2 3

Chinook salmon 1 1

Ciscoe 6 2 8

Grass carp 3 1 2 1 2 1 10

Mosquitofish 8 6 101 115

Rainbow smelt 14 1 1 1 17

Striped bass 1 1 4 6

White bass 2 9 94 9 6 32 47 33 53 285

HvbridsGreen sunfish x ? 1 1

Green sunfish x 8 8Bluegill

53

Table 9. Continued

State MT-----------------------------------------------NO----------------SD-----------------IAINE------------KSIM0-----------------------M0

Segment 3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27 Total

Green sunfish x 1 1 2orangespotted s.f.

Sauger x Walleye 1 4 5 10

Striped bass x 1 1White bass

Unidentified (Unid.) S rlecies and OthersAge 0 fish (YOY) 2 4 6

Unid. Buffalo 2Unid. Carpsucker 2 2

Unid. Chub 5 2 7

Unid. Minnow 46 1 21 2 1 70 61 7 16 225

Unid. Redhorse 1 1

Unid. Sucker 7 1 2 156 86 4 2 1 259

Unid. Sunfish 49 1 50

Unid. Lepomis 1 25 26

Unid. Notropis 29 212 1 1 4 247

Unid. Stizostedion 6 34 1 41

Unidentified fish 22 2 28 52

TOTAL 1643 4991 601 1084 4553 1627 3897 1971 8377 3518 3629 3073 3186 6326 7719 56185

Soecies Richness 27 27 27 28 28 30 23 39 46 43 40 46 45 52 54 93

54

Table 10. The five numerically dominant fish taxa, expressed as the percentage of total catch within each Missouriand Lower Yellowstone River study segment in 1997. Species in bold font are target benthic species.

Segment Taxa(%) % of Segment Segment Taxa(%) % of Segment

3 Flathead chub (31 %) 75% 14 Spotfin shiner (26%) 77%Emerald shiner (21 %) Yellow perch (15%)Longnose sucker (8%) Emerald shiner (12%)Shorthead redhorse(7%) Channel catfish (11 % )Freshwater drum and Common carp andLongnose dace (each 4%) White crappie (each 7%)

5 Hybognathus spp. (31 %) 79% 15 Gizzard shad (39%) 75%Flathead chub (27%) Emerald shiner (19%)Emerald shiner (13%) Quillback (8%)Goldeye (4%) Spotfin shiner (7%)Sturgeon chub (3%) Sand shiner (3%)

7 Goldeye (20%) 66% 17 Gizzard Shad (62%) 81%Fathead minnow (17%) Emerald shiner (6% )Flathead chub (11 %) Goldeye (6%)White sucker (11 % ) Red shiner (4%)Shovelnose sturgeon (7% ) Channel catfish (3%)

8 Goldeye (25%) 69% 19 Gizzard shad (45%) 81%Common carp (19%) Emerald shiner (14%)Flathead chub (11 % ) River carpsucker (13%)Blgmouth buffalo (9% ) Hybognathus spp. (6%)Sturgeon chub (4%) Goldeye (2%)

9 Flathead chub (57%) 86% 22 Emerald shiner (21 % ) 62%Hybognathus spp. (16%) Gizzard shad (12%)Sturgeon chub (6%) Freshwater drum (11 % )Channel catfish (4%) Hybognathus spp. (11 %)Emerald shiner (3%) Channel catfish (7%)

10 Flathead chub (23%) 66% 23 Emerald shiner (22%) 70%W. silvery minnow (17%) Gizzard shad (18%)Goldeye (15%) Hybognathus spp. (12%)Blgmouth buffalo (7%) Channel catfish (12%)Channel catfish (4%) Freshwater drum (6%)

12 Longnose sucker (61%) 94% 25 Hybognathus spp. (28%) 83%White sucker (28%) River carpsucker (20% )Fathead minnow (2%) Emerald shiner (19% )Blgmouth buffalo (1 %) Gizzard shad (13%)Common carp (1 %) Channel catfish (3%)

27 Gizzard shad (48%) 79%River carpsucker (12%)Emerald shiner (9% )Red shiner (7%)Channel catfish (4%)

55

Population Structure and Habitat Use of Benthic Fishes Taxa

A general format for population structure and habitat use of each benthic taxa includes a

brief paragraph summarizing results, a table and figure of catch-per-unit-effort data by gear across

macrohabitats and segments, a length frequency histogram of size structure, and a habitat use

(depth, velocity, turbidity, and water temperature) figure. This format provides the reader with

access to system-wide information about each target benthic taxa. Catch-per-unit-effort figures

have a standardized range for the Y-axis to facilitate comparisons among macrohabitats. Size

structure figures are the frequency of occurrence of each taxa's individuals plotted against species

specific length intervals. Some size structure figures (emerald shiner, sand shiner, sicklefin chub,

sturgeon chub, and flathead chub) show that a number (N) offish were collected, but no length

frequency data were given because length and weight was measured in the field at some river

sections and not at others. When measurements were not taken in the field, the measurements

were made in the laboratory before the fish were aged and were not available for this annual

report. Habitat use figures are the frequency of occurrence of each taxa plotted against intervals

of depth, velocity, turbidity, and water temperature.

Bigmouth buffalo (BMBF)

Bigmouth buffalo (n = 290) were captured throughout the river, but 88% were collected

in inter-reservoir segments 7 through 15 (Table 9). The distribution in 1996 was similar but only

14 fish were captured. Fish ranged in length from fingerlings to over 900 rom, but representation

across all size classes was not found in any section (Figure 21). For example, small fish that

perhaps indicate successful spawning were found only in Sections 2, 4, and 5. Most bigmouth

buffalo were caught in shallow, quiescent areas, and about half were caught where water

temperature was 26-28 °C, otherwise, catch was similar throughout the temperature range (16

30°C) in which fish were captured. (Figure 22). Most fish were caught by seining and

electrofishing (Table 11, Figure 20), but a few were collected in stationary gill nets. This

information on bigmouth buffalo agrees with that presented in 1996.

56

----- . -- --~------- ------

.... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMs::~

S BT OTN BS BT OTN EF SON BT OTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SON BT DTN EF SONbtl~

CI.l

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.02 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.11 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 10.4 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 - 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 3.33 0.16 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 - - 0.01 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.17 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.04 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

Bigmouth BuffaloTable 11. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for bigmouth buffalo by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=InsideBend, OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth).Catch rates are reported as #ftsh/l00m for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #ftsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS),#ftsh/hr for a stationary gill net (SON), and #ftsh/min for electroflShing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter

bers = bold font. Channelized sel!.ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak,

57

Bigmouth Buffalo

CHXO OSB

12

10

•564

2

S 7 • 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S 27

Sepleat

BTDTN

12

10

•564

2

O~-,-....,......,......,----r~~~~~~~.../

3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 IS 17 19 22 23 2S 27

SqpDrIIl

EF

TTN

ISB SCC

12

10

•~ 6

4

2

o

/"'"// V

/ /- ~v v_v v/

/ /v-v /v VV /- /v V

_v v/./

-v/ ./Bl'./arDTN

v ./SClN

BS

12

10

•4

2

o-J4---r-.,....-.',...-"-T....,.::-:::;.~.. ':-:;-"T""'"'-,...-"-T-'-"""""',.-/ EP3 S 7 • 9 10 12 14 IS 17 19 22 23 2S 27... 3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 IS 17 19 22 23 25 27

8qpDa

TRM SCN

.;.::::-------"""-----'--"----,/ BSEF

SON

4

2

o....&<;-~_.__".,........."""'"'"T_-,-~,...._;,.__.;.;._....,......,......,----r./

•

12

10

12

10

•~ 6

4 Bl'2 """. .__.._ EP DTN

o-.J4-,-....,......,.-,-.-'T--r-.,.........-'r-'=-;':"~=.r-.'""r-"" lION

3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S 27

SepIIllIIt

3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 IS 17 19 22 23 25 278qpDa

Ytgme 20. Treads ofbiplouthbuffialo catdl ratesllDOD8 Miaouri aDd YeIIowItoDeRiver study lClgIDeIItIaDd JDIaOhabitatI in 1997. Catdl rates are reported u f#fisbIl00mfor bembic trawl (BT) aDd driftiDg tI'ImII1eI Del (DTN), #:ft1b1180 degree bIul for a bagseiDe (BS), I#8ahIhr for a JtatiDuy gill Del (SGN), aDd #6IbImin for eIectro8IbiDg (BP).See Appcadix A for lilt ofIIIICrObabitat acroayma.

Bigmouth BuffaloSection 1 Section 6

Section 7-.100e80

1=~ 0

9OO-9SOIOo-ISO

Section 8

l00-,-----------------",~...,...,

llO-t----------------u~~

J:-+---fl-------n------n------{"l---lo~_Y_...-r-r___r__Y_r_r___.__Y_r_r__r__._r_T___L,.1.--,J

9SO

tN-IL

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I111O-1SO 300-3SO SOO-SSO 700-7SO 900-

9OO-9SOO-SO 2CJO.aSO 4OD-4SO 6OD-6SO IOO-ISO

LqIb

Section 3

o-SO 2OO-2SO 4OD-4SO ~ 8lIO-&SO

LqIh

Section 2

- IN=38L

--

n I I I I I I I I I I I I

IIIO-ISO 3IIO-3SO SOO-SSO 700-7SO

100~IO

J:o

..... 100e lO

IE~ 0

9OO-9SO2OO-2SO 4OD-4SO ~ 8lIO-85O

LqIh

Section 9

~-31

n MflI 3IIO-3SO I SOO-SSO I 700-7SO I

I

111O-1SOo-SO

-.100tlO

I:o

oo-nl

I IIO-ISO I 3IIO-3SO I SOO-SSO I 700-7SO II 9OO-9SOO-SO 2CJO.aSO 4OO-4SO ~ 8lIO-&SO

Lqth

Section 4-.100-,--------------.,--....,t 1O-t---------------i.I.:!=:.!J-l

J:+----rrl f-rr,..,-----------1o-'-r---.-,.....,--,--"""""''''''''''r'-'T'___r_-r-r-r___r_...-r_r___._-r-'

IlIO-lSO so '1IlO" 9OO-9SOo-so 2CJO.aSO 4OD-4SO ~ 8lIO-&SO

LqIh

SectionS

OO=?jl L

--m~I I 3110-3 I soo-sso I 750 1

..... 100t80

IE~ 0

N: '£1

--- n..,

111O-ISO I 3IIO-3SO I soo-sso I 700-750 Io-SO

Figure 21. LeDgth-ftequeocy histograms ofbigmouth buffalo collected from Missouri andYellowstone lliwr sections using drifting trammelnets, experim.eotal gill nets, benthic trawls. bagseines, and boat electrofisbiDg. See Table 1 forsection definitons.

Bigmouth Buffalo

Depth Turbidity100!IO10

~70

}=SIoo 30

2010

oIIII1-2 I 3-4 I Sf I 7~ I 9-~0 I 11~12 I

100--.--------------,

90-+----------------1IO-+---------------l

... 70-+----------------1i:-t------=

I:loo 30-+---

20-+----10

o1).1 20-3 4-, 6-7 1-9 11).11 120-13

Metal0-10 11).SO Sl).loo 100..SOO soo..l000

NTU'I

Temperature100..-----------------,

9O-+---------------l10-+---------------1

~ 70-6O-+---------------lI:-+----------

20-+------- =--

10-+----=--

o....L..-.---.-~---""'.......~

Velocity

4 6-0.' 0-1.2 .4-1. 1.102.00-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.~1.0 1.2-1.4 1.6-1.1 1.O-:U

MeterIISoooDd

-

--

---

-

-o.u 1 0. I 1. I 1 6 I I

100

9010

l70

J:I:loo 30

20

10

o

FlB'JR 22. Frequeocy of0CCUD'eDCe ofbigmouth buft'alo (N=260) in various depth,velocity, twbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri IIld YellowstoneRiva' coDections.

flO

Blue Catfish (BLCF)

A total of 86 blue catfish was collected; all fIsh were taken in channelized segments 22,

23,25, and 27. Fish were captured in all six macrohabitat types. Most fish were captured in

ISBs, SCCs, and TRMs with the benthic trawl (Figure 23). Blue catfIsh were captured with all

gears except the bag seine. Blue catfish were captured with four different gears, stationary gill

net, electrofishing boat, drifting trammel net, and benthic trawl in ISBs, but were only captured

with the benthic trawl in CHXOs and TRMs, and only with the stationary gill net in SCNs (Table

12).

Most blue catfish were captured in shallow to moderate depths (83% in depths < 5 m) and

low to moderate velocities (73% in velocities < 0.8 m/s) (Figure 25). Most fish were captured in

turbid, warm water. Approximately 83% were captured in turbidities greater than 50 NTUs and

92% were captured in water warmer than 24°C. Warmer, turbid waters are characteristic of

downstream segments, where all of the fish were captured.

All blue catfish were captured in sections 8 and 9, with most fish (80%) less than 150 mm

in length (Figure 24). In section 8, 46% were 50-100 mm long. Section 8 also contained the

largest fish (> 800 mm). Thirty-four fish were captured in section 9 with 44% between the

lengths of 50 and 100 mm.

61

- ---

... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMs::(\)

eell BT OTN BS BT OTN EF SON BT OTN EF BS BT OTN EF BS EF SON BT OTN EF SON(\)Vl

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 - - 0.00 0.00

Blue CatfishTable 12. Catch-Per-Unit-Eftort (CPUE) for blue cattish by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #flsh/l00m for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #flsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #flsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SON), and #flsh/min tor electroflshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir

bers = bold font. Channelized sel.!:ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak

62

Blue Catfish

CHXO OSB

3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 'rI

ScpIaIl3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 'rI

ScpIrU

ISB SCC

2

1.5

~ 1

0.5

o

/"

/"_/ /v

,/

/v Vv/

/v "v/~/v

BTv

__ gDTNv - _.

lION

B8

2

1.5

~ 1

0.5

3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

SepIa3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 'rI

ScpaIl

TRM SCN

BT

/v/'

/' /V

V/' //

V/' /V

/V /' /'./ ... .... ./

/' ~. /' DTN./ .... /' g

I I , I I , , lION

2

o

o.s

3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 'rI

SqpDeat3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 'rI

SopIa

FtgUre 23. Treads ofblue catftsb catd1 rates IIDOIII MiIIouri aDd YeI1owItoae Riverstudy lepMlIItIaDd IDlICrObIbitatI in 1997. Catch ndeI are reported u ##:&IWl00m forbeathic trawl (BT) aDd driftiDa trammel net (DTN). ##:&IW180 desree bau1 for a big IICIiae(BS). #8IbIbr for a atatiDIry gill net (SGN). aDd iHiIbImiD 1br eIectrotilbiDa (BF). SeeAppauh A for lilt ofIDIaOhIbitat ICrOIIyIIII.

Section 1

Blue CatfishSection 6

IN=OI

I 100-1.50 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95

100

l80

IEo

0-50 200-2.50 400-450

Length

Section 2

600-650 800-8.50o

100,-----------------==---::-1Il 80+------ ----l!IN~=O---=t

I:-+-----------l20+------------------1

110 0 --'-T-,---,-'----.-......-.-.--,._,---,-,----r--,----.-......-,.---.--,...J

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I ~00:9500-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850

Length

Section 7

IN=O

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 II

900-95o

100

l80

I:20o

1N=o

I 100-150 I ;~35~ I I I

I 700-750 I 900-95500-5500-50 200-2.50 400-450 600-650

Length

800-850 0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

Length800-850

IN=O

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95

100

lso

I:20110 0

0-50 200-250

Section 3

400-450 600-650

Length800-850

o

Section 8100......--------------"""17-=-",...,.......,

l 80+---------------U.3=:.rbL-I

I:20110 O...u.,.l....l.rL..Y.....,....-,----,-~.,....'I"_,._,r_"'I'......,. ........._,___._~...,....-.,....J

1N=o

I I I I I I I I I I I I I100-150 300-350 500-550 700-750 900-95

IN=O

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95

100

l80

IEo

100

l80

IEo

0-50

0-50

Section 4

200-250 400-450 600-650

Length

Section 5

200-2.50 400-450 600-650

Length

800-850

800-850

o

o

64

Section 9100 ,--------------.....,....=-=---=-:-1

l 80-+----------------L.I.I:~L.1

I:~+---f"'I-----------------120

110 0...u.,.w.rL...l.f-,----.-......-"'i"-''f'-'f'-''i''-''rJ....l.r'-r.....,....-,---,-......-,.---..-J

900-950800-850

Figure 24. Length-ftequeucy histograms ofbluecatfish coJlected from Missouri and YellowstoneRiver sectioDi using drifting tramIIJd~experimaltal gill nets, benthic trawl&, bag~and boat eJ.ectrofisbing. See Table 1for sectiondefiDitoDi.

Blue Catfish

10090

10

.... 70e

I~20

10

o

Depth

II ••I•• II I... -I 1-2 :w 5~ I 7~ I 9-~0 11I~12 I

0-1 2-3 4-5 ~7 1-9 10-11 12-13

Meters

Turbidity]00.-----------------,

9O+---------------lIO+---------------l

~70

j:+---------------l

~ 30-+-----

20 +------.,----]0-+---

O...l--,-----J

0-]0 10-50 50-]00 100-500 500-1000NTU'I

Velocity100.---------------,

9O-+---------------iIO-+---------------l

~7OI~-+-------------l20]0

o

]00

90

10

~7O-60

1=~ 3020

10

o

Temperature

------ - -I ]4-]6 I ]1-20 I 22-24 26-21 I 30-32

]2-]4 I~]' 20-22 2.4-26 21-30

DopeeI Celsiul

YJg1R 25. Frequeocy ofocaureoce ofblue catfish (N=86) in various depth, velocity.turbidity. aDd water temperature iDtava1s from Missouri and YeIloWltone RiverCOJ1ectiODS.

Dlue sucker (DUSK)

Blue suckers (n = 96) were captured throughout the river, with 80% captured in segments

downstream from Gavins Point Dam (Table 9). The distribution of the 31 fish caught in 1996

was similar to that in 1997. Fish ranged in length from fmgerlings to about 900 mm in length, but

representation across all size classes was not found in any section, except perhaps in Section 8

along the Kansas border (Figure 27). Section 8 also had the widest length distribution of blue

suckers in 1996. Only large fish were found in Sections 1,3,5, 7, and 9. Blue suckers were

caught at a wide range of depths, turbidities, velocities and temperatures (Figure 28), but never in

non-connected secondary channels. Catch rate was highest in the inside and outside bends of the

main channel (Figure 26). Most fish were caught by drifting trammel nets (Table 13, Figure 26 ),

but a few were collected by electrofishing and in gill nets in tributary mouths and inside bends.

This information on blue suckers agrees with that presented in 1996 except that fish <200 mm

were collected in 1997, whereas none in that size range were collected in 1996. The blue suckers

«200 mm) were captured below major tributaries like the Milk River in Montana and the

Vermillion in South Dakota.

66

Blue SuckerTable 13. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for blue sucker by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #ftsh/l00m for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #ftsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #ftsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SGN), and #ftsh/min for electrotishing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir

bers = bold font. Channelized se2ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak..... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMs::~

e BT OTN BS BT OTN EF SGN BT OTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SGN BT ow EF SGNot.l~

CJ:l

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.02 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.03 0.00 - 0.00 0.03 0.00 - 0.00 0.04 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.03 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 - - 0.04 0.05 - 0.00 0.00 0.02 - 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.03

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

15 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.09 .003 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.01

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.03 - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

67

0.5

0.4

~ 0.3

es 0.2

0.1

CHXO

Blue Sucker

0.5

0.4

! 0.3

es 0.2

0.1

OSB

HI"

TTN

0.1

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

ISB

3 5 7 g 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM

0.5

0.4

! 0.3

es 0.2

BT/'C-.....:-.....:-.c.........-,,--.c.........--,---,-.c.........-"---"----'-""""7

mr'/ DTN

o-"'T-r-r--r--r-,,---.""-";;;'-,....-r-'"'r'"'r---rJ' SON3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

0.5

0.4

§0.3

es 0.2

0.1

0.5

0.4

! 0.3

es 0.2

0.1

3 5 7 g 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

SCC

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

SCN

,J£-------------::-./BSHI"

SON3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19222325 27

Segment

68

Blue SuckerSection 1 Section 6

100~IO

IE0

o-so

Section 7..... 100e80

JE0

o-so

Section 8..... 100~IO

IEIl1o 0

4000450

Lqth

Section 9

N=6

,I

nnn II ~OO:I50 I ~350 I SOO:Sso I 700-7SO I !lOO-9SO

O-SO 200-250 4000450 6ONSO lIOo-&SO

Lqth

Section 4

-- 1N=1-f---

-f---

--I 100-150 I 300-350 I soo-SSO I 700-7SO I

4000450

LqIh

Section 2..... 100~IO~60

J:Il1o 0

.....100~IO

IEo

100-,---------------,::-::---::-l~1O-+--------------Ux::::I~

H+-----------Io--J...,-~..,.....,r_T'"___r_...._r_r-r-..........r_r__'T'_...y_-r-"T"-r--.,..-'

N=l

I 00.150 I 300-J50 I soo-sso I 700-750 I

..... 100~IO

IEIl1o 0

!lOO-9SO200-250 4000450 6ONSO lIOo-&SO

LeD8Ib

SectionS

IN'-n

I 100-150 I 300-350 I soo-sso I 700-7SO I

..... 100~IO

IEo

..... 100~IO

IEIl1o 0

IN:-:1

I 100.150 I 300-JSO I soo-sso I 700-7SO I

Figure 27. Length-frequency histograms ofbluesucker collected from Missouri and YeDowstoneRiver sections using drifting trammel nets.aperimeotal gill nets. benthic trawl&. bag seines,and boat e1ectrofishiDg. See Table 1 for sectiondefiDitons.

69

Depth

Blue Sucker

Turbidity100

90

80

'i 70

i:J40J:&.o 30

20

10

o

II II• I I II .-I 1-2 3-4 I 5~6 I I I 9-~0 I 11~12 I7-8

100-.--------------.....,

9O-t---------------j

80-t---------------j

'i 70J:-+----J:&.o 30-+------'20-+---

10-+-----

O--l-..,..--0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters0-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's

Velocity100-.----------------,

90-+---------------1

80-+---------------1

- 70-+-----------------je 60-+-----------------j

,50

40-+-----------------jJ:&.o 30-+-----------------j

20-+---=--10

o

Temperature100-.--------------.....,

90-t---------------j

80-+---------------1

'i 70-t---------------I

..... 60+--------------~i 50-+-------------1

8' 40&: 30+---------

20-+--------

10+-----

o.........I""-~_'"'P'''--'' .........

22-24 26-28 30-3212-14 20-22 24-26 28-30

Degrees Celsius

YIgUR 28. Frequency ofoccurrence ofblue sucker (N=80) invarious depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature iDtervaIs from Missouri and Yellowstone RivercoJ1ections.

70

Burbot (BRBT)

In 1997,83 burbot were captured. Catches occurred in least impacted segments 3, 5, and

9 and in inter-reservoir segments 8, 10, and 15. Fish were captured with all gears except the

drifting trammel net (Figure 29; Table 14). Burbot were not collected downstream of segment 15

(rmi 753.0).

Most burbot were captured in shallow to intermediate depths (98% in depths < 4 m), low

to intermediate velocities (95% in velocities < 0.8 m1s), low turbidities (76% between 10-50

NTUs), and cool waters (64% in temperatures < 16°C) (Figure 31). However, these ftsh were

captured in a wide range of turbidities (10-1000 NTUs) and temperatures (14-26°C).

Most burbot (70%) were less than 150 mm in length with the widest distribution of

lengths in section 1 (Figure 30). Burbot in section 1 ranged from 50-700 mm in length and 50

200 mm in length in section 4. Only burbot 50-100 mm long were captured in sections 2 and 3.

No burbot were captured in sections 5, 7, 8, and 9.

BurbotTable 14. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for burbot by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #ftsh/lOOm for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #ftsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #ftsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SON), and #ftsh/min for electroftshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir

bers = bold font. Channelized se2ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was takl

... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMs::0ebtl BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SON BT DTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SON BT DlN EF SON0

(/)

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.02 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.10 - 0.06 0.00 0.02 - 0.00 0.00 0.53 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.03 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.06 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

72

Burbot

CHXO OSB

2

I.S

~ 1

0.5 BTDTN

3 5 7 I 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S 27SepICIIt

3 5 7 I 9 10 U 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S 27Sepm

ISB SCC

2

0.5

o

////

/ /vV

/v Vv/

// ""v//v ./

/. BTv ... p;pDTN

vI SON

B8

3 5 7 I 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S 27

SopIJt3 5 7 I 9 10 U 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S 27

SopD

TRM SCN

~--'-"""""--'-_-...~~---""'~--'---~ BS~~-----'---'-'::::-'~----~---,'/EF

SON3 5 7 I 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

s.-

2

I.S

0.5BT

3 5 7 I 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S 27

SepIllIIt

///

-/ V VV

_V VVV

V VV

_VV1

/ /

. ... /v

V e.'... .... v DTN/ .. . .. /' EP

I I I I I I lION

2

o

0.5

1.5

Ytpre 29. Treada ofburbot catch ntellJDOII8 Miuouri ad ye11owltoae River studysosa-ta ad macrobIbitata in 1997. Catch rates are reported u #fisbI100Dl tbr baltbictrawl (BT) ad driftiDg tnmmel Del (DTN). 1MIW180 degree bIuI tbr abig seiDe (BS),#fishIbr tbr a lItItiDIry gill Det (SGN), ad #&ahImin for electrofiIbiDg (BF). SeeAppaMh A tbr Jist ofIIIICrOhabitat KIODyDII.

,.,,.,

Burbot

IN=?

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I ~95

Section 1100 100

l80 l80

J: p20 20110 0 0

0-50 600-650

Section 2

0-50 200-250

Section 6

400-450 600-650

Length

Section 7

800-850o

100

l80

J:o

100

l80

J:20

o

IN=1-I--

-I--

-r--

I I I I I I I I I I 900-95100-150 300-350 500-550 700-750 o

1N=o

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-75~ I I

900-950-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

Length800-850 0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

Length

Section 3 Section 8100

l80

J:110 0

- IN=2

-

I 100-150 I I I I I I I I I I ,300-350 500-550 700-750 900-95o

..... 100e 80

J:20

110 0

1N=o

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95o0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

Length

Section 4

800-850 0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

Length

Section 9

800-850

100

l80

J:o

1N=13-

-l""I11

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95o

...... 100e 80

J:o

IN=O

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I I

II

700-750 900-95o0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

Length

Section 5

800-850 0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

Length800-850

IN=O

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95o

Figure 30. Leogth-ftequency histograms ofbmbotcoUected from Missouri and YeJ1owstone Riversections uaiDg drifting trammel~ experimentalsiD net&, beotbic trawls, bag~ and boatelectrofisbiDg. See Table 1 for lIClCtion definitons.

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

Length800-850

74

Burbot

Turbidity

1G-50 50.]00 100-500 500.]000

NTU'IG-IO

lOO-r------------~

lJO+------------~

IO+----------------l

1 70

J:-+----110 30+---

20-+---

10+----

O-L-~--

Depth

II •II.

1-2 ~ I ~ I 7~ I 9-~0 11I~12 IG-I 2.-3 ..., ~7 1-9 IG-II 12.-13

Metm

2010

o

100

lJO10

1 70

J~

~I BE •OoU.4 0.6-0.' I 1.0-1.2 I 1....1.6 I 1.1·2.0 I

100

lJO10

1 70

1=110 3020

10

o

Velocity

0-0.2 0.44.6 0.1-1.0 1.2-1.4 1.~1.1 2.0-2.2

MeterIISec:aad

Temperature100-r---------------.

lJO+---------------lIO-+---------------l

1 70-60

1=r;r., 302010o

F"JgUre 31. Frequacy ofoamreoce ofburbot (N=83) in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri lIDd YelloWltoDe Rivercollections.

Channel Catfish (CNCF)

A total of 1,724 channel catfish was captured in all segments and all macrohabitats in

1997. Catfish were most commonly captured in channelized segments in ISBs and SCCs with the

bag seine and the benthic trawl. however, they were commonly captured in other segments as well

(Figure 32). Highest catch rates were obtained with the bag seine in ISB in segments 17

(3.57/haul) and 27 (4.67/haul) and the benthic trawl in SCC in segments 23 (3.95/100 m) and 27

(5.81/100 m) (Table 15).

Most channel catfish were captured in shallow to moderate depths (86% in depths < 4 m),

slow to moderate velocities (79% in velocities < 0.6m1s), intermediate turbidities (57% between

50-500 NTUs), and warm waters (71 % in temperatures> 2rC) (Figure 34). Less than 5% of all

catfish were captured in depths greater than 7 m, turbidities less than 10 NTUs, velocities greater

than 1.4 mis, and temperatures less than 16°C.

In most sections, catfish were < 300 mm in length (Figure 33). Sections 1,3,6, 7,8, and

9 had high proportions of channel catfish < 100 mm, indicating successful reproduction in these

segments. Catches in sections 2 and 5 contained few fish < 350 mm in length.

76

Channel CatfishTable 15. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for channel catfish by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #ftsh/lOOm for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #ftsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #ftsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SGN), and #ftsh/min for electroftshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir

bers = bold font. Channelized sel!ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak,

... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMs::~

801) BT OTN BS BT OTN EF SON BT OTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SON BT OW EF SON~

fZl

3 - 0.02 - - 0.00 0.40 - - 0.00 0.06 - - 0.22 0.05 - - 0.12 - - - -

5 1.35 0.00 - 0.39 0.00 0.05 - 2.25 0.03 0.05 - 0.16 0.00 0.03 - 0.00 0.49 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.02 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.11 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.07 0.02 1.53 0.26 0.42 - - 0.14 0.12 - 1.03 0.11 0.00 - 1.94 - - - - - -

10 0.09 0.00 1.00 0.15 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.04 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.40 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.57 - - 0.02 0.28

15 0.00 0.47 0.27 0.00 0.02 - 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.89 0.00 0.04 0.03 - 0.03 0.12 - - 0.38 0.04

17 0.07 0.00 3.57 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.10

19 0.07 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.50 0.83 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.03 0.24

22 0.04 0.00 - 2.01 0.04 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 - - - - 3.50 0.12 0.06 1.72 0.00 0.21 0.01

23 0.04 0.00 2.00 1.98 0.16 0.37 0.00 0.04 0.00 1.01 0.75 3.95 0.00 0.29 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.17

25 0.56 0.00 2.13 2.73 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.54 1.68 0.00 0.08 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11

27 0.00 0.00 4.67 2.36 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.11 1.50 5.81 0.00 0.13 1.33 0.18 0.08 - - 0.11 0.11

77

6

5

4

~32

CHXO

Channel Catfish

6

5

4

~32

OSB

6

5

4

~32

o

6

5

4

~32

3 5 7 I 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S rt

~

ISB"',/"

// v/ //

V /V

/V/ V/ //

V /V/V/ / ltl/ /

'7V/ A. '-I!.

/ ~ BT

./ ... ..~. EPDTNlION

3 5 7 I 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S rtSepat

TRM

3 5 7 I 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S rtSepItat

B8

6

5

4

~32

3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S rt

~

SCC

3 5 7 I 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S rt

s.-

SCN

3 5 7 • 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S rtSopIa

78

Channel CatfishSection 1 Section 6

100 100

lso lso

J: J:20

II< 00

900-950 900-950SOO-S50 SOO·S50

Section 2 Section 7100 100

lso lso

J: p20

0 0

900-95{SOO-S5O


lso

J:II< 0

IN=l90

--

.... n ....I I I I I I

500-550 I ~~750 I 900-95100-150 300-350 o

I~-

1TI 100-150

I I I I I I I I I I300-350 500-550 700-750 900-95o

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

LengthSOO-S50 0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

Length800-S50

I

...r- lLl

I III I I

300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95100-150

Section 4100 -.-----------------.::::-c=__~

l SO +---------------&.I..1-.'o£L...1

1=20 +-----1 1---:=-==-----------1o......,.l......r-"l".......,.....y.......-Y--Y-.f.rLY--..-.,........I"--1r-1---r---.-,--,-'

900-950800-S50

.-.100

~ so

J=20

o

0-50 200-250

Section 9

400-450 600-650

LengthSOO-S50

o

Section 5100 -.----------------.------.l so +- ....u.::c:..uq

I:+---------r-rf Hlf--------1

o...L..,---r-,---,--r......-r--r-.I?-Y-JY-J.,w:?-,r-1---r---.-,--,-'

Figure 33. Length-frequency histograms ofchannelcatfish collected from Missouri and YeIloWBtoneRiver sections using drifting trammel~ezperimental gill~ benthic trawl&s bag seines,aud boat electrofisbiDg. See Table 1 for sectiondefinitons.

"'7n

Channel Catfish

- t-

-

:t1~- ---

0.2-0.4 0.6-0.' I 1~1.2 I I....U I 1.&-a.0 I

100

9010

~70-60J:

2010o

100

9010

~70

1=~ 30

2010o

Depth

II -II II •••I~ ~ I ~ I 7~ I 9-~0 Ill~12 I

0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 1-9 10-11 12-13

Metal

Velocity

0-0.2 0.44.6 0.1-1.0 1.2·1.4 U·1.I 2.0-2.2

MeIInISecaad

Turbidity100--.---------------.

904------------~

IO-+------------~

~70

1:4_-----------~

~ 30-+--20-+--10-+--

O....L......II....'---

0-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU'.

TemperaturelOO~-----------~90+--------------1IO--+----------------l

~70-604_-------------1I:-+--------------J~304--------

20-+--------------10-+-----o....l.-...--'''I'"--"''''"-........L

F'1pR: 34. Frequeocy ofoccurreoce ofdwmeI catfish (N=1724) in various depth,velodty. turbidity. and water tempcnture iDtervIls &om Missouri and YellowstoneRiva' collectioDs.

80

Common carp (CARP)

Common carp (n = 1,235) were captured in all segments in a roughly uniform distribution

throughout the river (Table 9), whereas in 1996, the population abundance seemed to be higher in

the lower-river sections. Fish ranged from fingerlings to about 750 mm in length, with a high

proportion in the 400 - 600 mm length category. However a variety of length classes were found

in most sections of the river (Figure 36). Recruitment of young fIsh was found in all Sections

except Section 5, the inter-reservoir section between Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe. Common

carp were caught in all habitat types (Figure 35), and usually at shallow depths, and where water

velocity was low and water temperature was 20 - 30 C (Figure 37). Most fIsh were caught by

electrofIshing (Table 16, Figure 35). ElectrofIshing CPUE was usually between 0.1 and 0.4

fIsh/min (Table 16). This information on common carp from the 1997 sampling effort agrees

closely with that presented in 1996.

81

Common CarpTable 16. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for common carp by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #fIsh/l00m for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #fIsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #fIsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SON), and #fIsh/min for electrofIshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir

bers = bold font. Channelized sel2:ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak,.... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMl::Il)

8 BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SON BT DTN EF BS BT DlN EF BS EF SON BT DlN EF SONi:lJ)Il)

iZl

3 - 0.02 - - 0.00 0.33 - - 0.00 0.25 - - 0.44 0.45 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.03 0.12 - 0.00 0.11 0.19 - 0.00 0.00 0.06 - 0.00 0.09 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.06 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 22.7 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 0.02 - 0.06 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 - 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.45 0.00 - - 0.32 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.22 - 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.27 0.00 0.25 0.14 - - 0.34 0.14

15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.12 - 0.20 0.09 - - 0.44 0.03

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 - - - - - - - - - 0.08 0.02

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.00 0.00 - 0.06 - - - - 0.00 0.20 0.06

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.11 - - - - 0.00 0.25 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.02

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 - - - 0.00 0.20 0.27 0.09

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 - - - 0.22 0.00 0.49 0.09

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.06 - - 0.37 0.08

82

Common CarpCHXO OSB

0.8

0.2 ....L1I..-,..-.-.-'"'----::::l It-''--...,....c..--...,....c..'----,,/" BTf'W'riI"il~-/ DTN

o~~~._T~:;::::!::=;:~~::=;:4':~,....EF

~ 0.6

es 0.4

BT

DTN

0.2

0.8

~ 0.6

es 0.4

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

ISB SCC

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

0.8

~ 0.6

es 0.4

0.2

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM SCN

0.8

~0.6

f3 0.4

3 5 7 g 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

0.8

~ 0.6

f) 0.4

0.2

3 5 7 8 9 10 1214 15 17 192223 2527

Segment

Figure 35. Trcods ofcommon ClIp catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments aDd macrohIbitats in 1997. Catch rates are reported 88 ##:fiabIl00m forbenthic trawl (BT) and drifting tnmmel net (DTN), #fisbI180 cIegrcle haul for abag seine(BS), #fisbIhr for a BtatioaIy gill net (SGN), aDd ##:fiabImiD for e1ectrofisbiog (EF). SeeAppeadix A for Hat oflll8aObabitat acronyms.

83

Common CarpSection 1 Section 6

1oo--r---------------,::_=__~e 10-t----------------U.3=.L.ILU...i

J:+---------------1o....L...r-,----r-.---r----"l"'---r---.----'-f-'+L.J.r'---'-fL-Y--"T'-T-----,----,-.,---,'

Section 2

]00,---------------,- ---,

llO-+--------------ln.=~

J:+---------1J-....--I.f---------jo............---r--r--.---r----.---r-9-'-r'-'T'--Y--Y-'-r'-'ir-r-,---r-.-.-'

Lqth

Section 7100

~IO

I:o

1N=37

1 ~

In nIl n]~]SO I I I I I I I I I

300-350 SOO-SSO 700-7SO 900-95o

,....100elOis'6O

J:rz. 0

IN=63

n~ I7l I7l n LI n ~

I ]~]SO I I I I I I I I300-3SO SOO-SSO 700-750 900J

IN' 'Lift

~

n LI LI f'J n I7l

I lOG-ISO I 300-3SO I SOO-SSO I 700-7~ I I I

Figure 36. Length-frequency histograms ofcommon carp collected from Missouri andYellowstone River sections using drifting trammelnets, experimental gill~ benthic trawls, bagseines, and boat e1ectrofisbing. See Table 1 forsection defiDitons.

O-SO 2OO-2SO 400-4SO 6OO-6SO 8OG-8SO

Lqth

Section 8,....100e lOis'6O

t:s:r. 0

o-so

Section 9

9SO

IN=5

IIII II II II

I l~lSO I 300-3SO I soo-sso I ~7~ I ~

O-SO 2OO-2SO 400-4SO 6OO-6SO 8OG-8SO

LaIgIb

Section 3

O-SO 2OO-2SO 400-4SO 600-6SO 8OG-8SO

Lcogth

Section 4,....100

e lOis'6O

I:rz. 0

o-so

Section 5100

llO

1=0

o-soLqth

84

Depth

Common Carp

Turbidity100

90

80

i 70

i:t40I:loo 30

20

10

o ••1-2 I 3-4 I 5-6 I 7-8 I 9-10 I 11:12 I

100--.------------------,

9O+-----------------i

80-+-----------------1

,.... 70+-----------------i

~ 60-+-----------------1r50-+----------------ir 40I:loo 30-+----

20-+----

10

o0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters0-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's

100

90

80

i 70

- 60r 50r 40I:loo 30

20

10

o

Velocity

-

-

-

-

-- =- •..-

0.2-0.4 I 0.6-0.8 I 1.0-1.2 I 1.4-1.6 I 1.8-2.0 I0-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.8-1.0 1.2-1.4 1.6-1.8 2.0-2.2

Meters/Second

Temperature100--.------------------,

90-+-----------------l

80+---------------1

....... 70+---------------1~ 60-+-----------------1

~ 50+---------------1t 40I:loi 30-+-----------------l

20+-----

10 +---------==__

o--'-....---........----"'I'..........'l""---

18-20 22-2420-22 24-26

Degrees Celsius

Figure 37. Frequency ofoccurrence ofcommon carp (N=1080) invariOUl depth,velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri and YeJIowstoneRiver" COBectiODS.

85

Emerald shiner (ERSN)

Emerald shiners (n =6,891) were rare or absent only from inter-reservoir segments 7,8

and 12 (Table 9), which confirmed the general distribution pattern found in 1996. Two size

classes of this small minnow were found in most Sections (Figure 39). Emerald shiners were

usually caught where depths were <4 m and velocities were <0.5 mls (Figure 40). Most fIsh were

caught when water temperatures were 20-28C.

Most emerald shiners (and many other species) are captured where turbidity levels were

10 - 100 NTUs. At turbidity levels of 0 to 10 NTUs, the depth of the photic zone drops quickly

from 30 m to about 4 m, but light would usually still penetrate to the bottom of most of the

Missouri River. As turbidity levels increase from 10 to 50 NTUs, light penetration changes very

little and the photic zone is the upper 2 - 3 m. At 100 NTUs and above, transparency is <1m.

The emerald shiner, like most fIsh probably avoids very clear water «10 NTUs) and very opaque

water (>100 NTUs), which may explain why we found 90% ofthe fIsh at turbidity levels of 10

100 NTUs (Figure 40).

Most emerald shiners were caught by electrofIshing and seining (Table 17 , Figure 38).

Catch rates of 5 - 28 fIsh/seine haul reflect the abundance of this species at some locations (Table

17). Emerald shiners were abundant in all habitats except channel crossovers, which represents

mid-channel habitats where depth and velocity are greatest. This information on emerald shiner

agrees with that found in 1996, except that the fIsh was captured at a wider range of depths and

velocities in 1997 than 1996.

86

Emerald ShinerTable 17. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for emerald shiner by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #fIsh/l00m for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #fIsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #fIsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SON), and #fIsh/min for electrofIshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir

bers = bold font. Channelized sel!ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak,.... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMs::~

8eo BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SGN BT DTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SGN BT DTN EF SGN~

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.03 - - 0.00 0.11 - - 0.00 0.30 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.42 - 0.00 0.00 1.21 - 0.00 0.00 1.84 - 0.10 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.06 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 1.27 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 3.30 0.00 0.00 - 0.83 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 - 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.09 - 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.10 0.00 - - 0.66 0.00

15 0.02 0.00 12.2 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.99 2.80 0.04 0.00 1.45 - 0.13 0.00 - - 0.85 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 7.60 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 - - - - - - - - - 0.75 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 3.50 0.00 - 0.08 - - - - 0.00 1.50 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 2.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 - - - - 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.24 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 0.00 3.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.88 - - - 0.13 0.00 1.63 0.00

25 0.00 0.00 28.1 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 8.80 0.00 0.00 0.25 - - - 0.22 0.00 0.87 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 4.87 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 13.0 0.07 0.00 0.32 10.8 0.48 0.00 - - 0.44 0.00

87

CHXO

Emerald ShinerOSB

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

ISB

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

SCC

TTN

30

25

o

V/'VV /'

V vVV V/'

VVV /'V /,V -VV V

0 }lV/' ,/V /,v .-vV' ,/ .~

/' BT- ,/

l..A' '- - - EP DTN,/

SON

BS

30

25

20

~1510

30

25

20

~ 15

10

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM

--- BT

jL:::====Z~~~.~··_§!.·~·~~'ilEP DTNo~--'-"""T-.,..-'.--",-';r-'T--T'-':'-""r--'.--",-';""--/ lION

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 1922 23 25 27

Segment

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 192223 25 27

Segment

SCN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

YJgUle 38. 1'reDds ofemenJd sbiDer catch rates amoag Missouri aDd Yellowstone RiverItudy segments and macrohabitata in 1997. Catch rates are reported as #fisbIl00m forbeothic uawl (B'I) and drifting trammel net (DTN). iHisbll80 degree haul for abag seine(BS). #HisbIhr for a statinary gill net (SGN). aDd #fisbImin for electrofisbiag (BP). SeeAppendix A for 6st ofmaaoblbitat acronyms.

88

Emerald ShinerSection 1 Section 6

!IOO-9SO200-250 400-4SO 600-6SO 8OO-8SO

Lqth

Section 7

JN"'l839

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

100-1so 3llO-3SO SOO-SSO 700-7SOo-SO

100

~IO

I:°

Section 2

o-SO

IN=74

-f--

I~

I 100-1SO I 300.3SO I soo-SSO I 700-7~ I I I

100~IO

I:°

!IOO-9SO~ 400-4SO 600-6SO 8OO-8SO

Lqth

Section 8

o-SO

IN-l96

--

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

100-1SO 3llO-3SO SOO-SSO 7llO-7SO

100elO

IE1:10 °

Section 3

o-SO

IN=l

+--f--

I I I I I I I I I I I I I100-1SO 300-3SO SOO-SSO 700-7SO

,...100~IO~60

140

.. 20

1:10 °

o-SO

1N=?4i

-

100-1SO I 3llO-3SO I soo-sso I 7llO-7SO I!IOO-9SO~ 400-4SO 600-6SO 8OO-8SO

Lengtho-SO

IN=f;;Q-f--

+--f--

+-InI I I I I I I

soo-sso I 700-7SO I100-1SO 300-3SO

,...100

e lO~60

I:1:10 °

Section 4 Section 9

o-SO

,...l00-.--------------"T""Il\JIJ-=?-~~R.,e lO +--------------ux:::..l..C1-J

1:-+-----------------1°...L.,----.---.--,...-,-----,-r---.-r-r----.---.--...--r-r----.---.--...--r'I ~~1~ I 3llO-3SO I soo-sso I 700-7SO I !IOO-9SO

O-SO ~ 400-4SO 600-6SO 8OO-8SO

Lqth

Section 5

Lqth

Figure 39. Length-ftequalcyhistograms ofemerald shiner collected from Missouri andYellowstone River sections using drifting trammelnets, experimental gill nets, benthictra~ bagseines, and boat electrofishing. Remaining datawill appear in 1997 Age Ie. Growth Analyses. SeeTable 1 for section definitons.

600-6SO400-4SO

IN=l~RO

...,.,

11L1100-1SO I 300-3SO I soo-sso I 7llO-7SO I I I

o-SO

100elO

IE1:10 °

11tJ='\

I I I I I I I I I I I I I100-1SO 300-3SO SOO-SSO 700-7SO

1~0.8

(

0.60.40.1

r:&o °

89

Depth

Emerald Shiner

Turbidity100

90

80

~ 70

- 60i 50

f 40It 30

20

10

o• -••• -1~2 I 3-4 I 5~6 I 7-8 I 9-~0 I 11-12 I

100-,----------------,

90--l--------------~

80-+--------------~

"0' 70-t----------------l

e 60-+--------------~i 50r 40+------j

llr.t 30-+----

20+---

10-+---

O~""""P"----

0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters0-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's

100

90

80

- 70'#....., 60

i 50r 40llr.t 30

20

10

o

Velocity

--- ---~- - _..0.2-0.4 0.6-0.8 I 1.0-1.2 I 1.~1.6 I 1.8-2.0 I

0-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.8-1.0 1.2-1.4 1.6-1.8 2.0-2.2

Meters/Second

100

90

80

"0' 70e 60

J:20

10

o

Temperature

tlIl=- •II

II I

14-16 18-20 22-24 26-28 I 30-3212-14 16-18 20-22 24-26 28-30

Degrees Celsius

Figure 40. Frequency ofoccurrence ofemerald shiner (N=S390) in various depth,velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri and YellowstoneRiver collections.

90

Fathead minnow (FHMW)

Fathead minnows were ubiquitous but not abundant as only 219 fish were collected (Table

9). In 1996,91% were captured in Segment 12, which also yielded high numbers in 1997 as did

Segment 7. Most were less than 150-mm long, and we found the smallest size class in six ofthe

nine river sections, indicating successful reproduction (Figure 42). The species was associated

with shallow water with low flows and turbidity levels (Figure 43). About 80% of the fish were

caught where water temperatures were 16-18, but some fIsh were caught at temperatures from 12

to 28°C. Electrofishing and seining were the only gears that yielded fathead minnows, which

were found in all habitats except channel crossovers (Figure 41, Table 18). The data generally

agree with that collected in 1996, but to date <500 fIsh have been captured.

91

-~ ------- ------- - ---

..... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMs::Q)

8 BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SGN BT DTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SGN BT DTN EF SGN01.)Q)

(/)

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 11.0 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.33 - - - 0.67 0.00 0.00 - - 0.03 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.02 - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.02 0.00

15 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - 0.02 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.50 0.00 - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

Fathead MinnowTable 18. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for fathead minnow by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #fIsh/lOOm for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #fIsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #fIsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SGN), and #fIsh/min for electrofIshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir

.bers = bold font. Channelized segment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak,

92

Fathead MinnowCHXO OSB

0.8

0.7

0.6

~ 0.5

~ 0.40.3

0.2

0.1

o-'<T---.---.---.--,-,---r-----r-.--.---.--.--r-T---.-'

BTDTN

0.8

0.7

0.6

~ 0.5

~ 0.40.3

0.2

0.1

o--"'r---"r...e,-.,--''r-'-'r-.-,---''r--'-T-'-r-''r-'-'.-........-' EF

TTN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 2223 25 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

ISB SCC

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

0.8

0.7

0.6

~ 0.5

~ 0.40.3

0.2

0.1

o

////V/

-/ /VV/_V /VV/-V /VV/_V /VV/_V /VV/

t---V /VV/f-- ..._V /VI./ / .T

/ BT_V /1./ - EF DTN/ /llON

BS

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM SCN

.r--~"----~"--"--.,..-'--...e--~-?BSEF

SON

0.8

0.7

0.6

~ 0.5

~0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

o--"'r---.---.-.,--''r-'-'r-.-----r--'-r---.-'-r-''r-''-.-.--''r./

0.8

0.7

0.6

S0.5

~ 0.40.3

0.2

0.1

o-'<T---.---.-.,--''r-'-'r-.-,--.--.-'-r-''r-'-''''''''''''--'

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 1922 23 25 27

Segment

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 1922 23 25 27

Segment

YJgUre 41. Treads offatheed miDnow catch rates among Missouri IDd YeUowstone Riverstudy segmarts aod macroblbitats in 1997. Catch rates are reported as #JishIl00m forbcothic trawl (B1') and driftiDg tr8mIDel net {DTN}, #Hishf180 degree bauI for a bag seine(BS). #fisbIbr for a statiDuy gill net (SGN), aDd #JishImin for electrofiabiDg (BF). SeeAppcadix A for list ofmacrobabitat ICrOJlyIDS.

93

Fathead MinnowSection 1 Section 6

0-50

100elO

IEo

IN=8-

nI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

100-150 300-350 SOO-S5O 700-750

IN=Il

I ~OO:I~ I 300-3~ I SOO-S5O I 700-750 II

0-50

100~IO

IEo

Section 2 Section 7

IlOO-9SO2OO-2SO 4OG-45O 600-650 8OO-8SO

Length

Section 8

0-50

IN=6--

n100-150 I I I I I I I I I I

300-350 SOO-S5O 700-750

Section 3

0-50

N=t.t

-r1

100-150 I 300-350 I SOO-S5O I 700-750 I

...... 100~IOg-60

J:I:ro 0


Length

IM::A

~

11l00-IS0 I 300-350 I SOO-S5O I 700-750 I I I

0-50

...... 100elOt'60

J:Ii:. 0

1 9SO0-50 200-250 4OG-45O 600-650 8OO-8SO

Length

IN=2-

-

00-150 I 300-350 I SOO-S5O I 700-750 II

IlOO-

...... 100elOt'60

I:o

Section 4 Section 9IN=l

I l00:l~ I 300-350 I SOO-S5O I 700-750 I I

0-50

...... 100elO

JEo


Length

Section S

IN=O

I ' , I I ' , , 1" , I ' , , I ' ,100-150 300-350 SOO-S5O 700-750

0-50

loo.-------------c===IlJ:_=-....===>""

~ lO-tlt---------------i.~~L..~y

J:-tt+-------------i

o.-J..YuR,.L,--r-.--...--r---T-.-.-...--r-r-.---,-,---.,----r--,-J

100-150 I 300-350 , SOO-S5O , 700-750 I IlOO-9SO0-50 200-250 4OG-45O 600-650 8OO-8SO

Length

Figure 42. Length-frequency histograms offatheadminnow collected from Missouri aDd YellowstoneRiver sections using drifting trammel nets,experimental gill nets, benthic tra~ bag seines,aDd boat e1ectrofishing. See Table 1 for sectiondefinitons.

94

Fathead Minnow

Depth Turbidity100

90

80

# 70

i :~t 40l:Ioo 30

20

10

o •1~2 I 3~ I 5-6 I 7-8 I 9-~0 I 11~12 I

100-,--------------.....,

90+---------------1

80--+----------------1

,..., 70+---------------1

e 60--+----------------1

f 50r 40l:Ioo 30

20

10

o

- - ---I I I

I 22~24 I 26~28 II

14-16 18-20 30-32

100

90

80

# 70

"'" 60r 50r 40l:Ioo 30

20

10

o

0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters

Velocity-

-

-

-

-

-

--

-

- •0.2-0.4 I 0.6-0.8 I 1.0-1.2 I 1.4-1.6 I 1.8-2.0 I

0-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.8-1.0 1.2-1.4 1.6-1.8 2.0-2.2

Meters/Second

100

90

80

"0' 70e 60

t- 50;R" 40.e 30

20

10

o

0-10

12-14

10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's

Temperature

16-18 20-22 24-26 28-30

Degrees Celsius

Figure 43. Frequency ofoccurrence offilthead minnow (N=209) in various depth.velocity. turbidity. and water temperature intervals from Missouri and YeI1oWBtoneRiver COD.ectiODS.

95

Flathead Catfish (FHCF)

A total of 382 flathead catfIsh were captured. Catches occurred in inter-reservoir segment

15 and in channelized segments 17, 19,22,23,25, and 27 (Figure 44). Fish were captured in all

macrohabitats except CHXO and with the benthic trawl, electrofIshing boat, and stationary gill net

(Table 19). Fish were most commonly captured with the electrofIshing boat in OSBs.

Most flathead catfIsh were collected in shallow depths (80% in depths < 3 meters), low

velocities (69% in velocities < 0.6 m/s), low to intermediate turbidities (95% between 10-100

NTUs), and warm waters (73% in temperatures between 24 and 30°C) (Figure 46). Less than

3% of flathead catfIsh were captured in turbidities < 10 NTUs and temperatures < 20°e.

Flathead catfIsh were captured only in sections 6, 7,8, and 9, with most (40%) captured in

section 8. Length frequencies in these sections ranged from 50-1150 mm (Figure 45). Sections 8

and 9 had the highest proportions offIsh <100 mm (16% and 11%).

96

- ~ ------- -------

.....CHXO ISB OSB SCCc:: SCN TRM<U

8Ol.l<U BT OTN BS BT OTN EF SON BT OTN EF BS BT OTN EF BS EF SON BT OTN EF SONCI'.l

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.04 0.01

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.24 - - - - - - - - - 0.01 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.35 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.01 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.04 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.01 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

Flathead CatfishTable 19. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for flathead catftsh by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #ftsh/l00m for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #ftsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #ftsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SGN), and #ftsh/min for electroftshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir

bers = bold font. Channelized segment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak,

97

Flathead CatfishCHXO OSB

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 1922 23 25 27

Segment

BTDTN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

ISB SCC

2

1.5

0.5

o

/,//,/

_/ /V

V,/_/ /V

,/

/V V

V//V ./

./BT- ./DTN./ ..-.:..... EF

SON3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

BS

2

1.5

0.5

o

~~-~~7""":-"-,-7""":--~.-1.~'/ BS.r-~~~----__---------~'/BT

.r------~--==il.."...c.".....c."..~'=':=':;,.rDTN

-- EP3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM SCN

2

0.5 • BSrc-~~--~-~~~g:;...--"-----;>'/ EF

o--""i---T..-"r-'-,-"-ro---'T--.-"'r-'-T--"""'-"r-,-/ SON

~------"'--"-,------"-----;>'/BT

--- EPDTN

o--""i--,--"r-,.-'",-"-ro---'T..-:.,.::-,·.---'T--T-",.":::-"".._=..T--""" SON

1.5

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 1922232527

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

FIgUR 44. Treads oftlatbead catfish catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrobabitat. in 1997. Catch rates ere reported u #fisbll00m forbeDtbic trawl (BT) 8Dd drifting trammel DIlt (DTN). ##fisbI180 degree haul for abag seiDe(BS). #fiabIhr for a ItatinIry gin net (SGN). 8Dd ##fisbImin for electrofisbing (BF). SeeAppendix A for Hit ofID8a'Obabitat acronyms.

98

Flathead CatfishSection 1 Section 6

100 --.--------------------,r::-:::-::------.l 80+- ---lIA..L-N'=O..!L----1

I:~+--------_______120-+----------------------1o-L,.-.-.--,--,r-r--.-....-.--r-.-.--,--,r-r--.-....-.--r-.-.--~

1 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 1 900-950 11100-11500-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850 1000-1050

Length

100,----------------,------.

l 80+--------------LnE~L.....I

J:~204-----,-,...{1-----------------1

o-L,.-"f'--Y-Y-LrLYL...,--.l,U:;:>-<;'-'i'--.--.-,--,---....-.,---.,--r-.-.,.......J

400-450 600-650 800-850 1000-1050

Length


g 80r40

20

0

500-50

Section 8100

l80I6040

20l*.

0

IN=O

1100-150 1 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-950 11100-110-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850 1000-1050

Length

Section 3

100

l80

J60

40

20

o

100 --.--------------------,r::-:::-::-----.g 80+- ...LIN"-1-:'=O~~

I:~20-+--------------------1o-L,--.-.--,--,-,---.-....-.--r-.-.--,--,-,---.-....-.--r-.-.--,....-,--'

1 ll00:15~ 1 ;00-350 1 500-550 1 700-750 1 900-950 11100-1150(}.50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850 1000-1050

Length

Section 4 Section 9100 --.-------------------rJN---=o-""'IIl 80-+----------------l.I..:!=clL.....Jl

J:~20-+----------------------1o-L,.--r-.--,--,r-r--.....-,.,.--r-.--,--,r-r--.....-.--r-.-.--~

1100-150 1 300-350 1 500-550 1 700-750 1 900-950 11100-11500-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850 1000-1050

Length

100 --.-----------------,----,l 80 -+- ---I...u:::Jil~-I

J:~204---=-1>1-----------------1

o -L,.-!,1J,LY-LrLYL<p-.J.;L,.....,--,--r-....-.--r-....,....,--,,--,-~...-.,.J

Section 5

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850 1000-1050

Length

150

100

l80

J60

40

20o

IN=O

11~1510 1 31~3510 1 500-550 1 700-750 1 900-950 11100-1

Figure 45. Length-frequency histograms offlathead catfish collected from Missouri andYellowstone River sections using drifting trammelnets, experimental gill nets, benthic trawls, bagseines, and boat e1ectrofisbing. See Table 1 forsection definitons.

99

Depth

Flathead Catfish

Turbidity100

9080#: 70

-I :~40

30

20

10

o

II.. _- -1-2 3~ I 5:6 I 7:8 I 9-

1

10 I 11~12 I

100-,----------------,

90-t----------------i

80-1------------------1~ 70

1=-1------------------11:1- 30-+---

20-+---

10-+---

o--'-----.---0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters

0-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's

-

I 14-16 I 1~20f! - -- I 1

26-28 30-32

100

90

80

#: 70'-' 60i 50

go 40

1:1- 30

20

10

o

Velocity

-- -

=JI= -

!'1.:.2 I 1.4-1.6 I 1.8-2.0 I-

0.2-0.40-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.8-1.0 1.2-1.4 1.6-1.8 2.0-2.2

Meters/Second

100

9080#: 70

i :~J401:1- 30

20

10

o

12-14

Temperature

16-18 20-22 24-26

Degrees Celsius28-30

Figure 46. Frequency ofoccurrence offlathead catfish (N=382) in various depth,velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri and YellowstoneRiva' collections.

100

Flathead chub (FHeB)

Flathead chub was the third most abundant fIsh in the benthic guild. Its distribution was

skewed toward the upper river, and the catch rate declined from hundreds of fIsh collected at

segments 3 - 10 (Segment 10 ends at the headwaters of Lake Sakakawea) to less than 10 fIsh

collected at segments 11 - 27 (Table 9). This pattern agrees with data from 1996. Some chubs

were 300-mm long and there was usually a good representation of several length groups at most

sections, especially Sections 2, 3, and 4 in the upper river where the fIsh were most numerous

(Figure 48).

Most flathead chubs were captured where depths were <1 m, where velocities were <0.4

mis, and where temperature was between 14 and 26 C. Flathead chubs tended to be captured in

colder water than some other species, and in more turbid water. About 40% were captured

where turbidity readings exceeded 100 NTUs, so light penetration at these sites was probably <1

m. Most chubs were captured at inside bends and in connected secondary channels (Figure 49).

The bag seine was the most effective collection gear with CPUE values up to 44 fIsh/seine haul

(Table 20), but some chubs were caught in every gear (Figure 47). This summary of flathead

chub abundance and habitat association is very similar to that suggested by the 1996 data.

101

- -

... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMs::a.>8 BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SON BT DTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SON BT DTN EF SONI:ll}a.>

CI)

3 - 0.04 - - 0.04 0.30 - - 0.02 0.29 - - 0.00 0.30 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.08 - 0.18 0.03 0.58 - 0.03 0.12 1.07 - 0.13 0.12 0.14 - 0.10 0.00 - - - -

7 0.02 0.00 2.58 0.02 0.02 - - 0.04 0.00 - 0.72 0.02 0.09 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.04 0.00 5.44 0.04 0.04 - - 0.02 0.00 - 2.48 0.03 0.03 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.13 0.02 44.0 0.09 0.00 - - 0.07 0.00 - 35.1 0.33 0.05 - 50.2 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 18.5 0.07 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.19 17.0 0.00 0.00 0.50 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

Flathead ChubTable 20. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for flathead chub by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #fIsh/lOOm for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #fIsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #fIsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SGN), and #fIsh/min for electrofIshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir


102

Flathead ChubCHXO OSB

60

50

40

~ 30

20

BTDTN EF

TTN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

ISB SCC

60

50

40

~ 30

20

10

o

/,/

/,/ ,/

-//,//,/-v ,//

V /,/-vv,/ ,/-v ,//

V /v --v ,/ ,/ - ,/vV ~ ..-~-~-~~'~ .... ,//BT- ..A "'J:ll!!':'~'4::7:

.AI ... ", -..,.., '/EFDTN,/ /SGN

I I I I I I I I

BS

/// /A-------------i

60-/ /V /A--------------i

50-V /V/A---~----------i

40-V /V~ 30-V ......V/A---r·lffl'._---------i~ ,/ ./

20-V /V./_ ... _ _--~V ./.. ---- ..... ./oBTBS

10- ./",-"",,,,-,,,- .... ... .... .... .... ./'

0.....,.......=·'0'-=·.'r-....-'"'.·,,···ro-'=··T···~···T--"-··r'"1ro···-.-·--.---.~./EFDTN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19222325 27

Segment

TRM SCN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19222325 27

Segment

10

60

50

40

~3020

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

.)oC-"--..----'---''--'----'-..--''-:-..--'-/ BTr'---..-.......IIi-..-~-..-..--..-~EP DTN

o ....&.<:;---"r--"-r-4--"'"'r-,..-'..--'"T--"-.-.---.----T--"-r-,-~ !JON

50

10

60

YJgUfe 47. Treads offtltbeed chub catch rates 8JDOD8 Missouri end yel1owatone Riverstudy scgmeot8end macrohabitata in 1997. Catch rates are reported u #.fisbfl00m forbeotbic trawl (BT) and cIriftiDg trammel Det (DTN), #HishI180 degree hIuI for abag seiDe(BS), #&sbIhr fOr a statinuyam- (SGN), aDd #.fisbfmin for electrofisbing (EP). SeeAppendix A for lilt ofIDIa'Obabitat lICI'OJI)'JDS.

103

Flathead ChubSection 1 Section 6

IN=l1

I I I I I I I I I I Il00.1S0 300-350 SOO-S5O 700-750

~5O 2OO-2SO 400-450 600-650

Length

Section 7,....100

e lOt'60

I:~ 0

~5O

Section 8

100elO

1=o

IN=9S

BIn n .....

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

100.150 300-350 SOO-S5O 700-750

Section 2

Section 3

100..,.--------------r-----,elO-t--------------U.1==>,L;L.....-J

1=o--'-r~¥_,.__'t......".___.__.,_r_T__._.__.__r_T__._.___-.-r-'

9OO-9SO200-250 400-450 600-650 lIOO-ISO

LaJg1b

- IN=?

-

I 100.150 I I I I I I I I I I300-350 SOO-S5O 700-7509OO-9SO

2OO-2SO 400-450 600-650 lIOO-ISO

LaJg1b

I,.T• .A 1 ~

11~oo.l5O I 300-350 I SOO-S5O I 700.750 I

~5O

,....100

e lO

1=o

Section 4 Section 9

9OO-9SO2OO-2SO 400-450 600-650 lIOO-ISO

Lqth~5O

IN=2

- 1 1

II-II

100.150 I 300-350 I SOO-S5O I 700-750 I I I

Figure 48. Length-frequency histograms offlathead chub collected from Missouri andYe11owstone River sections using drifting trammel~ experimental gill nets, benthic trawIs. bagseines, and boat electrofishiDg. Remaining datawill appear in 1997 Age" Growth Analyses. SeeTable 1 for section definitons.9SO

200-250 400-450 600-650 8OO-ISO

Length

9OO-9SO2OO-2SO 400-450 600-650 lIOO-ISO

Lqth

Section 5

I N::-:llQI

--.....hII 100.150 I 300-350 I soo-s5O I 700-750 I

11lJ=l\

I ~oo.l5O I 300-350 I SOO-S5O I 700-750 I 900-~5O

~5O

,....100

e lO

IE1:10 0

100elO

IEo

104

Depth

Flathead Chub

Turbidity

-- •- .. _--

0.2-0.4 I 0.600.1 I 1.0-1.2 I 1.4-1.6 I 1.1.2.0 I

100

110

10

~70...... 60

(=lI.o 30

20

10

o

100

110

10

~ 70

}=J:I.I 30

20

10

o

•I~ I ~ I .;." I 7~ I 9-~0 I 11~12 I

0-1 Zo3 4-5 6-7 1-9 10-11 lZo13

MeIers

Velocity

0-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.1-1.0 1.2-1.4 1.6-1.1 2.O-U

MetmISc<:ond

l00--r---------------,

1lO-+------------~

10+_------------1

~70e.., 60+_------------1f so+--!,40

I&< 30+----

20-+--

10+---o...1..----.--_

0-10 100SO SD-IOO loo.SOO soo.lOOONTU's

Temperaturel00--r---------------,

9O-+------------~

10+_------------1

~ 70j ~+-------------120

10

o

YIgUl'e 49. Frequency ofoccummce offlathead chub (N=3421) in various depth,velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals ftom Missouri and YeI10wst0neRiver coJ1ectiona.

105

Freshwater drum (FWDM)

A total of917 freshwater drum was captured in 1997 with most fish (74%) captured in the

lower channelized segments 17 to 27 below Gavins Point Dam. Freshwater drum were captured

in all macrohabitats, except CHXO, and with every gear except the drifting trammel net (Figure

50). Highest catch rates were obtained in segment 22 with the benthic trawl in TRM (16.77/100

m) (Table 21). No freshwater drum were captured in inter-reservoir segments 7 or 12. Most

freshwater drum were captured in shallow water (90% in depths < 3 m) and low current velocities

(80% in velocities < 0.4 mls) (Figure 52). Fish were captured most frequently in low to

intermediate turbidities (76% between 10-100 NTUs) and warm waters (78% in temperatures>

2rC). Less than 10% of all freshwater drum were captured in depths greater than 3 m or

velocities greater than 0.6 mls.

Length-frequency distributions were irregular in most sections suggesting that recruitment

was erratic or that fish were not recruited to our gears (Figure 51). Declining length frequencies

were found in sections 6,8, and 9, however, few fish 0-50 mm in length were found. No

freshwater drum were captured in section 5 (Garrison Dam to Lake Oahe headwaters).

106

Freshwater DrumTable 21. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for freshwater drum by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #ftsh/lOOm for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #ftsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #ftsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SON), and #ftsh/min for electroflShing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir

bers = bold font. Channelized sel!ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak....

CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCNt:: TRMa)

8eI.l BT OTN BS BT OTN EF SGN BT OTN EF BS BT OTN EF BS EF SGN BT OTN EF SGNa)

t/.l

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.30 - - 0.00 0.37 - - 0.00 0.20 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.02 - 0.00 0.00 0.25 - 0.00 0.00 0.03 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 - - 0.04 0.00

15 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 - 0.15 0.00 - - 0.42 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.02 0.02

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.17 - 0.05 - - - - 0.00 0.01 0.05

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 - - - - 0.50 0.37 0.02 16.8 0.00 0.79 0.03

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.06

25 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.58 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.03 - - - 3.33 0.00 0.08 0.02

27 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.43 0.55 0.00 0.05 0.80 0.11 0.02 - - 0.04 0.02

107

Freshwater Drum

CHXO OSB

20

15

~ 10

5

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

BTDTN

20

15

357 8

BTTN

ISB SCC

... ... _......../.: BS... .... .•... .:/. BT_ ._ --"-/u DTN

."....... -- -~

//'20 / /' /'

15VV V

V/'~ 10 / /' /'

5/V ./

,./

./ .

0..A... _

BS

///

// VVV

/V V

VV/V V

V//V ./ ...., -./ --././ BT

./ ....

...... .~ ----UDTN./ - - ./SONI I I I Io

20

15

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM SCN

5

o

..,J<:::..---:..---":..-----.:::::..--=,,/BTA7""'~ __ DTN~~~~~ :EP

BON3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 2223 25 27

Segment

Fsgure SO. Treadsof~ drum catch rates among Missowi aDd Yellowstone Riverstudy segmcata aDd macrobabitats in 1997. Catch rates are reported u #fisbIl00m. forbeDtbic trawl (BT) IIId drifting trammel net (DTN). #fisbI180 degree haul for abag seiDe(BS). #fisbIhr for a statinary gill net (SGN), IIId t#fisbImin for electrofisbing (BF). SeeAppendix A for 6st oflDlCfObabitat acrooyma.

108

Freshwater DrumSection 1 Section 6

100 .------------------r.;:-;-;-;-:;n~ SO+-------------~!,;;;,!~

I:~20+----1

O...J.,---r"----.-.-Y-Y-Jy....,.......r---;---r--,-----.-.-,--.---,--.--~

900-950SOO-S50

100.-----------------,----...,

~ SO+---------------Ll3:::.L.I.~_1

i :~20o~LJ.,J.....,...........__r_"'T'__"?__'T'__";J__,____r~~~~~~~,....J

Section 2 Section 7

1N=3

n ["1

1 1 IIII II

100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95

IN=22

~n ~nnn~n

I 100-150 I 300-350 I T TTT500-550 700-750 900-95

..... 100e so

i60

40

20

o

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

LengthSOO-S50

o

100

lso

J60

40

20r:r. 0

0-50 200-250 400450 600-650

LengthS00-850

Section 3 Section 8

IN=?

--iH[I t

I 100-150 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-9 50 700 750 900 950400-450 600-650 SOO-S50

Length200-250

!tI..T"""li17

[I

I I I I I II

100-150 300-350 500-5 - -0-50

100

l so

i:f 20

r:r. 0

50SOO-S50400-450 600-650

Length200-2500-50

Section 4 Section 9

r'M=?

n f

If 1II t

I I I I I I500-550 I 700-750 I100-150 300-350 900-95

100

~ so

J60

40

20

o

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

LengthSOO-S50

o

100 -,--------------.-----.

l so +-------------L.J:!::.;'-lJ'L....l

i :~-+--------------------1f 20

r:r. o--l..GJ....IfL...Y-9---'i"--¥-¥-9-''j"-,.....,r----.---r---.--.---.--.--..,--,-J

Section 500"",/\

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95

100

lso

i60

40

20

o

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

LengthSOO-S50

o

Figure 51. Length-frequency histograms offreshwater drum collected ftom Missouri andYeUowstone River sections using drifting trammelnets, experimental gill nets, benthic 1rawls, bag~ and boat electrofisbiDg. See Table 1 forsection definitons.

109

Freshwater Drum

Depth Turbidity100

9080

... 70

el :~40

r:r.. 30

20

10

o

IIII - --

3~15~61I I 9-

1

10 I 11~12 I1-2 7-8

100.-------------------,

90-+------------------1

80-I-------------------j

... 70 -+------------------1e 60-+------------------Ir 50r 40-+---r:r.. 30-1----

20-1---

1O-+---~

O...J-.....,---

0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters

0-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's

Temperature100 .-------------------,

9O-I-------------------j80-+------------------1

~ 701:+------------------1

r:r.. 30-+---------

20·+--------=,------10-1------

o....l-,--""""T'"-.--...-

2.0-2.2

Velocity

0-0.2

100--.-------------------,

90-1-------------------1

80-1-------------------1

~ 70-+-----------------j~ 60i 508' 40

&:: 30

20

10

o

Figure 52. Frequency ofoccurrence of freshwater drum (N=917) in various depth,velocity. turbidity. and water temperature intervals from Missouri and YellowstoneRiver collections.

110

Hybognathus spp. (HBNS)

This group of similar species (western silvery minnow, plains minnow, brassy minnow)

was widely distributed, but absent from inter-reservoir segments 12 - 15. This finding is

contradictory to that in 1996 when fIsh were found at these sites, especially Segment 15 (Gavins

Point Dam to Ponca, Nebraska). These species are small fIsh, so our fmding that the largest

specimens were only about 150-mm long was expected. There was representation of several size

classes in sections 2, 5, and 9 (Figure 54). This generalization may change when data on size

classes become available for sections where fIsh were not measured in the fIeld. Most fIsh were

found in shallow, low-flow areas with a wide range of water temperatures (Figure 55). About

20% were collected where light penetration was nil , but many were also collected where light

penetration was great (Figure 55), perhaps indicating that this group is tolerant of a wide range of

turbidity and temperature conditions. This group was found in all habitats, especially inside bends

and secondary connected channels, and was vulnerable to electrofIshing, seining, and trawling

(Figure 53). Seining CPUE values sometimes exceeded 50 fishlhaul in secondary connected

channels (Table 22). The 1997 data agreed nicely with that summarized from the 1,759 fIsh

collected in 1996.

111

- -

.... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMl:1~

8 BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SGN BT DTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SGN BT DTN EF SGNOJ)~

CIl

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.05 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.04 0.00 - 0.08 0.00 0.12 - 0.04 0.00 0.44 - 0.00 0.00 0.13 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.50 0.00 0.00 - 0.44 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.42 0.00 0.00 - 0.11 - - - - - -

9 0.09 0.00 6.87 0.06 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 8.73 0.00 0.00 - 17.7 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.02 18.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.02 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

15 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.01 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.01 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.0 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.09 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 - - - - 5.50 11.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 59.1 0.03 0.00 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00

25 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.3 0.00 0.00 0.08 - - - 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 9.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

Hybognathus Spp.Table 22. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for Hybognathus spp. by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=InsideBend, OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth).Catch rates are reported as #ftsh/l00m for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #ftsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS),#ftsh/hr for a stationary gill net (SGN), and #ftsh/min for electroftshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter

hers = bold font. Channelized segment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak

112

Hybognathus spp.Western Silvery Minnow, Plains Minnow, Brassy Minnow

CHXO OSB

100

80

~ 60

es 40

20

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

ISB

BTDTN

100

80

~ 60

f> 40

20

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

SCC

100

80

~ 60

Q 40

20

o

,/,/,/

,/,/ VV- ,/

VV V V- ,/

VV V V- ,/

V V ,/v- ,/ ...v v ' ,~.~.LJ".UI!". 4JtJ!--v :/ -.-.-. ~. ~- BT

./-~'~'~'~ EF DTN./ ,,-~ -1./ ... ...

BONI I I I I I

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM

B8

100

80

~ 60

es 40

20

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

SCN

20

100

80

~ 60

f3 40

- BT"",.... --__~~ EP DTN

o -..I4----r-.,..-''r--''-r-'"T---r-.,..-'...-'',,-''r""''T-'"'r-'-r SON

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

100

80

~ 60

f> 40

20

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

F"tgUre S3. Trends ofJIybogntzthIIs spp. catch rates among Missouri and Ye110wat0neRiva' study segments and macrobIbitats in 1997. This graph oDly shows species reportedu Hybogoatbus spp. Any specific w. SilveryMiDnow, PlaiDs Minnow, or BrassyMinnow data wiD appear in the 1998 amuaI report u the 1997 Age &. Growth Analyses.Catch rates are reported u #fishIl00m for beDthic trawl (BT) and cIriftiDs trIJDme1 Del(DTN), f#fisbI180 degree haul for abag seine (BS), #JisMno for a statiDuy gill !let (SGN),and #fisbImin for electro&sbing (BF). See Appendix A for list oflDlCl'Ohabitat acronyms.

113

Hybognathus spp.Western Silvery Minnow, Plains Minnow, Brassy Minnow

Section 1 Section 6I N=1,;;?1

I l00.ISO I 3llO-3SO I SOMSO I 7QO.7SO IO-SO

100elO

IEo

IN=O

I l00.ISO I 300-350 I soo-sso I 7QO.7SO I

Section 2 Section 7IN=23

1'"1

n hi

l00.ISO I 300-3SO I soo-sso I 7QO.7SO I I I

O-SO 600-6SO

,...100'===========~1~[le 80+ii' 60-1-----------------1

1:-+-----------------1"" 0 ~___.__,..._,____._._._r_,___.__,._,____.___.__....____,__...,......J

I 100.150 I 300-3SO I soo-S5O I 7QO.7SO I !lOO-9SOO-SO 2OO-2SO 400-4SO 600-6SO lIOO-8SO

LaJgth

Section 3 Section 8

- 1M""'1---

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I

l00.IS0 300-350 soo-SSO 7QO.7SO !lOO-9SO200-250 400-4SO 600-6SO lIOO-8SO

LaJgth

Section 9Section 4

0-50

IN=178

=JI I I I I I I I I I I I I

l00.1SO 300-3SO soo-S5O 7QO.75O

Figure 54. Length-ftequency histograms ofHybognathlls spp. collected from Missouri andYellowstone River sections using drifting trammelnets, experimental gill nets, benthic trawls, bagseines. and boat electrofisbing. Remaining datawill appear in 1997 Age &. Growth Analyses. SeeTable 1 for section definitons.

,...100__.__----------___,__-----,e 1O-+-------------<~Y.3I=:-::..a.;ll,Q:LW_i..,;;

t' 60--+=----------------1

t:-ttt-;JJt------------------j"" 0 --I..If1.....,IJJ......,___.__,..._,_,___.__,._,____.___.__....____,__-.--r-r---.J

l00.ISO I 300-3SO I soo-SSO I 7QO.7SO I~O-SO 200-250 400-4SO 6OO-6SO lIOO-8SO

LaJgth

400-4SO 600-6SO

LaJgth

so400-4SO 600-6SO

LaJgth

Section 5

IN=?

1300-3 1 soo-S5O I 7QO.7SO I

1M="

I ~oo.1SO I 300-3SO I soo-SSO I 7QO.7SO IO-SO 200-250

l00.ISOO-SO 2OO-2SO

100elO

Ho

114

Hybognathus Spp.Western Silvery Minnow, Plains Minnow, Brassy Minnow

100

90

80

~ 70

i :~J40l:I.o 30

20

10

o

Depth

1~2 I 3~ I 5~6 I 7-8 I 9-10 I 11-12 I

Turbidity100-.-----------------,

90+----------------j

80-+----------------j

_ 70+----------------j

j:-+----------------j

~ 30-+---

20-+---

10-+----

0-'----.---

0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters0-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's

100

90

80

~ 70

-I :~40

lto 30

20

10

o

Velocity

- ,.-

- f-

- f-

- f-

- f-

- '-

0.2-0.4 I 0.6-0.8 I 1.0-1.2 I 1.4-1.6 I 1.8-2.0 I0-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.8-1.0 1.2-1.4 1.6-1.8 2.0-2.2

Meters/Second

Temperature100-.-----------------,

90-+----------------j

80+----------------j

~ 70

-It' :~+----------------j

40-+----------------j

30+----------------j

20-+------=--

10-+------

o-'-..---""P"----""I'L......I'9""--

18-20 22-2420-22 24-26

Degrees Celsius

Figure 55. Frequency ofoccurrence ofHybognathus spp. (N=4158) in various depth,velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri and YellowstoneRiver COIlectiODS.

115

Pallid sturgeon (PDSG)

One pallid sturgeon was caught in 1997. It was captured in Segment 10 (between the

Yellowstone River confluence and Lake Sakakawea) in a large tributary mouth (TRM-LRGE)

with a drifting trammel net (DTN). Associated physical habitat variables were depth: 4.8 m,

velocity: 0.85 mis, conductivity: 444 j-lS/cm, turbidity: 268 NTU's, temperature: 19.5°C, and

substrate: 100% sand.

River carpsucker (RVCS)

A total of 3,299 river carpsuckers was captured in all segments with all gears and in all

macrohabitats except CHXO (Figure 56). They were frequently captured with the bag seine in

SCCs, ISBs, and SCNs (Table 23). About 4% of river carpsuckers were captured in least

impacted segments, with 9% and 87% captured in inter-reservoir and channelized segments,

respectively.

Most river carpsuckers were captured in shallow water (90% in depths from 0-1 m) and

low velocities (97% in velocities < 0.4 mls) (Figure 58). Most were found in moderate turbidities

(89% in turbidities of 10-100 NTUs) and warm waters (69% in temperatures between 24 and

32°C). Less than 5% of all fIsh were collected in velocities greater than 0.4 mls and turbidities

less than 10 NTUs.

River carpsuckers were captured in all study sections in 1997. Catches in sections 3 and 7

were dominated by fIsh less than 50 mm (Figure 57). Sections 2, 3, 4, and 8 had fIsh ranging

from 0 to 550 mm in length. Sections 1 and 5 were missing the smallest length classes of fIsh (0

50 mm and 50-100 mm) and had fIsh ranging from 300 to 550 mm and 400 to 600 mm in length,

respectively.

116

- - - - -- ----- - ---

..... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMs::~

Ebtl BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SGN BT DTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SGN BT DTN EF SGN~

tZl

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.07 - - 0.00 0.06 - - 0.00 0.05 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.13 - 0.00 0.03 0.07 - 0.00 0.00 0.01 - 0.00 0.00 0.02 - 0.00 0.02 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.04 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.17 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.33 0.00 0.00 - 0.11 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.04 - 0.72 0.00 0.00 - 3.06 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 - - - 0.00 0.09 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.11 - 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.15 0.19 - - 0.10 0.08

15 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.06 - 0.56 0.08 - - 0.61 0.10

17 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.13 0.04

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 222 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.16 0.14

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 - - - - 3.00 1.80 0.06 0.10 0.00 0.53 0.10

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.04 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.08

25 0.00 0.00 35.8 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 26.3 0.00 0.00 0.09 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10

27 0.00 0.00 5.27 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 9.04 0.08 0.00 0.10 37.1 0.13 0.04 - - 0.09 0.06

River CarpsuckerTable 23. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for river carpsucker by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #ftsh/IOOm for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #ftsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #ftsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SON), and #ftsh/min for electroftshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir


117

River CarpsllckerCHXO OSB

40

35

30

25

5~10

5o--'4--"T-"'"""T-"',.....-:,,--,---.-""r--'-,...,--.-""'-r-.--"r--"T~

BTDTN

40

35

30

25

5~10 BTS ~~~J:z DTNo--"T-,--.--,,-,-,--.--,.,-,.-T""'"'ro~ EF

3 5 7 I 9 10 12 14 IS 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment3 S 7 I 9 10 12 14 IS 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

40

3S

30

25

5~10

S

o

B8

SCC2~ .5

/'//v-//'t::v

J,/vvv-vvvV f--vvvvvvvV

~vvvvvv v ~~-.,~. ..,V ./ .... . .. .........-, BT

./ .... .. .... .___...../.;,;DTNfl ...... . .. ~~ ~

40

35

30

25

5~10

S

o

B8

//

//VV-

/vVvVI----

VVVv,VI--

VvVVV_VvVvV_VVVVV

tr[_VvVvV_VVV ...... ..,.....- BT-V LA

..;,,;:;r.,~- - ,~ -----uDTN1/ ~'~'~SON

ISB

3 S 7 I 9 10 12 14 IS 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment3 S 7 I 9 10 12 14 IS 17 19 22 23 25 27

SegmaIt

TRM

40

35

3025

5~10

5o--'4-'-T-"r-"-r-"r-'-T-"r-"-r--"r'-':'-"r-'-i,--,-'-':'-""""-

3 5 7 I 9 10 12 14 IS 17 19 22 23 25 27

Scgmcnt

SCN

40

35

30

25

6~10

5

o--"T-,--'--,.,--'--"rT""'"'IT-'--'--T-.-.'/3 S 7 I 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

Figure 56. Trmds ofriver carpsucke:r catch rates among Missouri aDd yellowstone Riverstudy segments aDd macrohabitats in 1997. Catch rates are reported as #fisbIl00m furbadbic trawl (BT) aDd drifting trammel net (DTN). #fishI180 clesree baulfur a bag seiDe(BS). #fisbIhr fur a statiDary gill net (SGN). aDd #fisbImin fur electrofisbiDg (EF). SeeAppendix A for Jist ofmacrobabitat acronyms.

118

River CarpsllckerSection 1 Section 6

IN='71

,....,

r [II 11 n

I 100-150 I 300-350 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95 900 90800-850400-450 600-650

Length200-250

N: :2l\1

,....,tl~I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I - 5

0-50

100

~ 80

J60

40

20

oo

800-850400-450 600-650

Length200-2500-50

100

l 80

I60

40

20Il<o 0

IN=o4\?l

-

..,.,n ,...., ,....,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

100-150 300-350 500-550 700-750 900-95

Section 2100 -,-----------------c:-=--=-:::1

l 80+----------------101~'"-1

J:20o---'-'TL..Lr''--r----.--.---,--.,.................,.................,.......,.---,----.--,---,--.--.--r'

100

lso

I60

40

20Il<o 0

0-50 200-250

Section 7

400-450 600-650

Length

c800-850

Section 3 Section 8

IN::-:l1l\

Fln100-150 I 3OO-35~ I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95 900 950

800-850400450 600-650

Length200-250

ho.T .....

,....,

nTI..., n..., n Il .....

I I ~00:350 I I I I I I :100-150 500-550 700-7500-50

,...,100e 80

I60

40

20r:o.t 0

o800-850400-450 600-650

Length200-2500-50

100

l80

J:20

o


l80

J60

40

20

o

IN=44

--

nF'l ,....,nI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I100-150 300-350 500-550 700-750 900-95o

100

lso

I60

40

20l« 0

,T .. _ ...

-

nI I I I

300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95100-150 o0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850

Length0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

LengthS00-850

Section 5IN=?A

~

19 11 ~

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 II I

900-95

100

~ 80

J60

40

20

o

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850

Length

o

Figure 57. Length-frequency histograms ofrivercarpsucker conected from Missouri andYellowstone River sections using drifting trammelnets, experimental gill nets, benthic trawls, bagseines, and boat electrofisbing. See Table 1 forsection defiDitons.

119

River Carpsllcker

Turbidity100.....------------------,

90+_------------__1

10-+---------------1

Io-SO SO-IOO lOG-SUO SOG-lOOO

NTU's0-10

... 70+_------------__1~- 60-+------1i so-+---

r 40II. 30-+----

20+_--

10-+---

0--l.......J~---

Depth

--1~2 I 34 I ~ I 7-1 I 9-10 I 11-12 I0-1 2-3 4-S 6-7 1-9 10-11 12-13

Meters

lOll9010

... 70

j~2010

o

lOll9010

~ 70-60

(SO

!,40II. 30

2010

o

Velocity

------ f-

- f-

- ~

0.2-0.4 I 0.6-0.1 I 1.0-1.2 I 1.4-1.6 I 1.1-2.0 I0-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.1-1.0 1.2-1.4 1.6-1.8 2.0-2.2

M~

Temperature100.....------------------,

90+_------------__1

10+---------------1~70+---------------1

-60-+---------------1i 50-+--------------1

! :+----------20+-------=--10-+------

o--'----,r---'''l'''--''''I''''----"''~~

22-24 26-21 30-3220-22 24-26 21-30

Dogrees Celsius

Figure 58. Frequency ofoccurrence ofriver carpsucker (N=3299) in various depth,velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri and YellowstoneRiver conections.

120

Sand shiner (SNSN)

The sand shiner was not found upstream from Lake Sakakawea in either year of the study,

but was always found at all segments downstream from Garrison Dam (Table 24). The 153 sand

shiners collected in 1996 and the 366 collected in 1997 tell the same story of habitat association,

population distribution and size structure, and gear vulnerability. Several size classes of this

small minnow «100 mm) were found in each section where the fIsh was present in 1997 (Figure

60). Seining in inside bends and both types of secondary channels (Figure 59) collected most

fIsh. The habitat associations are narrower than those of some benthic fIshes. For example, 75

95% of the sand shiners were captured where water temperatures were from 22-28 DC, where

water velocity was <0.4 mis, where depths were <1 m, and where water transparency was

relatively high (Figure 61).

121

- - 0---- --- ------- ----

..... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMs::~

8 BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SGN BT DTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SGN BT DTN EF SGNOJ)~

lZl

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.01 0.00

15 0.00 0.00 1.47 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.01 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.01 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.22 0.13 0.00 0.00 5.07 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

Sand ShinerTable 24. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for sand shiner by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #ftsh/lOOm for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #ftsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #ftsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SON), and #ftsh/min for electroftshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir

bers = bold font. Channelized segment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak,

122

Sand ShinerCHXO OSB

8

7

6

!5es;

2

1

O""""'----.---.--,-,--.-...-.---.----.---.--,-...-.-r

BTDTN

8

7

6

5:2

1

0-"T-.--'-r"'"T-T""'"'r-"--'-'-"'----r-'...-'r-,-r3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 1922 23 25 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 1922 23 25 27

Segment

ISB SCC

8

7

6

5

5;B8

////

-//[;/J,.////J,..//V/-V/V/_V/V/_V/V/_/ / / ........

-~_///.... ....... ......BT

... .... ............ /DTN/ ........ ... . ... .... /EF

2

1

o

BS

/////V

_/ /V /V_/ /V /V_/ /V /V

/ /V /V//V/V - f"I/ /V /V rl>./VV/./ .-/ ./

.//BT/ - /EF

DTN/ /SGN

I I I I I

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM SCN

8

7

6

5:2 BT1 4747 . ."".,47 EF DTN

o ~__'T----.._,..'-'r---'r-"r--';ro---.----.""r-'-'r---'r-",....- SGN

8

7

6

5;2

1

O""""'--"r"""r-"'r-'r-'-r-"-r---.__'T--''''-''''''''----r-''1r

BSEF

SON3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

F"JgUte 59. Trends ofsand shiner catch rates amoag Missouri and Yellowstone Rivec studysegmeots and macrohabitata in 1997. Catch rates are reported 88 #fishIl00m for beatbictrawl (B'I) and drifting tnmmeI net (DrN), #fisbl180 degRe haul for a beg seine (BS),#fiahIbr for a statiDary siD Del (SON), and #fisbImin for electrofisbiag (BF). SeeAppeodix A for list ofmecrohabi.tet acronyms.

123

Sand ShinerSection 1 Section 6

100~IO

IEo

IN=O

I lOG-ISO I ~3~ I ~SSO I ~7SO II

~SO

100~IO

IEo

N=".£43

I I I I I I I I I I I IlOG-ISO 3ClO-3SO SOO-SSO 7ClO-7SO

Section 2 Section 7

~SO

IN=4

- "l-P11nJ

lOG-ISO I 3ClO-3SO I SOO-SSO I 7ClO-7SO I I I

,.....100

e lO

IE'*' 0

IN"=O

I lOG-ISO I 3ClO-3SO I soo-sso I 7ClO-7SO I~SO

Section 3 Section 8,.....100--.-------------.-\---N:=O-----'elO+---------------L..!...:!~---l

J:+--------------------1'*'O--'--r---.--.-,---,---.-.-..-.---.--r-,---,.----.---.-,,----.-r

I lOG-ISO I 3ClO-3S0 I soo-s~ I 7ClO-7SO I~~so :zro.zso 400-4SO 600-6SO IIOO-ISO

1AIgth

Section 4

,.....100--.---------------,I-'-y_---.e 1O+----------------LJ.N~="\L...j

is' 60+------------------1

J:-+-----------------1'*'O--'--r---.--.-,---,---.-.-..-.---.--r-,---,.----,--..-,---,.----.-.'

I lOG-ISO I 3ClO-3SO I SOO-SSO I 7ClO-7SO I \lOO-9SO~so :zro.zso 400-4SO 600-6SO IIOO-ISO

Leogth

Section 9

9SO

IN=7Q

-

I I I I I I I I I I IlOG-ISO 3ClO-3SO SOO-SSO 7ClO-7SO \lOO-

~SO

Figure 60. LeDgth-ftequency histograms ofsandshiner conected from Missouri and YellowstoneRiver sections using drifting trammel nets.experimental gill nets. benthic trawls, bag seines,and boat electrofishing. Remaining data willappear in 1997 Age &. Growth Analyses. SeeTable 1 for section definitons.

9SO:zro.zso 400-4SO 600-6SO IIOO-ISO

1AIgth

Section S

IN=O

I I I I I I 'I I I I I I IlOG-ISO 3ClO-3SO SOO-SSO 7ClO-7SO \lOO-

1N"=o

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

lOG-ISO 3ClO-3SO SOO-SSO 7ClO-7SO

~SO

~SO

124

Depth

Sand Shiner

Turbidity100

90

80

~ 70

i :~t 40I:loo 30

20

10

o -1~2 I 3~ I 5~6 I 7~8 I 9-~0 I 11~12 I

100..,.....--------------,

90+---------------1

80+--------------~

~ 70-+---

~ 60-+----i 50r 40-+---

I:loo 30-+----

20-+---

10-+----

o--'------,--0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters0-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's

100

90

80

~ 70...., 60

J50

40

30

20

10

o

Velocity

-t---- c-

- I-

- I-

- I-

- ~

0.2-0.4 I 0.6-0.8 I 1.0-1.2 I 1.4-1.6 I 1.8-2.0 I

100

90

80

~ 70~

160

50

40

30

20

10

o

Temperature

f--

f--

=-I 14~16 I 18~20 I'--

I

22-24 26-28 I 30-320-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.8-1.0 1.2-1.4 1.6-1.8 2.0-2.2

Meters/Second12-14 16-18 20-22 24-26 28-30

Degrees Celsius

Figure 61. Frequency ofoccurrence ofsand shiner (N=3S9) in various depth. velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals ftom Missouri and YeBowstone Rivercollections.

125

Sanger (SGER)

A total of 160 sauger was captured. Fish were caught in each segment, except 27, and

each macrohabitat (Figure 62). Highest CPUE's were obtained in segment 15 with the stationary

gill net in SCN (0. 19/hr) and with the drifting trammel net in OSB (0.17/hour). Overall most fIsh

were captured in SCC, TRM, and ISB (Table 25). Fish were captured with each gear except the

benthic trawl.

Most sauger were captured in shallow water (76% in depths < 2 m) exhibiting low

turbidities (74% in turbidities < 100 NTUs) and low velocities (75% in velocities < 0.4 mls)

(Figure 64). Sauger were captured at water temperatures ranging from12 to 28°C, however,

most fIsh were captured in water temperatures ranging from 20 to 26°C. Fewer than 5% of all

sauger were captured in water depths greater than 4 m, turbidities greater than 500 NTUs, and

current velocities greater than 1.0 mls.

No sauger less than 50 mm and few in the 50-100 mm length category were captured in

1997 (Figure 63) therefore, length-frequency distributions were irregular for most sections. The

absence of 0-50 mm fIsh and the scarcity of 50-100 mm fIsh suggests that either these fIsh did not

recruit to our gears, or that poor reproduction occurred in most sections ofthe river in 1997.

126

SaugerTable 25. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for sauger by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #flSh/loom for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #flSh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #flSh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SON), and #flSh/min for electroflShing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir

.bers = bold font. Channelized sel!ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak,.....

CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMs:=0801) BT OTN BS BT OTN EF SON BT OTN EF BS BT OTN EF BS EF SON BT OTN EF SON0

lZ)

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.03 - - 0.00 0.09 - - 0.00 0.05 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.03 - 0.00 0.03 0.07 - 0.00 0.00 0.09 - 0.00 0.09 0.04 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.02 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.09 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 - - 0.00 0.04 - 0.06 0.00 0.07 - 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.03 0.00 - - 0.05 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 - - 0.04 0.01

15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.01 0.03

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.02 0.06

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 - 0.03 - - - - 0.00 0.02 0.05

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 - - - - 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03

25 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.02 0.00

127

CHXO

Sauger

OSB

0.5

0.4

~ 0.3

e, 0.2

0.1

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

ISB

BTDTN

0.5

0.4

~ 0.3

e, 0.2

0.1

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

SCC

0.5

0.4

~ 0.3

~0.2

0.1

o

0.5

0.4

~ 0.3

e, 0.2

0.1

/",./

,./,./ V V,./

,./v VV,./

,./V VV",./V ,./V

~V",./ BT

"'LJ~l.AI U MN

./ .""" SON3 5 7 8 9 10121415 17 1922 23 25 27

Segment

TRM

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

B8

0.5

0.4

~ 0.3

e, 0.2

0.1

0.5

0.4

~ 0.3

e, 0.2

0.1

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

SCN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

FIgUl'e 62. Tl'ellds ofsauger catch rates among Missouri and yellowstone River studysegments and maaobabitats in 1997. Catcl1 rates are reported as #fisbIl00m for beothictrawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #fish/ISO degree haul for a big seine (BS),#fisbIhr for a statiDuy gill Del (SON), and #fisbImin for electrofisbiog (EP). SeeAppendix A for Jist ofmacrobabitat aaonyms.

128

SaugerSection 1 Section 6

100 100

l80 ~ 80

r r40 40

20 20

0 0

900-950800-850


~ 80 ~ 80 =

r 16040 4020 20

0 110 0

0-50 600-650


l80 l80

P 16040

20 20

0 110 0

Section 4 Section 9100-,-----------------r------"

l 80-+---------------L...L.1=:.L>L....Jj

J:~20+-------f'1"-I+-=-------------!

o-'-,,..,-'TLYL...If-¥-¥--¥--'T'--.--.-.--r-r-,-,-,,..,----r

100-.---------------r::-:--:-::--IIl 80-+----------------'-.......=......."---'1

I:~_+_-----------------_i20

11.0 O-'-,,..,--'tLLrLYL.l.fL...lf-¥-¥--'t'--.--.--.--.--.---r--r-r-r

Section 5100-.-----------------...:::--=--:----1

l 80 -+----------------Uo.1==..L-l

J:~20 _+_-----1l-LH+-------------1o--'-,,..,---o---r---.-¥-¥--"t'--.--.--.--.--r-r-,-,-,,..,--.-'

Figure 63. Length-frequency histograms ofsaugercoUected from Missouri and Yellowstone Riversections using drifting trammel~ experimentalgin nets, benthic trawls, bag seines, and boatelectrofisbing. See Table 1 for section definitons.

129

Sanger

IIII _

3~15~61,

I 9-'10 Ill~12 I1-2 7-8

Turbidity

10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's0-10

100 .....-------------------,

90-+------------------j

80+------------------l

~ 70...., 60+------------------l

i 50r 40-+---

I:ro< 30-+----

20+---

10-+---

o--'--.-p---

4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters

Depth

2-30-1

100

90

80

~ 70

'OJ} :40

30

20

10

o

Velocity100-.----------------,

9O-+-----------------i

80+----------------1

'i: 70

I:-+-----------------i

I:ro< 30

20

10

o

0-0.2

Temperature100-.-------------------,

90+------------------l

80-+------------------j

~ 70...., 60-+------------------ji 50-+---------------1

~ 40J: 30+------------------l

20 -+-------

10+---

0--'--11.--......-

18-20 22-2420-22 24-26

Degrees Celsius

Figure 64. Frequency ofoccurrence of sauger (N=160) in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri and Yellowstone RivercoBections.

130

Shorthead redhorse (SHRH)

A total of321 shorthead redhorse was captured in 1997. Individuals were captured in

each macrohabitat and in each segment, except in channelized segments 19, 22, and 23 (Figure

65). Shorthead redhorse were captured with all gears. Highest CPUE's occurred in segments 15

with the bag seine in ISB (1.47/haul) and in segment 3 with the drifting trammel net in SCC

(1.11/100m) (Table 26). Most shorthead redhorse were captured in least-impacted and inter

reservoir segments.

Most shorthead redhorse were captured in shallow water (75% in depths < 2m) exhibiting

low turbidities (72% in turbidities < 50 NTUs) (Figure 67). Although fIsh were captured in a

wide range of current velocities (0.0-2.0 m1s) and temperatures (12-30°C), few were captured in

depths greater than 4 m and velocities greater than 1.0 m1s.

Shorthead redhorse were captured in each study section in 1997. However, all length

categories from 0-550 mm were represented in sections 1 and 6 where the majority of fIsh were

captured (Figure 66). For example, section 1 had fIsh ranging from 0 to 550 mm in length,

whereas samples in section 8 yielded fIsh oftwo length categories (100-150 and 400-450 mm).

131

Shorthead RedhorseTable 26. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for shorthead redhorse by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=InsideBend, OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth).Catch rates are reported as #ftsh/l00m for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #ftsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS),#ftsh/hr for a stationary gill net (SON), and #ftsh/min for electroftshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-

bers = bold font. Channelized sel!ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak,.....

CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCNs:: TRM~

eOl) BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SON BT DTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SON BT DTN EF SON~

CZl

3 - 0.07 - - 0.00 0.17 - - 0.04 0.46 - - 1.11 0.05 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.02 - 0.00 0.00 0.28 - 0.00 0.00 0.14 - 0.04 0.37 0.02 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.02 0.08 - 0.06 0.00 0.09 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.00 0.00 - - 0.09 0.04 - 0.15 0.00 0.08 - 0.67 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 - - 0.00 0.07 - 0.06 0.00 0.04 - 0.28 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 - 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 - - - 0.17 0.00 0.00 - - 0.03 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

15 0.00 0.04 1.47 0.00 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.16 - 0.16 0.04 - - 0.06 0.04

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 - - - - - - - - - 0.01 0.03

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 - - 0.00 0.02

132

Shorthead Redhorse

CHXO OSB

BTDTN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 2223 25 27

Segment

ISB SCC

2

1.5

0.5

o

///

,// ,/

V V,// v

V V/-v V,/

/ --v/ ./ .""".IJ'.. ... ./

Jill: /../BT_.. /, DTN

./ .-.-_./ IFI I I I I I I I I I I I SON

BS

3 5 7 8 9 1012 14 15 171922232527

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM SCN

2

1.5

0.5 .-JL-"-------~----c.:.."-.----__"':;,,,,,.BT

..JL-"---~---:=-:.,.•.~..:=.~:::..,.. -"-'-';":::::=:7'" EF DTNo--.l<T""""-"r-""r--''r--''r-''r''''''''''''':'''r-''r--'-T--''-r-'"T'''''''''/ SON

~1

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

FJgUI'e 65. Trends ofshorthead redhone catch J'Ite8 8JDOD8 Missouri and YeJ10wst0oelUver study segmarta and maaobabitats in 1997. Catch J'Ite8 are reported u f#fiahIl00mfor be:otbic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #fisbIl80 degRe beu1 for abagseioe (BS). I#fishIbr for a statiDIry siD net (SGN), and f#fiahImin for eJectrofisbins (BF).See Appeodix A for 6st ofmacrohabitat acronyms.

133

Shorthead RedhorseSection 1 Section 6

100-,---------------,-------,~ 80 -+- ...........""--..o.....L"'----I

I:~+_-----------------_1201:0< 0 ....................L..I.f'-Y'--'f'...........-¥-Y-...,-.--,-,--,..-....-..--.-.-,........,,..........--'

o

N: 'I1i""

nnnfln n /1,..,I ~00-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95

100

~ 80

J60

40

201:0< 0

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850

Length


~ 80 ~ 80 =

r 16040 4020 20

0 1:0< 0

900-950 900-95C800-850 800-850


l80

J60

40

20

o

IN::-:l1

II,..,n nn n

100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95

100

l80~ 60

I 40r 201:0< 0

o

N~

-f---

nI 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95o

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850 0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850

Length Length


~ 80 ~ 80I60 I6040 40

20 20Po 0 1:0< 0

900-950800-850

Section 5100

~ 80 Figure 66. Length-frequency histograms of

r shorthead redhorse collected from Missouri and40 Yellowstone River sections using drifting trammel20

nets, experimental gill nets, benthictra~ bag0seines, and boat e1ectrofishing. See Table 1 for

0-50 600-650 section definitons.

134

Shorthead Redhorse

Depth

0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters

Turbidity

10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's0-10

l00~-------------~

90+---------------1

80-+-----------------l

.... 70-+----i :-+----

r:r.. 30-+---

20-+---

10-+---

0-l......J....----

••II _II •• -1-2 I 3-4 I 5-6 I 7-8 I 9-

1

10 I 11~12 I

100

9080

#: 70

Jt: :~

40

30

2010

o

Velocity100-.-----------------,

90+------------------180+------------------1

#: 70

I:-+-------------------J

r:r.. 30

2010

o

Temperature100-.--------------~

90-+-----------------l80+---------------1

#: 70

1:+---------------1

r:r.. 30-+--------------20+------10-+----o----'..A'I"'-~__"'I"L-

Figure 67. Frequency ofoccurrence ofshortbead redhorse (N=321) in various depth,velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri and YellowstoneRiver coBectiODS.

135

Shovelnose sturgeon (SNSG)

The catch of shovelnose sturgeon approximately doubled between 1996 (n =245) and

1997 (n = 565). As in the previous year, fIsh appeared in all segments at about the same

abundance. The lowest catches were recorded between lakes Sakakawea and Oahe (Segment

12), between lakes Lewis and Clark and Francis Case (Segment 14), and immediately

downstream from Gavins Point Dam (Table 27). This species grows to about 1,000 mm in length

with the larger specimens always captured in the upper river (Figure 69). However, it is only in

the lower river (Sections 8 and 9) where the smallest size classes are regularly found. Sturgeons

are found at a wide range of depths, turbidity levels, velocities, and temperatures, without a

marked association with any particular water quality characteristic (Figure 70). The species was

vulnerable to all gears, but trawling and drifted trammel nets were most effective (Figure 68).

Most sturgeon were captured in main river habitats (inside and outside bends, channel cross

overs, secondary channel connected). The data are very similar to that collected in 1996, even the

suggestion that sturgeon change from inhabiting outside bends and channel cross overs in the

upper river to inside bends in the lower river (Figure 68).

136

-----. -- -- ------- -------

.....CHXOs:: ISB OSB SCC SCN TRM0

801) BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SON BT DTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SON BT DTN EF SON0~

3 - 0.07 - - 0.02 0.00 - - 0.27 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.52 - 0.03 0.24 0.00 - 0.08 0.60 0.01 - 0.00 0.18 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.03 0.20 - - 0.02 0.26 - 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - -

8 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.07 - - 0.04 0.04 - 0.03 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.03 0.85 - - 0.00 0.37 - 0.00 0.02 0.40 0.00 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.07 - - 0.05 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.04 0.00 - 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

15 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.00 - 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.03

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.07 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.08

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.04 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.22

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.31 1.70 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.95 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.13 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

Shovelnose SturgeonTable 27. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for shovelnose sturgeon by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=InsideBend, OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth).Catch rates are reported as #fIsh/IOOm for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #fIsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS),#fIsh/hr for a stationary gill net (SON), and #fIsh/min for electrofIshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-

bers = bold font. Channelized segment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak

137

Shovelnose SturgeonCHXO OSB

BTDTN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

ISB SCC

3 5 7 8 9 10 121415 17 19222325 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM seN

r------------~ BSEF

SON3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

2

0.5

1.5

~ 1U

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

2

BTr'-"'"c..,..--,..-'--~ DTN~~"""""'-7 EF

o-""T-"r-,-.,--'-r"ro--,-.-...,"""r--''r--'-'r--r-,--' SON

0.5

1.5

~1

YJgUle 68. Treads ofsboveJnose sturgeon catch rates IDlOOS Missouri and YellowstoneRiver study segments IDd macrobabitats in 1997. Catch rates are reported as #fish/100mfur benthie trawl (BT) IDd drifting trammel net (DTN), #fisbI180 degree haul ibr abagseine (BS), #fiabIbr ibr a statinIry gill net (SON), aDd #fisbImin ibr electrofisbiDg (BF).See Appcodix A for list ofmau:robabitat acronyms.

138

Shovelnose SturgeonSection I

100 100elO elO

IE IE0 0

0.50 600-650

Section 2

Section 6

1'N'=lS

JIVI VI n ......

I 100-1S0 I 300-350 I SOO-S5O I 700-750 I

Section 7

9OO-9SO2OO-2SO 400-450 600-650 IIOO-ISO

LaJg1h

Section 8

IN=78

n {Hi nI I I I I

300-350 I SOO-S5O I 700-750 I100-1S00.50

Section 9

,,100,.--------------------r--...,e 10--t---------------l.~~t.ji5' 60+------------------1

J:+---------r'h;;;--n---------Il<.o 0 --'--r'"""""?--'T'-,...-,---,--.-.........-r'--'"t'---Y-.............'+'-"l"--r---,---,-..,---,-J

1N=57

1

.., ~ 1'1 vf I n ~I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

100-150 300-350 SOO-S5O 700-7500.50 :zoo.2SO 400-450 600-650

LaJg1h

Section 3,,100

e lO

IE~ 0

0-50 600-650

Section 4

,,100~IOi5'6O

I~... 20

1:&0 0

400-450

Lqth

,,100,-------------,-------,e 10+----- -LL:lI:=l.l!!L-....j

is' 60-+------------------1

J:+-----------=-rr--=--------I1:1:< 0 ...L.,---r--'t'-T"""""""T---r---"'T""""".Efl--l.,LL,-LJ.,-L-Y-Y--J.,J---,---,---,-,.......,J

9OO-9SO:zoo.2SO 400-450 600-650 IIOO-ISO

LaJg1h

Section S

I 'N'=?O

n

1Int Inn

I 100-150 I 3llO-35O I SOO-S5O I 700-750 I0.50

100elO

IEo

IM=-=s

11 fltl LI VII I I I I I I I

700-750 I I

100-150 300-350 SOO-S5O0.50

Figure 69. Length-frequency histograms ofshovelnose sturgeon collected from Missouri andYellowstone River sections using drifting trammelnets, experimental gill nets. benthic trawls, bagseines, and boat electrofisbing. See Table 1 forsection definitons.

139

Shovelnose Sturgeon

Depth Turbidity100

90

80

~ 70

Jt: ~~

40

30

20

10

o

••_I I •••I•• I1.1I_II _ -I 1~2

I I

7~8 I 9-10 I 11-12 I3-4 5-6

100-,----------------,

90-+---------------l

80+--------------~

,.... 70-+---------------l

e 60+--------------~~ 50-+---------------lJ40~ 30-+----

20-+---

10-+---

o-L...--.----0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters0-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's

Velocity Temperature100 100

90 90

80 80

l 70 l 70

60 60

J J50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20-

10 10

0 0

1.0-1.2 22-24 26-28 30-320.8-1.0 1.2-1.4 20-22 24-26 28-30

Meters/Second Degrees Celsius

Figure 70. Frequency ofoccurrence ofshoveInose sturgeon (N=S2S) in various depth,velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals ftom Missouri and yenowstoneRiver collections.

140

Sicklefin chub (SFCB)

We collected 212 fIsh scattered throughout the river in 9 of out 15 study segments (Table

28). The catch of 83 fIsh in 1996 was distributed similarly. This small minnow with distinctively

long pectoral fms grows to about 150 mm in length. We found large and small fIsh in Sections 1,

2,8, and 9, indicating that reproduction and recruitment has been successful in these parts of the

river (Figure 72).

The fIsh is said to be adapted to high velocity situations, and our fInding that 10-25% of

the fIsh were collected where velocity rates exceeded 1 rnIs and depths exceeding 3 m somewhat

confrrms this hypothesis. Most (80%) sicklefIn chubs were found where turbidity levels were 10

to 100 NTUs, but some were in clear water and some in very turbid water (Figure 73). The fIsh

were not associated with any particular temperature. The fIsh seemed to avoid secondary non

connected channels, but were found in all other habitats (Figure 71). SicklefIn chubs were

collected only in the benthic trawl, wheras most benthic guild species were collected in several

gears. Our 1997 data confIrms conclusions made from the 83 fIsh collected in 1996.

141

- ---

..... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMs::08eo BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SGN BT DTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SGN BT DTN EF SGN0

Vl

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.60 0.00 - 1.71 0.00 0.00 - 1.06 0.00 0.00 - 1.33 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 - - 0.09 0.00 - 0.00 0.02 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 - - 0.21 0.00 - 0.00 0.20 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

Sicklefin ChubTable 28. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for sicklefm chub by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #ftsh/lOOm for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #ftsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #ftsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SON), and #ftsh/min for electroftshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers =standard font. Inter-reservoir

bers = bold font. Channelized sel2:ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was takl

142

Sicklefin ChubCHXO OSB

2 2

1.5 1.5

5I 5I

0.5 tfII· BT 0.5<§II

TTN

0 DTN 0 EF3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S 27 3 578 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S 27

Segment Segmeat

ISB SCC

2 2

1.5 1.5

5I 5I

BTBS0.5 0.5

~

EPDTN

0 SON 0357 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 2S 27 357 8 9 10 12 14 IS 17 19 22 23 2S 27

Segmcot Segmcnt

TRM SCN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 IS 17 19 22 23 2S 27

Segment

2

1.5

510.5 .)£---------------::;,./ BS

EFSON

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 IS 17 19 22 23 2S 27

Segmcnt

YJgUte 71. Trends ofsicklefin chub catch rates among Missouri and Ye11owstoDe Riverstudy segments and macrohabitata in 1997. Catch rates are reported as tHisb/100m torbeothic trawl (BT) and drittiDg trammel net (DTN), #HisW180 degree h8u1 for a bag seine(BS). ##fisblbr tor a statinary gin net (SON), and ##fisblmin tor dectrofisbing (EF). SeeAppendix A for Hit ofmacrohabitat 1ICI'OIlYIDI.

143

Sicklefin ChubSection 1 Section 6

100e80

IEo

IN=ti4

-

ftI 10l)..150 I I I I I I I I I I I I I

300-350 soo.-S50 70M50

100e80

IEo

IN=O

I I I I I I I I I I I I I10l)..150 3Ol)..350 soo.-S50 7Ol)..750

Section 2 Section 7IN=O

I 10l)..1S0 I 3Ol)..350 I soo.-S50 I 7Ol)..750 Io-so

IlOO-9SO200-250 4CJO.450 600-650 8OO-8SO

LaJg1h~50

1N=17

-f---

-f---n

I 1~1~ I 300-3~ I soo.-S50 I 7Ol)..750 I

,...100

e 80~6O

I:rz. 0

Section 3 Section 8

IlOO-9SO2OO-2SO 400-450 600-650 8OO-8SO

Length

Section 9

~50

1M:o::1

-f---

-f---

-

10l)..1SO I 3Ol)..350 I soo.-S50 I 7Ol)..750 IIlOO-9SO2OO-2SO 4CJO.450 600-650 8OO-8SO

LaJg1h

Section 4

~50

IN=32

-f---

-f--- ffI 10l)..150 I 3Ol)..350 I soo.-S50 I 7Ol)..750 I

,...100e 80

IErz. 0

600-650400-450

Length~50

- N=?R

---

n

10l)..150 I 3Ol)..350 I soo.-S50 I 7Ol)..750 I

,..,100e 80~6O

i:rz. 0

,..,100-.-------------l'"""t...-.._-...----ne 80-t------------LNL3===L..-JI1

~ 60-+-----------------1

i :-+-----------------1lI:iO--'-T--.-.---r-T-.---.--....--.----.---.--..-r.......----.--..,--,---.-r'

I 10l)..150 I 3Ol)..350 I soo.-S50 I 7Ol)..750 I~~50 200-250 4CJO.450 600-650 8OO-8SO

Length

Section 5

Figure 72. Length-frequency histograms ofsicldefin chub collected from Missouri andYellowstone River sections using drifting trammelnets, experimental gill nets, benthic trawls, bagseines, and boat electrofishing. Remaining datawill appear in 1997 Age & Growth Analyses. SeeTable 1 for section definitODS.

1N=o

I 1300i I soo.-S50 I 7Ol)..750 I10l)..150 350 IlOO-9SO~50 200-250 4CJO.450 600-650 8OO-8SO

LeDgth

100e80

IEo

144

Sicklefm Chub

Depth Turbidity100

90

80

~ 70

- 60i 50r 40l:E.I 30

20

10

o

IIII_-

I 3-4 I 5~6 II

I 9-~0 I 11~12 I1-2 7-8

100-.----------------,

90-+----------------1

80+---------------1

,.... 70-+----------------1

~ 60+---------------1

i 50-+----

t 40~ 30-+----

20+---

10-+----

O-l.-......----0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters0-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's


90 90

80 80

70 "0- 70~ e 60- 60

iI 50 50

40 I40

l:E.I 30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0

0.6-0.8 1.0-1.2 1.4-1.6 18-20 22-240.8-1.0 1.2-1.4 20-22 24-26

Meters/Second Degrees Celsius

FJgUre 73. Frequency ofoccurrence ofsicklefin chub (N=210) in various depth.velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri and YellowstoneRiw:r COBectiODS.

145

Smallmouth buffalo (SMBF)

This species occurs as a low-density population that is distributed throughout the river,

but the highest catches were in the inter-reservoir areas (Table 29). Fish reach a length of about

700-mm (Figure 75). There was good representation of all size classes in Sections 6, 7, and 9,

which are the South Dakota, Iowa, and Missouri Sections, but in other Sections there seemed to

be length groups that were missing or not captured. Water quality and hydrological conditions

associated with the highest capture rates were: velocity <0.4 mis, depths <2 m, and turbidity

levels <100 NTUs. Some fish were caught at all available water temperatures, but most fish were

captured where water temperature was 20-30 °C (Figure 76). Most of the 270 fish captured

were collected by electrofIshing in non-connected channels and tributary mouths, but fish were

also captured in other gears and in all other habitats except channel crossovers (Figure 74), which

is a conclusion identical to that from the 1996 fIeld season.

146

- - - - -

.... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMs::~

8 BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SGN BT DTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SGN BT DTN EF SGNe.t)~

Vl

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.02 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.02 - 3.33 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.04 - 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.05 - - 0.01 0.05

15 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.03 - 0.75 0.09 - - 0.03 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 - - - - - - - - - 0.12 0.01

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.02 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.02

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.04

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.00 - - 0.07 0.10

Smallmouth BuffaloTable 29. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for smallmouth buffalo by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=InsideBend, OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth).Catch rates are reported as #fIsh/l00m for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #fIsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS),#fIshlhr for a stationary gill net (SON), and #fIsh/min for electrofIshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-

t numbers = bold font. Channelized sel!ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak,

147

Sma1lmouth BuffaloCHXO OSB

0.8

~0.6

€s 0.4

0.2

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19222325 27

Segment

ISB

BTDTN

0.8

~ 0.6

es 0.4

0.2

o ~QiQ' iQ'Q EF

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

SCC

TTN

0.8

0.2

0.8

~ 0.6

es 0.4

0.2

o

0.8

~0.6

es 0.4

///

// /v/

/v v.V/

/v VV,/

,// /V

/,/ /' -...... /',/ /' ...... .//'BT./ ....

/' ----EFD'I'N/' -SON

I

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

BS

~ 0.6

es 0.4

./&-:-----------,___-------..----,>788.r-~,;i,o<:if---------_nt,---~,."BT

./&-:_-~-=__'_:~.._:_---..,.....,....."..-DTN

O--"T---''-''''''r"''r--''',,-c,.:=r='T-.--''T---''l'':'---'',..'7'EF3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 1922 23 25 27

Segment

SCN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 1922 23 25 27

Segment

FlgUle 74. TreDds ofsm8J1mouth buftilo catch rates amoos Missouri and YellowstoneRiver study sepleI1t8 and macrobabitata in 1997. Catch rates are reported u #fiabIl00mfor beDthic trawl (BT) and driftiDg tr8mIDel net (DTN), #1:fish1180 degree haul for abagseine (BS), #HisbIhr for a statinary gill net (SGN), and #fisMDin for electrofisbiDg (EF).See Appendix A for Hat ofmacrohabitat acrouyma.

148

Smallmouth BuffaloSection 1 Section 6

o-SO9SO

IN=41R

--

~ ~

I l00-1S0 I 3DO-3SO I soo-s5O I 700-750 I 900-

100elO

IEo

IN='l

fl-I 100-1SO I 3DO-3SO I soo-sso I 700-7SO I

o-SO

100elO

IEo

Section 2 Section 7IN=9

nn n n II II

I l00-1SO I 3DO-35O I soo-s5O I 700-750 IO-SO 2oo..2SO 4CJO.45O 600-6SO

LaIgIh

Section 8,.....100elO

IE0

o-so 600-6SO

Section 3

N=3S

IJ ~

I l00-1SO I I I I I I I I I I3DO-3SO SOO-SSO 700-750

IN=2

1 1

IIIII I I I I I I I I

I I I I

l00-1SO 3DO-3SO SOO-SSO 700-7SO

o-SO

,.....100~IOit 60

140

.. 20IlIo 0

Section 4 Section 9

4CJO.4SO

LaIgIh

,.....100-,--------------.-----,e IO-+--------------L..IJ~:.L...-__J

it 60-+------------------1

J:+------+H""}-------------lco. 0 --'-'T'---,----.----r-"T--'T'--'T'-Y-"T'--r----"f"--r--.---r--r-...----.---r-r-'

9OO-9SO2oo..2SO 4CJO.4SO 600-6SO lIOO-ISO

Length

Section S

o-SO

IN=??

-

III ~OO:ISO I 3DO-3SO I SOO-SSO I 700-7SO I I

,.....100elO

IEo

100elO

IEo

~=-=1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

l00-ISO 3DO-3SO SOO-SSO 700-7SOo-SO

Figure 75. Length-ftequency histograms ofsmaJ1mouth buffalo collected from Missouri andYellowstone River sections using drifting trammelnets, experimental gill nets, benthic trawls, bagseines, and boat electrofishing. See Table 1 forsection definitons.

149

Smallmouth Buffalo

100

90

80

~ 70i:I 30

20

10

o

Depth

••1-2 I 3~ I 5~6 I 7~8 I 9-~0 I 11-12 I

TurbiditylOO~-------------~

90-+------------------j

80+---------------~

,...., 70-+------------------j

e 60+---r50-+---

l 40110 30-+----

20+---

10-+---

O-l.--.----

0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters0-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's

-------- .. _--

0.2-0.4 I 0.6-0.8 I 1.0-1.2 I 1.4-1.6 I 1.8-2.0 I

100

90

80

~ 70..... 60

J:20

10

o

Velocity

0-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.8-1.0 1.2-1.4 1.6-1.8 2.0-2.2

Meters/Second

Temperature100-.--------------~

90+----------------1

80-+----------------1

..... 70-+----------------1

e 60-+--------------~

Jt' 50

40-+----------------1

30+---------------

20 +--------10+-----

o---'---_....,.......-""'L-22-24

20-22 24-26

Degrees Celsius

Figure 76. Frequency ofoccurrence of smaJlmouth buffalo (N=191) in various depth,velocity. turbidity. and water temperature intervals from Missouri and YeI1owstoDeRiver collections.

150

Stonecat (STeT)

A total of 128 stonecats was captured. Fish were captured in all macrohabitats except

TRM and with all gears except stationary gill nets (Figure 77). Highest CPUE's were obtained

with the benthic trawl in least impacted segment 5 in OSBs and CHXOs (Table 30). Few

stonecats were captured in channelized segments below Gavins Point Dam.

Stonecats were captured in a wide range of depths (0 to 10 m), turbidities (0 to 1000

NTUs), velocities (0.2 to 1.6 m1s), and temperatures (l2 D C to 28 D C) (Figure 79). However,

most ftsh were captured in water with depths less than 4 m (73%), turbidities less than 100 NTUs

(63%), velocities greater than 0.8 m1s (63%), and temperatures greater than 20 D C (78%).

No stonecats were captured in inter-reservoir section 5 or in channelized sections 7 and 9.

Section 1 had the largest portion of ftsh with lengths from 0-100 mm, which suggests good

recruitment (Figure78). Sections 1,2,4, and 6 had ftsh greater than l50mm in length.

151

StonecatTable 30. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for stonecat by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #fIsh/l00m for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #fIsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #fIsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SGN), and #fIsh/min for electrofIshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir

t numbers = bold font. Channelized sel!ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak,....

CHXO ISB OSB SCCl:::: SCN TRM~

8t:l{) BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SGN BT DTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SGN BT DTN EF SGN~

CI'.l

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.01 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.75 0.04 - 0.28 0.00 0.02 - 1.56 0.00 0.04 - 0.13 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.05 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.09 0.00 - 0.00 0.02 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 - - 0.54 0.00 - 0.00 0.27 0.00 - 0.06 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

152

Stonecat

CHXO OSB

BTDTN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

ISB SCC

2

1.5

0.5

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

--,--.,.----.:...,.."::ar':--'-,...c...,,,/BSr_c__-.:;::.-..:;:c----~-c----,-...-=;::--"7"'"BT

./"--"'-,.......,.,-'-7.-....,-"-,--"-7""-"c---_,--~DTNo--""r--.--.-'""r-T-T"""'T-'-ri--"....,...-T-,-,....'r-'" U

~1

////

2-'/ V/,/

v/ /A-------------I1.5 V V

§ I-V / v/e> /v ....~_c_-_c_-c-~_C__C__C__C__C_-c-__7

0.5 V //--:_ ...._ //~BS

/ -_. / /UDTN

0/ 1IIIIIIIIIIIlIGN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM SCN

0.5,)L,.-'-"--"'--~~.-'-~.:.,.--~ BS

EFSON

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

2

1.5

0.5~,...c...,~-.:...,..~-..,....:.---...:..,..,,----,./ BT

.)L.,..."':-,...c...,_---,-"c-.:..,....c.-,..c..C~.,-'-.~....e,,--"'7U DTNo-""r......-"r--"'r-..-,...-"'r-'-'r-'o-e,.......-"r-...--""r--',.-r BON

2

1.5

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

Ytpre 77. Trends ofstoaecat catch rates amoag Miuouri and Yetlowstone River studysegmc:nta and macrobabitats in 1997. Catch rates are reported as f#JisbIl00m for benthictrawl (BT) aod drifting trammel net (DTN), f#JisbIl80 desree haul for a bag sane (BS),#fishIhr for a statiDuy gill net (SON), aod f#JisbImin for e1ectrofisbing (EP). SeeAppendix A for list ofmacrohabitat acronyms.

153

StonecatSection 1 Section 6

100-.--------------.,-----,

l80+-------------...1.J.'l=.6-~

1:~20o--J.I..rJ....YL....Y........-.--.--.-.-,.-,---r---r......-.--.-.--.-.-r'

100.,-----------------c=-=-~--,~ 80 -+---- ---LoL.L:e..t...._---1

i :~t 20... O""-,-""""'T-,.-.-,-,.--,--,,,---c--r-r-.-,...,--.-r'

400-450

Length


l80

,

60

40

20

o

IN=I\

r Jl

----1 VIII

I ~00-150 II

I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95300-350 o

100~ 80--1

60

40

20... 0

IlJ=I\

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

100-150 300-350 500-550 700-750 900-95

~~.A

~

11100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I ~00~95

Section 8

Section 9

o

800-850

800-850

400-450 600-650

Length

400-450 600-650

Length

200-250

200-250

0-50

0-50

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850

Length

Section 3100 100

l80 l80r t' 60

40 I 4020 20

0 ... 0

900-950800-850

Section 4100

~ 80

,

60

40

20

o

I N=-=l\

1111I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I100-150 300-350 500-550 700-750 900-95o

100

l80

I60

40

20... 0

IN=6

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I100-150 300-350 500-550 700-750 900-95o

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850

Length0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

Length800-850

Section 51N==o

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95

100

~ 80

,

60

40

20

o

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850

Length

o

Figure 78. Length-frequency histograms ofstonecat collected from Missouri and YellowstoneRiver sections using drifting trammel nets,experimental gill nets, benthic1ra~ bag seines,and boat electrofiahing. See Table 1for sectiondefinitons.

154

Stonecat

Turbidity

10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's0-10

100-.--------------~

90+--------------~

80-+--------------~

_ 70+--------------~

'#.'-' 60-+--------------~

(50r 40-+------lZ. 30-1-------

20--+---

10+---

0-'--....----

Depth

0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters

II II • II •1-2 3-4 5-6 I 7~8 I 9-

1

10 I 11~12 I

100

90

80

~ 70

t:J

:~40

30

20

10

o

I-

:~~I-

'-

1.0-1.2 I 1.4-1.6 I 1.8-2.0 I 0-3228-30

Temperature

16-18 20-22 24-26


I---

I---

--l= ~26-28 I

I

I 14-16 I 18-20 22-24 3

100

90

80

~ 70'-' 60

i 50

,40lZ. 30

20

10

o

Velocity

0-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.8-1.0 1.2-1.4 1.6-1.8 2.0-2.2

Meters/Second

100

90

80

i" 70

1=lZ. 30

20

10

o

Figure 79. Frequency ofoccurrence of stonecat (N=128) in various depth, velocity,turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri and Yellowstone RivercoBections.

155

Sturgeon chub (SGCB)

Catch ohhis rare fIsh increased from 344 fIsh in 1996 to 546 fIsh in 1997. The species is

widely distributed, being found in 10 of our 15 segments. A similar pattern was found in 1996.

Most fIsh were less than 150-mm long, and we usually found small size classes, which is evidence

that recruitment has been successful (Figure 81). Like the sicklefm chub, the sturgeon chub is

more vulnerable to being collected by trawling than most species, however, some were also

collected in seines (Table 31, Figure 80). The fIsh seems to prefer the main channel habitats, and

was not found in tributary mouths or in non-connected secondary channels (Figure 80), which is a

conclusion identical to that made using 1996 data. Sturgeon chubs are thought to be a generalist

species that tolerate a wide variety of habitat conditions. The broad range of habitat conditions

over which they were collected tends to support this idea (Figure 82). One difference between

years is that in 1996, most fIsh were collected at temperatures from 20-25 °C, whereas in 1997,

most were collected at temperatures from 14-20 0c.

156

Sturgeon ChubTable 31. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for sturgeon chub by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #fIsh/lOOm for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #fIsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #fIshlhrfor a stationary gill net (SON), and #fIsh/min for electrofIshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir

hers = bold font. Channelized sel!ment numbers = italic font. A "-" indicates that no samole was tak,..... CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMI::ll)

S BT OTN BS BT OTN EF SGN BT OTN EF BS BT OTN EF BS EF SGN BT OTN EF SGNOl)ll)

en

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 2.01 0.00 - 1.65 0.00 0.00 - 2.15 0.00 0.00 - 1.36 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 - - 0.04 0.00 - 0.00 0.04 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - -

8 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 - - 0.47 0.00 - 0.00 0.22 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

9 1.96 0.00 0.27 0.98 0.00 - - 0.90 0.00 - 0.33 2.44 0.00 - 0.22 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.67 0.00 - - 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

157

Sturgeon ChubCHXO OSB

2.5

2

~ 1.5

€s10.5 BT

DTN EF

TTN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19222325 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

ISB SCC

2.5

2

0.5

a

///

// //- /

V-V //

V_/ //

-V_/ //

-----.".- n/V ./ ...... ./

BT- ./

U DTN1././ BON

BS

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 1922232527

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 192223 25 27

Segment

TRM SCN

..)£-----'----'~----"--"--"---'-~--'--"-'-,,/ BSEF

SON3 5 7 8 9 10 1214 15 17 192223 25 27

Segment

2

2.5

0.5

~ 1.5

€s1BT

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

/./

//V/v/ ./- /vV V Vv/ V- Vv/ ./ ./

- ./ ./DTN./ ./u

./I I I I I I I./SGN

2

a

2.5

0.5

YIgUl'e 80. Trends ofsturgeon chub catch rates among Missouri and Yellowstone Riverstudy segments and macrohabitats in 1997. Catch rates are reported u Iffiab/l00m forbaJtbic trawl (BT) and drifting tnmmel net (DTN), 1ffiab/180 degree haul for a big sane(B8), IHisbIbr for a statinIry aiD net (SGN), and Iffiab/min for electro&abing (BP). SeeAppendix A for list ofmacrohabitat acronyms.

158

Sturgeon ChubSection 1 Section 6

o.SO

100eao

J:oIN=ll\l

Fl00-1SO I 300-3SO I soo-SSO I 700-7SO I I I

100eao

IEo

IN=O

I I I I I I I I I I I Il00-1S0 300-3SO SOO-SSO 7ClO-7SO

o.SO

Section 2 Section 7

IlOO-9SOo.so 2OO-2SO 400-4SO 600-6SO 8OO-8SO

Length

Section 8

-I-- IN=2-f---

-I--

-f---

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

l00-1S0 300-3SO SOO-SSO 7ClO-7SO

Section 3

......100--,--------------"....."........,.....,...."

~aois'60

I:l:ro 0 ---'-Y---Y---r-T"""""""T-----r---.---.--,..--,----.---.----r-r--r---.--.--.--r'

IlOO-9SO200-250 400-4SO 600-6SO 8OO-8SO

Lengtho.SO

IN,.....l~

-f---

-[]I l00-ISO I 300-3SO I soo-sso I 7ClO-7SO I I IIlOO-9SO

200-250 400-4SO 600-6SO 8OO-8SO

Lengtho.SO

I

-

~-

~~ISO I 300-3SO I soo-SSO I 7ClO-7SO I

Section 4 Section 9!N"=O

-:~I 100-150 I 300-3SO I SOO-SSO I 7ClO-7SO I I IIlOO-9SO

o.so 200-250 400-4SO 600-6SO 8OO-8SO

Length

Figure 81. Length-ftequeocy histograms ofsturgeon chub collected from Missouri andYellowstone River sections using drifting trammelnet~ experimental gill~ benthic trawls, bagseines, and boat electrofishing. Remaining datawill appear in 1997 Age & Growth Analyses. SeeTable 1 for section definitons.

IlOO-9SOo.so 2OO-ZSO 4OO-4SO 600-6SO 8OO-8SO

Length

Section S

I N,.....17-f---

-f---

-rn-I l00-1SO I 300-3S0 I soo-sso I 7ClO-7SO I

lOO--,--------------r-1N-=o--,

eao-+------------~=:JoL--l

J:+---------------4o--'--r-r---r-T"""""""T-----r---.---.--,..--,----.---.----r-r--r---.--.--.--r'

I ~~ISO I 300-3SO I soo-sso I 7ClO-7SO I IlOO-9SOo.so 2OO-ZSO 400-4SO 600-6SO 8OO-8SO

LeDgth

159

Sturgeon Chub

Depth Turbidity100

9080

~ 70

j:r 40~ 30

20

10

o

,.1II .. -

3~15~61I

I 9-~0 I 11-12 I1-2 7-8

100-,---------------,

90-+-----------------<

80--+---------------1

,...., 70-+-----------------<

e 60-+---i 50-+--

r 40~ 30-+----

20-+---

10-+---

0....1.-...---

0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters0-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's


90 90

80 80

... 70 ... 70

~ 60 ~ 60

J50 I 50

40 40

30 J:r.I 30

20 20

10 10

0 0

1.0-1.20.8-1.0 1.2-1.4

Meters/Second

Figure 82. Frequency ofoccurrence of sturgeon chub (N=S20) in various depth,velocity. turbidity. and water temperature inteIvals from Missouri and YellowstoneRiver collections.

160

Walleye (WLYE)

A total of 239 walleye was captured in 1997. Walleye were found in all macrohabitats,

except CHXO, and were captured in all segments except channelized segment 25 (Figure 83).

Walleye were captured with all gears. Highest CPUE's were obtained in inter-reservoir segments

8 in SCN with the bag seine (1.67/haul), and in segment 15 with the electroftshing boat in SCN

(0.42/min) and TRM (0.511min) (Table 32).

As with sauger, most walleye were captured in shallow water (79% in depths < 2 m)

exhibiting low turbidities (74% in turbidities < 50 NTUs) and low velocities (69% in velocities <

0.2 m/s) (Figure 85). Walleye were captured in a wide range of water temperatures (l2-30°C),

but more than 65% of the fIsh were captured in water temperatures ranging from 18°C to 26°C.

Less than 10 % of all walleye were captured in water with depths greater than 4 m, current

velocities greater than 1.0 mis, and temperatures less than 18°C.

Catches in sections 2,3, and 6 were dominated by fIsh less than 150 mm in length, but

length frequency distributions in sections 2 and 3 lacked continuity. No walleye less than 50 mm

were captured in any section in 1997 (Figure 84) and several sections had fIsh of only one or two

length categories. All ftsh captured in sections 3 and 9 were 100-150 mm in length, whereas all

fIsh captured in section 8 were between 450 and 550 mm.

161

WalleyeTable 32. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for walleye by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #ftsh/l00m for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #ftsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #ftsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SON), and #ftsh/min for e1ectroftshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir


CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMI:a)

8Oil BT DTN BS BT DTN EF SON BT DTN EF BS BT DTN EF BS EF SON BT DTN EF SONa)

r:J:l

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.03 - - 0.00 0.20 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.07 - 0.00 0.00 0.07 - 0.00 0.00 0.06 - 0.10 0.00 - - - -

7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 0.03 - 1.67 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.03 0.02 - - 0.35 0.03

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.07 0.16

15 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.19 0.02 0.00 0.07 - 0.42 0.18 - - 0.51 0.04

17 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.03

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.09

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.01 0.00

162

Walleye

CHXO OSB

BTDTN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

ISB SCC

.)L,-r9I~~-='::-:=::.~. -----::;_='.. .,=.-~..c.,.,...~7/BS~----' • .,.-'-,------~__~~~"_7" BT

.,~-'-7-~-__.. __-~~__~.,-DTNo-"T=rz,.,.-'"'r-"r"""'"lr.-""""r"=r-.-'"'r-"r"r-"r"/ EF

0.5

2

1.5

2

BTBS

/'C-~=-,-c--c--__,""",,-=~-,,:=c--~~-"-7EFDTNo-"T--.--...--r"""'"lr-r--.--"F"r-'-r"""'"lr.---.-"""- SON

1.5

0.5

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM SCN

2

1.5

2

"--"--~-"--'-/' BSEF

o-"T-T-T-.-'"'r-""'r.---"r-""r-"r-'-T--"-,,--'-r./ SGN

1.5

0.5II-------'"-,.."'---~".-BT

bI!. DTN/L..,..-.,....e.,.,.--~:al. ':;;;i~...==-"_7" EF

o--"'r""""-'-T-.,.--'-T---",-',-,--"r---T--.,.--',.-'-,.,--'-r--"' SON

0.5

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

Figure 83. Trends ofW8Deye catch rates among Missouri and Ye11owstone River studysegments and macrobabitats in 1997. Catch rates are reported u #fishIl00m for be:ntbictrawl (BT) aod drifting trammel net (DTN), #fisbf180 degree haul for abag seiDe (BS),#fishIhr for a statinary gin net (SGN), and #fisblmin for electrofiahing (EF). SeeAppendix A for Hst ofmacrohabitat acronyms.

163

WalleyeSection 1 Section 6

100-.---------------.------,

l 80 --+----------------J..A.1-..........oL........l

I:~+___rJ__-----------------j20+_-tHf-----------------j

1:0< O--'-,----"r'-"rL..,---,.-Y--9-...y..""""""""'"","""'.--.--r-r-,.-,----,-J

600-6500-50

100 .....--------------r-----,l 80-+---------------L.L>I'=..i'~

J:~20 --+----=:-fll-=--=--------------io...!..,---.-4L...YLY-y-y.....y..-Y-.........-.--.--..-"i"--1r-1---.-.-'

Section 2 Section 7

-

-~-+H1 n

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95

100

l80

J60

40

20

o

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650

Length

800-850o

100-.---------------,....---....

~ 80 +_--------------L..L1=.6l"'l.....-l....,

I:~+_------------------l20+_--rt------=------------j

1:0< o...L,-4L..1.r-'-9L..,-,?....y.-,?--Y--9--Y--9-....-.--.--.--r-r-.-J9OO-95C

800-850


l80

J60

40

20

o

IN:-:ln

-

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95o

100

l80t' 60

I 40r 201:0< 0

N=-=1

flfl1111II II

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 I 900-95o

IN=2

-

I 100-150 I 300-350 I 500-550 I 700-750 II

900-95

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 800-850

Length

Section 4100 100

~ 80 ~ 80....,

r I6040 40

20 20

0 1:0< 0

0-50 600-650

Section 5

0-50

0-50

200-250

200-250

400-450 600-650

Length

Section 9

400-450 600-650

Length

800-850

800-850o

Figure 84. Length-frequency histograms ofwalleyecollected from Missouri and Yellowstone Riversections using drifting trammel nets, experimentalgill~ benthictra~ bag seines, and boatelectrofisbing. See Table 1 for section definitons.

600-6500-50

100 .....--------------.......,--=-.,,....,....,l 80-+----------------Uo.~oI<.L...l

I:~20 --+--------+ j-------------i

o--'-,---.--"i'L....,-....y-Y-............y..4-'--Y-'T'-"?-.--r-r-r-1---.---.-'

164

Walleye

Turbidity

10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's0-10

100 -,----------------...,

90-+--------------~

80+--------------~

..... 70-+--------------~

1:-+----

1:1.< 30-+---20-+-----

10

o

Depth

.. -

1-2 I 3~ I 5~6 I 7~8 I 9-10 I 11-12 I0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters

100

90

80

~ 70

Jt: :~

40

3020

10

o

Velocity Temperature

--

-

--- ... _--

0.2-0.4 I 0.6-0.8 I 1.0-1.2 I 1.4-1.6 I 1.8-2.0 I

100

90

80

~ 70

I:1:1.< 30

20

10

o

0-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.8-1.0 1.2-1.4 1.6-1.8 2.0-2.2

Meters/Second

100--r--------------~

90+----------------1

80-+----------------1

~ 70'-' 60-+----------------1i 50+----------------1

t 401:1.0 30-+-----

20-+----

10+----

o-'--..--........1-..111"'-

Figure 85. Frequency ofoccurrence ofwalleye (N=239) in various depth. velocity.turbidity. and water temperature intervals from Missouri and Yellowstone RivercoBections.

165

White sucker (WTSK)

A total of 1,208 white suckers was collected; 64% of these ftsh were taken in segment 12.

White suckers were captured in all macrohabitats with all gear types (Figure 86). Highest catch

rates were obtained with the bag seine in SCN (Table 33). No white suckers were captured in the

channelized segments below Gavins Point Dam.

Most white suckers were captured in shallow (98% in depths < 1 m), clear (90% in

turbidities <10 NTUs), and cool waters (76% in temperatures < 18°C) with low velocities (69%

in velocities < 0.2 mls) (Figure 88). Sixty-four percent of the ftsh were captured in segment 12,

below Garrison Dam, which has no large, sediment bearing tributaries and receives clear, cool

water from Garrison Dam's hypolimnetic release.

White suckers were captured in each study section except in section 3 (Yellowstone

River) and channelized sections 7,8, and 9. Sections 2 and 5 had declining length-frequencies

with most ftsh in the 0-50 rom and 50-100 rom length categories (Figure 87). The remaining three

sections (sections 1,4,6) in which white suckers were captured had ftsh from only one length

category.

166

White SuckerTable 33. Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) for white sucker by gear, across macrohabitats (CHXO=Channel Cross-Over, ISB=Inside Bend,OSB=Outside Bend, SCC=Secondary Channel Connected, SCN=Secondary Channel Non-Connected, and TRM=Tributary Mouth). Catchrates are reported as #fIsh/l00m for benthic trawl (BT) and drifting trammel net (DTN), #fIsh/180 degree haul for a bag seine (BS), #fIsh/hrfor a stationary gill net (SON), and #fIsh/min for electrofIshing (EF). Least-impacted segment numbers = standard font. Inter-reservoir


CHXO ISB OSB SCC SCN TRMl::~

SOIJ BT OTN BS BT OTN EF SGN BT OTN EF BS BT ow EF BS EF SGN BT D1N EF SGN~

t:J')

3 - 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 - - - -

5 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.01 - 0.00 0.00 - - - -

7 0.02 0.11 2.08 0.00 0.02 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.94 0.00 0.02 - 1.44 - 0.00 - - - 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 1.15 0.00 0.00 - 0.56 - - - - - -

9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - - -

10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -

12 0.00 0.07 3.08 0.07 0.30 - - 0.00 0.00 0.04 18.1 - - - 205 0.24 0.02 - - 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - - 0.01 0.00

17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00

19 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00

167

CHXO

White Sucker

OSB

4

3.5

3

52.~1.5

1

0.5

o--.14---'-0-,-,..-',.-"'.-.-.--.---,-,..-'-""....,.'/3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

ISB

BT

DTN

4

3.5

3

S2.~

~ 1.5

1 r~--,,-:--'--....-~--,,-:-~~~-'--....---,,-:--'--....-.,..-'-J"/ BT

O.~ ---'<T~:L7-,,-.-,.-.'~--T-"---r-~,~_wD'~::::-.~:~~~~:~:-~~:-=--~E"/F DTN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

SCC

4

3.5

3

52.~1.5

1

0.5

o

/////V

/V//V

/V///

/V//V

/V//V

/V//V

/V//V/ / ./ .I::JO

V ./ -- ./ BT/ ./ .- ......../ ./UDTN

I I I I I I./IION

BS

18.1

4

3.5

3

52.~1.5

1 BSr-~=--'--....---"-:---"-:-_-'--....--'--....--'--....--"--"-~.,..-'-J"/BT

0.5 DTNO---'<T....,....,..,.-'.,..-"r-"-1-.~-"-r,..-''r-'-'r''1-'-T./U

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

TRM

4

3.5

3

52.~1.5

1 BT.....0.5 DTN

EFO--.l4-.--...-.,-',....:.,,---'-o""'-,..-''r-'-'.-.-.--.--'SGN

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

SCN

4

3.5

3

52.~1.5

1 BS0.5 EF

o---'<T~""""""'''''':'r-'o---T''''''.,.-'''''''',-,,,--,-./ SON3 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 27

Segment

YIgUle 86. Treuda ofwbite sucker catch rates among Missouri IDd Ye110wst0ne Riverstudy segments IDd macrobabitats in 1997. Catch rates are reported 18 #fishIl00m forbenthic trawl (BT) and clriftiDg trammel net (DTN), #fishI180 degree haul for abag seine(BS), #fiabIhr for a statinIry siD net (SON), IDd #fishImin for electrofishiDs (BF). SeeAppendix A for list ofmacrohabitat acrooyma.

168

White SuckerSection 1 Section 6

IN=2

I I~ISO I 3~3S0 I soo-sso I 7~7S0 I 5lOO-9S

..... 100 --,---....,----------...,------.,

e lO

IE'"'O--!..,----.--Y-.-----r-----.--.-..,.....,r-r---.---.--.-----r-----.--.-..,.....,~

0-50

100~ 80

r:1'20'"' 0

o-SO 200-250 400-450 600-650 8QO.8SO

Length

Section 2 Section 7

200-250 400-450 6OQ-65O ~5O

Length

Section 8

IN=O

I 1~IS0 I ~3S0 I soo-s5o I 7~75O I~0-50

100

~IO

I:'"' 0

o

Section 3

200-250 400-450 600-650 8Q0.8S0

Length0-50

IN=109

-- Hi

1~15O I 3~3S0 I s~sso I I I I7~7S0 5lOO-95

100

~IO

IE110 0

.....Ioo,---------------jr--N=o----.,e IO+------------~II.:::!JL_....t

1:+------------------1o--'--r---.-.---.--r----.--.--.-r-T----.---,-,---,r-r---.---.--,..--,J

I ~~IS~ I 3~3SO I ~s5O I 7~7S0 I 5lOO-9SCo-SO 200-250 4OQ-45O 6OQ-6SO 8QO.8SO

Length

Section 9

o8QO.8S0600-650400-4S0

Length

Section 4

200-250

IN=O

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I1~150 3~35O ~S50 ~750 5lOO-9S

0-50

100~IO

I:110 0

.....100--.-------------rIN-=-=o--..

e 80+------------.I...oL1::lL----..llI:+------------------1'"' 0 --!..,--.--.--.--r-----.---.--.-r-T----.---,-,---,r-r-.-.-,..--,J

I ~~IS~ I 3~3S0 I ~SSO I 7~75O I 5lOO-9S950

I N""'l

--

I I I I I I I I I I1~15O ~35O SOO-SSO 7~7S0 5lOO-

o-SO 200-250 400-4S0 6OQ-65O 8Q0.8S0

Length

Section 5

o-SO 200-250 400-4S0 600-650 8QO.8S0

LeDgth

IN=110R

f I

1~IS0 I ~3S0 I SOO-SSO I 7~7S0 I 5lOO-9S

100

~IO

IE'"' 0

0-50 200-250 400-450 600-650 8Q0.8S0

Length

o

Figure 87. Length-frequency histograms ofwhitesucker collected from Missouri and YellowstoneRiver sections using drifting trammel nets,experimental gill~ benthic trawls, bag seines,and boat electrofisbing. See Table 1for sectiondefinitons.

169

White Sucker

100

90

80

~ 70

i:r 40I&< 30

20

10

o

Depth

1-2 I 3-4 I 5-6 I 7-8 I 9-10 I 11-12 I

Turbidity100-,----------------,

90

80

~ 70

1=I&< 30

20

10

o0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13

Meters

Velocity

0-10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-1000

NTU's

Temperature

31--

18-20 I 22-24 I 26-28 I I

14-16 30-32

100

90

80

i: 70..... 60r50r 40I&< 30

20

10

o

--

-

--

--

-

- •-0.2-0.4 I 0.6-0.8 I 1.0-1.2 I 1.4-1.6 I 1.8-2.0 I

0-0.2 0.4-0.6 0.8-1.0 1.2-1.4 1.6-1.8 2.0-2.2

Meters/Second

100

90

80

i: 70..... 60

150

40

I&< 30

20

10

o

12-14 16-18 20-22 24-26


Figure 88. Frequency of occurrence of white sucker (N=1208) in various depth,velocity, turbidity, and water temperature intervals from Missouri and YellowstoneRiver collections.

170

Target Benthic Taxa - Discussion

Distribution

More individuals of many species were captured in 1997 as compared to 1996 [14,409

target benthic fIsh (25,692 total fIsh) collected in 1996; 31,106 target benthic fIsh (56,186 total

fIsh) collected in 1997]. The increase in catch for many species can be attributed to increased

sampling effort (e.g., gill net sets were changed from 3 h to 12-18 h, electrofIshing runs were

increased from 5 min to 10 min, the number of gear subsamples in many macrohabitats was

increased from 2 to 3). The increase in catch will allow meaningful statistical comparisons of fIsh

data among segments and macrohabitats. These comparisons will be included in the Missouri

River Benthic Fish Study fmal report which has a projected completion date of 1999.

As in 1996, 15 taxa were collected throughout the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers; river

carpsucker, shorthead redhorse, smallmouth buffalo, blue sucker, channel catfIsh, walleye, sauger,

common carp, emerald shiner, flathead chub, Hybognathus spp., sicklefm chub, sturgeon chub,

shovelnose sturgeon, and freshwater drum. Distribution patterns based on catch rates differed by

river zones. In the least-impacted zone, fIve species were most common: flathead chub, sturgeon

chub, sicklefm chub, stonecat, and burbot. In the channelized zone the most common species

were river carpsucker, channel catfIsh, flathead catfIsh, blue catfIsh, freshwater drum, blue sucker,

emerald shiner, and Hybognathus spp. were most common in channelized segments. Blue catfIsh

were captured only in the channelized portion of the river. No benthic fIshes were found only in

the inter-reservoir segments, but all species except blue catfIsh were found in one or more inter

reservoir segments. As stated by Dieterman et al. (1996), all benthic species have had a historic

range that included fIve or six states and their current presence or absence in some state may

171

reflect; 1) historic rarity, 2) environmental changes (e.g., an increase in depth and velocity in some

segments), 3) sampling bias (e.g., some species may be captured more readily outside of the

MRBFC sampling period), and 4) low sampling effort.

Habitat Use

Physical habitat and macrohabitat use was given for 23 taxa in this report. Patterns of

macrohabitat use by target taxa were higWy variable. Highest catch rates were obtained for seven

taxa (white sucker, walleye, sauger, smallmouth buffalo, bigmouth buffalo, common carp, fathead

minnow) in SCN, six taxa in ISB (shorthead redhorse, blue catfish, blue sucker, emerald shiner,

sicklefin chub, shovelnose sturgeon), six taxa in SCC (river carpsucker, channel catfish, burbot,

Hybognathus spp., sturgeon chub, sand shiner), one taxon in OSB (stonecat), and one taxon in

TRM (freshwater drum). Highest catch rates were not obtained for any taxa in CHXO, however,

species such as sturgeon chub were commonly captured in this macrohabitat.

General macrohabitat use patterns can be interpreted, in part, for some species by

examining physical habitat characteristics for macrohabitats in particular segments. Individual

species that were distributed throughout much of the Missouri River tended to use macrohabitats

with similar physical habitat characteristics. For example, sicklefin and sturgeon chubs were

commonly captured in ISB in least impacted and inter-reservoir segments (segments.5., 8,2, 10) in

the upper Missouri River and in channelized segments (segments 22, 23, 25, 27) in the lower

Missouri River. Average current velocities (0.41-0.79 m1s) and depths (1.54-4.64 m) for this

macrohabitat were very similar between segments. Similarly, smallmouth buffalo were commonly

captured in SCN in least impacted and inter-reservoir segments and in TRM in channelized

172

segments. These two macrohabitats also exhibited similar depths and current velocities.

Patterns of habitat use for benthic ftshes in the Missouri and Lower Yellowstone rivers

may reflect evolutionary adaptations to the habitat conditions (shallow depths and moderate

velocities), sampling biases, gear capture efficiencies, and availability of speciftc micro- and

macrohabitats (Dieterman et al. 1996).

Size Structure

We will not statistically evaluate size structure distributions of ftshes until the three years

of collection are complete. Size structure improved for many species in 1997, such as river

carpsucker, shorthead redhorse, smallmouth buffalo, bigmouth buffalo, blue sucker, stonecat, and

walleye. The increase in sampling effort and the addition of gears to various macrohabitats (e.g.,

electroftshing added to SeN) probably improved capture of a large range of sizes for the species

mentioned above, however, size structure for many species is very similar to that found in 1996.

For many species, ftsh in the smallest size classes « 100 mm) are absent, or nearly so, from our

samples. Reasons for this may include: 1) gear efficiency; 2) sampling bias (sampling is

conducted prior to ftsh reaching a size large enough for recruitment to gears); 3) key micro- or

macro-habitats were not sampled; 4) low sampling effort; 5) poor reproduction; 6) patchy

distribution.

Physical Habitat Variables

Most target benthic ftsh were captured in shallow depths « 2 m) and low current

velocities « 0.6 m1s). Taxa collected from shallow depths and low current velocities were

173

smallmouth buffalo, river carpsucker, bigmouth buffalo, white sucker, shorthead redhorse,

channel catfish, flathead catfish, burbot, walleye, sauger, freshwater drum, common carp, emerald

shiner, flathead chub, fathead minnow, Hybognathus spp., and sand shiner. Species that tended to

be captured in deeper water (> 2 m) with higher current velocities (> 0.6 rnls) were sicklefm chub,

sturgeon chub, shovelnose sturgeon, blue sucker, stonecat, and blue catftsh.

Most species tended to use low to intermediate turbidities (0-100 NTUs). Species with

high percentages of individuals captured outside this range (> 100 NTUs) were stonecat, flathead

chub, shovelnose sturgeon, and sand shiner. Greater than 20% of stonecats were captured in

water greater than 500 NTUs. Water temperature use patterns were higWy variable. Most

species were captured in water temperatures greater than 20°C. However, individuals of several

species were most commonly captured in cool water « 20°C), such as white sucker, burbot,

flathead chub, fathead minnow, and sturgeon chub. The use of cool water temperatures by these

species is probably linked to their capture in upper Missouri River or inter-reservoir segments.

174

Age and Growth - 1996

Mark Pegg, Lisa Coyle, Clay Pierce - Iowa UnitPat Braaten, Matt Doeringsfeld, Chris Guy - Kansas Unit

Fish growth is a physiological response to both biotic and abiotic conditions in

conjunction with the attained size of the ftsh from previous growth (Weisberg 1993). Due to this

response, age and growth assessment are fundamental in evaluating ftsh populations. Analyses of

this nature have often been used to assess basic life history characteristics such as average growth

rates and age at sexual maturation as well as more complex stock assessment models (Ricker

1975; Carlander 1987). Calcifted body tissues (scales, otoliths, rays, and spines) can be used to

calculate a ratio of the size of hard tissues to actual body length. This ratio is then used as an

indicator of growth or growth rate (Casselman 1990).

Calcifted body structures were removed from 14 species (Table 34) for age and growth

determination in 1996 following Standardized Operating Procedures (Sappington et al. 1997).

The selection ofwhich species-speciftc body structures to use was made from literature reviews

when possible or from experimentation prior to collection in 1996. Most species used for this

analysis represented the benthic ftsh community present throughout the Missouri and lower

Yellowstone rivers. However, sicklefm chubs, flathead chubs, and Hybognathus spp. were

included because these taxa are presumed to be in decline and require immediate attention.

The format for this section will include a summary of the growth results along with figures

of age distribution and mean back-calculated lengths at age by zone (least-impacted, inter-

reservoir, and channelized) for each species. Comparisons of length at age among the zones

were made only on speciftc year-classes because low sample sizes for many of the target species

175

can bias back-calculation estimates (Lee's phenomenon; DeYries and Frie 1996), and both age

and environmental conditions across year-classes can influence overall growth rate estimates.

Differences in lengths at age among the zones were tested using analysis of variance (ANOYA) at

the P ~ 0.05 level. Estimated lengths are influenced by the previous year(s) growth, even within a

specific year-class, which prevents comparisons after age-l from being strictly independent.

Therefore, analyses were further limited to age-l and the oldest age possible within each age

class. The test at the older age is not independent of the age-l test, but is presumed to be

primarily influenced by growth after age-I, and is a "reasonably" unbiased comparison of growth

after age-I. Individuals of the same year-class were not collected from all three zones for several

species and were not used for comparisons of back-calculated length at age.

176

Table 34. Missouri River benthic fIsh species used for age and growth analysis. Each structure isidentified as the primary e) or secondary (b) structure used for age determination. Primary bodystructures were used exclusively for back-calculation.

Species Body Structure Responsible Unit

Flathead chub scalea otolithb IowaPlatygobio gracilis

Sicklefm chub scalea otolithb KansasMacrhybopsis meeki

Sand shiner scalea otolithb KansasNotropis stramineus

Emerald shiner scalea otolithb KansasNotropis atherinoides

W. silvery minnow scalea otolithb IowaHybognathus argyritis

Brassy minnow scalea otolithb IowaHybognathus hankinsoni

Plains minnow scalea otolithb IowaHybognathus placitus

Blue sucker scalea fmrat KansasCycieptus elongatus

River carpsucker scalea fmrat KansasCarpiodes carpio

Smallmouth buffalo scalea fmrat IowaIctiobus bubalus

Freshwater drum scaleb otolitha KansasAplodinotus grunniens

Sauger scaleb otolitha KansasStizostedion canadense

Channel catfIsh pectoral spinea IowaIctalurus punctatus

Flathead catfIsh* pectoral spinea KansasPylodictis olivaris

Shovelnose sturgeon pectoral fIn rat IowaScaphirynchus platyorynchus

*Flathead catfIsh added as age and growth species in 1997.

177

Blue Sucker

Forty-three blue suckers were used for age and growth analysis. Maximum ages varied

from age-8 in the channelized zone to age-IO in the least-impacted zone. All individuals collected

in the least-impacted zone were greater than age-6, while most age groups were represented in

the inter-reservoir and channelized zones (Figure 89). A lack of individuals of the same year-class

present in all three zones prevented age-specific analysis of mean back-calculated length.

• Least-Impacted (N=3)D Inter-reservoir (N=7)~ Channelized (N=33)

100

a~80....~i80:::Jr11.40

1200

0 1 2 3 .. 5

Age8 7 8 9 10

Leaat-impactecl (N=3)-- - - "'-- - - - . Inter-reservolr (N=7)

• Channelized (N=33)

1110987

• • •,," ---- -.6.- -- _

5 6Age

432

800

700 b

E..s8OO

j6001400

1300

i 200

~100

0

0 1

Figure 89. Age frequency distribution (a) and mean back-calculated lengths at age (b)

for blue suckers collected in 1996.

1'"'0

Channel Catfish

A total of 493 channel catfish were analyzed. Maximum ages varied from 8 to 11 years

among the three zones. Age frequencies were skewed toward older ftsh in the least-impacted

zone and toward younger fish in the channelized zone; whereas, age-classes were more evenly

distributed in the inter-reservoir zone (Figure 90). Mean back-calculated lengths at age suggest a

slower growth rate for the inter-reservoir zone compared to the other zones of the Missouri River

(Figure 90). Specillc comparisons of estimated lengths for the 1991 year-class support this

conclusion (Table 35).

Table 35. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the 1991 yearclass of channel catfish among three Missouri River zones. Similar letters indicate no differenceamong means for each age (differences declared at the P:::;; 0.05 level). Standard errors for eachmean length estimate are listed in parentheses.

Mean Back-calculated Length (mm)

Age Least-Impacted Inter-Reservoir Channelized(N =5) (N = 22) (N = 13)

1 71 a (12.7) 43b (1.4) 70a (9.7)

2 122 (18.9) 77 (3.5) 147 (17.0)

3 184 (16.3) 137 (5.3) 264 (16.4)

4 272 (12.9) 209 (4.8) 313 (21.3)

5 322a (14.0) 265b (3.9) 376c (20.2)

179

• Least-impacted (N=25)D Inter-reservoir (N=83)~ Channelized (N=385)

100

a~80--160::::J

I"1L40

I 200::

00 1 2 3 4 5 6

Age7 8 9 10 11

12111098

•

Least-Impacted (N=25)-----... ---- Inter-reservoir (N=83)


_..Ii;-----.-----.-----.

687Age

432

--..

700

eoo b

EEt:1-1200i::E 100

0

0 1

Figure 90. Age frequency distribution (a) and mean back-calculated length at age (b)

for channel catftsh collected in 1996.

180

Emerald Shiner

A total of 1,016 emerald shiners were used for age and growth analysis. Emerald shiners

up to age-2 were collected in all three zones. The age distribution for both the inter-reservoir and

channelized zones were skewed toward young-of-year fish (Figure 91). Conversely, age-1 fish

were most prevalent in the least-impacted zone. Growth rates of emerald shiners were

comparable among the three zones and age-specific analysis of the 1995 year-class show no

significant differences among zones (Table 36).

Table 36. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the 1995 yearclass of emerald shiners among three Missouri River zones. Similar letters indicate no differenceamong means (differences declared at the P ~ 0.05 level). Standard errors for each mean lengthestimate are listed in parentheses.


Age

1

Least-Impacted(N =126)

51a (0.7)

Inter-Reservoir(N =33)

53a (1.3)

181

Channelized(N =10)

51a (3.2)

1 2

Age

100

aieo--l)'leo::s~1L40

II 20

00

• Least-impacted (N=145)o Inter-nts8rvo1r (N-168)~ Channelized (N=703)

150

b_125E.5.

1100

~

J 75

I 60

I::::IE 25

0

Least-Impacted (N-145)-----.. ---- Inter-reservoir (N=188)


1 2Age

3


for emerald shiners collected in 1996.

182

Flathead Chub

Three hundred eighty-six flathead chubs were used for age and growth purposes. Nearly

all flathead chubs (98%) collected in 1996 were taken from the least-impacted and inter-reservoir

zones. Maximum ages varied from age-l in the channelized zone to age-7 in the least-impacted

zone. However, the age distribution along the entire river was dominated by age-O individuals

(Figure 92). Comparisons of the 1995 year-class among zones are somewhat different than the

overall mean back-calculated lengths shown in Figure 92 (Table 37).

Table 37. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the 1995 yearclass of flathead chubs among three Missouri River zones. Similar letters indicate no differenceamong means (differences declared at the P ~ 0.05 level). Standard errors for each mean lengthestimate are listed in parentheses.


Age

1

Least-Impacted(N = 36)

Inter-Reservoir(N = 1)

183

Channelized(N =1)

100--.----------------------------------,


oo 2 3

Age4 5 8 7

250

b

I 200-J150

1.00J1 50 •

0

1

Figure 92. Age frequency distribution (a) and mean back-calculated length at age (b) for

flathead chubs collected in 1996.

184

Freshwater Drum

Maximum ages of the 334 freshwater drum collected in 1996 varied from age-5 in the

inter-reservoir zone to age-22 in the least-impacted zone. The majority of freshwater drum aged

were.s age-5 (Figure 93). Age-specific analysis ofthe 1991 year-class indicates that, for most

ages, the least-impacted zone had significantly lower mean back-calculated lengths than the other

two zones (Table 38). The decline in mean back-calculated lengths between age-8 and age-lO for

the least-impacted and channelized zones, in Figure 93, can be attributed to a low sample size of

fish over age-8 which likely resulted in Lee's phenomenon.

Table 38. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the 1991 yearclass of freshwater drum among three Missouri River zones. Similar letters indicate no differenceamong means for each age (differences declared at the P.s 0.05 level). Standard errors for eachmean length estimate are listed in parentheses.


Age Least-Impacted Inter-Reservoir Channelized(N = 17) (N =7) (N = 2)

1 64a (2.6) 86b (6.2) 72ab (12.8)

2 117 (2.6) 170 (7.8) 154 (0.7)

3 169 (2.2) 234 (12.9) 225 (1.0)

4 217 (3.1) 287 (12.8) 280 (1.4)

5 250a (4.0) 329b (14.9) 332b (0.1)

185

• Least-impacted (N=66)D Inter-reserwir (N=45)~ Channelized (N=223)

100a

leoreo(

i:0

0 2 3 5

Age8 7 8 9 10+

400

b

•

. ...../.,...... .-,.'.

"•

- - -- -. --

•

Least-lmpacled (N=66)Inter-reaervoir (N-46)Channelized (N=223)

2 4 8 8 10 12Age

14 18 18 20 22


freshwater drum collected in 1996.

186

Hybognathus spp.

Three species of the genus Hybognathus (brassy minnow, plains minnow, and western

silvery minnow) were selected for age and growth analysis in 1996. The data collected for brassy

minnows and plains minnows did not provide sufficient information to allow for river-wide

comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths at age because neither ofthese species were

captured in the least-impacted zone. However, age distributions of brassy minnows (N = 44) and

plains minnows (N = 190) were fairly similar because age-O individuals were the most abundant

age for both species (Figure 94).

Western silvery minnows (N = 204) were the only species within the genus Hybognathus

that were caught in enough abundance to provide growth comparisons among all zones.

Maximum ages varied from age-l in the channelized zone to age-4 in the least-impacted zone.

Age-O fIsh were dominant (> 60%) in both the channelized and inter-reservoir zones (Figure 95).

The age distribution of western silvery minnows in the least-impacted zone was fairly balanced

through age-2. Direct comparison among the estimated back-calculated lengths at age-l for the

1995 year-class shows the channelized zone having slower growth than the upstream reaches of

the river (Table 39).

Table 39. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the 1995 yearclass of western silvery minnows among three Missouri River zones. Similar letters indicate nodifference among means (differences declared at the P ~ 0.05 level). Standard errors for eachmean length estimate are listed in parentheses.


Age

1

Least-Impacted(N =26)

58a (0.9)

Inter-Reservoir(N =24)

58a (0.5)

187

Channelized(N =2)

49b (2.2)

100

Brassy Minnows

• Least-impacled {N=O}

D Inter-reservoir {N=25}~ Channelized (N=19)

O-l...-------''-r-':...L....L------L,--'-----------,-------'

100

o 1Age

Plains Minnows

2

• Leest-inpacted (N=O)

D Inter-reservoir (N=2)~ Channelized (N=188)

o-l...-__----'-,--':....L.J.. -,--':....L.J.. ---.--__----'

o 1Age

2

Figure 94. Age frequency distributions for brassy minnows and plains minnows collected in 1996.

188

• Least-impacted (N=69)o Inter-reservoir (N=72)~ Channelized (N=63)

100

a~80......is'~80

rLL40

I~20

00 2

Age3 4

1150-.-------------------------------,

b

Least-lmpacted (N=89)-----.. ----. Inter-reservoir (N=72)

• Channelized (N-e3)O+--------,-----.--------,------r--------1

1 2Age

3 4 5


western silvery minnows collected in 1996.

189

River Carpsucker

A total of 391 river carpsuckers were used for age and growth analysis. Maximum ages

varied from age-9 in the channelized and inter-reservoir zones to age-II in the least-impacted

zone (Figure 96). Age-specific comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the 1991 year-

class were significantly different among the three zones at both age-l and age-5, with the

channelized zone having the greatest estimated lengths (Table 40).

Table 40. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the 1991 yearclass of river carpsuckers among three Missouri River zones. Similar letters indicate no differenceamong means for each age (differences declared at the P ~ 0.05 level). Standard errors for eachmean length estimate are listed in parentheses.


Age Least-Impacted Inter-Reservoir Channelized(N =7) (N = 34) (N = 15)

1 648 (6.4) 748 (3.6) 89b (4.8)

2 142 (18.9) 151 (4.9) 155 (8.6)

3 216 (29.6) 227 (6.0) 227 (7.8)

4 275 (30.7) 299 (5.2) 303 (8.2)

5 3298 (25.2) 3568b (4.7) 373b (11.3)

190

• Least-impacted (N=44)o Inter-reservoir (N=187)~ Channelized (N=160)

100

a~80

Iso:::J

J

j'"a:: 20

00 1 2 3 4 5 6

Age7 8 9 10 11

12111098

Leaat-impacted (N=44)Inter-......rvoir (N=187)Channelized (N=160)•

-----A:----

587Age

432

lSOO

b_1500

I1400

....J

1300

1-1100

0

0 1


for river carpsuckers collected in 1996.

191

Sand Shiner

Few sand shiners were caught throughout the river which prevented any comparisons of

mean back-calculated lengths among zones. Of the of 100 individuals collected in 1996, 81 %

were taken from the inter-reservoir zone below Gavins Point Dam and 19% were from the

channelized zone. The channelized zone age distribution consisted entirely of age-O individuals,

while the inter-reservoir zone was comprised of age-O, age-I, and age-2 ftsh (Figure 97).

• Least-impacted (N=O)o Inter-reservoir (N=81)

~ Chan~bId(N=19}

O----'----------'-.,----"'--'E....L..------~'--------.......--"------'

80

20

100

o 1Age

2

Figure 97. Age frequency distribution for sand shiners collected in 1996.

192

Sauger

Maximum ages of the 101 saugers aged in 1996 varied from age-3 in the inter-reservoir

zone to age-9 in the least-impacted zone. The age distributions for the three zones were similar;

most individuals were ~ age-3 (Figure 98).


100

a

*80-l;'i60~

!11.40•~.!!

20l

00 1 2 3 4

Age5 6 7 8 9

Least-impacted (N=26)- - - - "'- - - - Inter-reservoir (N=22)


1098785Age

4

•

32

eoo

b_500E§.

1400

...J

1300.a~200EDc

:1100

0

1


for sauger collected in 1996.

193

Shovelnose Sturgeon

A total of 233 shovelnose sturgeon were used for age and growth evaluation. Maximum

ages were quite variable for this long-lived species. The least-impacted zone had several

individuals over 30 years of age with the oldest being 34. Contrastingly, the oldest individuals

captured in the channelized zone were age-15. The age frequency distribution had a fairly large

input from the 'intermediate' age-classes of 6 to 15 years (Figure 99). Age-specific comparisons

among the 1986 year-class indicate similar length estimates among the zones for the first year of

life; whereas, length estimates for the least-impacted and inter-reservoir zones were lower than

the channelized zone at age-1O (Table 41).

Table 41. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the 1986 yearclass of shovelnose sturgeon among three Missouri River zones. Similar letters indicate nodifference among means for each age (differences declared at the P ~ 0.05 level). Standard errorsfor each mean length estimate are listed in parentheses.


Age Least-Impacted Inter-Reservoir Channelized(N = 2) (N =4) (N = 15)

1 77a (0.3) 107a (34.5) 73a (7.8)

2 135 (6.3) 173 (33.4) 145 (12.5)

3 198 (7.4) 219 (23.8) 231 (14.2)

4 247 (16.8) 284 (16.7) 293 (15.9)

5 291 (25.6) 338 (16.4) 347 (17.3)

6 341 (14.1) 373 (16.4) 407 (14.5)

7 383 (0.5) 415 (15.0) 449 (14.0)

8 433 (8.7) 445 (12.5) 489 (12.1)

9 473 (32.9) 470 (13.9) 526 (13.1)

10 496a (33.1) 505a (10.8) 558b (11.2)

194

100--,-----------------------------,

a

o--'-------'-~--


0-4 5-9 10 -14 15 -19

Age20-24 25-29 30+

1000--,--------------------------------,

900 b

100

• Least-impacted (N-29)--- --. ---- Inter-reservoir (N=62)


2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34Age


shovelnose sturgeon collected in 1996.

195

Sickle/in Chub

Seventy-three sicklefin chubs were used for age and growth analysis. Maximum age

attained was age-2 in all zones. However, the age distributions were variable among zones. For

example, no age-O fIsh were captured above the channelized zone and nearly all individuals (87%)

in the inter-reservoir zone were age-2 (Figure 100). Comparison of mean back-calculated lengths

for the 1994 year-class indicate similar growth for all zones and years of life (Table 42).

Table 42. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the 1994 yearclass of sicklefin chubs among three Missouri River zones. Similar letters indicate no differenceamong means for each age (differences declared at the P ~ 0.05 level). Standard errors for eachmean length estimate are listed in parentheses.


Age Least-Impacted Inter-Reservoir Channelized(N =14) (N =26) (N =3)

1 38a (1.4) 37a (0.7) 36a (3.2)

2 66a (2.6) 65a (1.2) 69a (10.6)

196

100

a • Least-impscted (N=24)~eo D Inter-reservoir (N=30).....~ ~ Channelized (N=19)leoI'L1.40

i1. 20

0

0 1 2

Age

100-,-------------------------------,

b

•Least-Impacted (N-24)

~ ~ ~ ~~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ Inter-reservoir (N-30)

• Channelized (N-19)0-+------------,----------,-----------1

1

Age2 3

Figure 100. Age frequency distribution (b) and rrean back-calculated length at age (b)

for sicklefm chubs collected in 1996.

197

Smallmouth Buffalo

Thirty-five smallmouth buffalo were used for age and growth purposes with maximum

ages varying from 8 to 11 years among the three zones. The small sample size may have

considerable influence on relative age frequencies. The least-impacted zone appears to consist

mainly of older fish while the populations in the lower zones contain younger individuals (Figure

101). This trend is fairly consistent with the other species analyzed. Through age-2, growth is

similar among zones (Table 43). However, as also seen for shovelnose sturgeon, the least

impacted and inter-reservoir zone estimates of length at age are less than the channelized zone in

the following years of life.

Table 43. Analysis of variance comparisons of mean back-calculated lengths for the 1990 yearclass of smallmouth buffalo among three Missouri River zones. Similar letters indicate nodifference among means for each age (differences declared at the P.::; 0.05 level). Standard errorsfor each mean length estimate are listed in parentheses.


Age Least-Impacted Inter-Reservoir Channelized(N =1) (N =3) (N =2)

1 120a 119a (4.0) 146a (14.1)

2 180 185 (6.9) 207 (16.5)

3 216 248 (8.2) 280 (16.8)

4 258 308 (10.0) 348 (16.3)

5 283 363 (14.0) 400 (15.6)

6 313a 402b (16.1) 459c (13.8)

198

• Least-impacted (N=5)D Inter-reservolr (N=16)~ Channelized (N=14)

100

a

!80f60::::IrU.40

i~20

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 8

Age7 8 9 10 11

12111098

Least-impacted (N=5)-----&---- Inter-reservoir (N-16)

• Channelized (N-14)

567Age

432

800

b500

Eg

I~

1300

1-1100

0

0 1

Figure 101. Age frequency distnbtution (a) and Irean back-calculated length at age (b) for

sma.l1Imuth buffalo collected in 1996.

199

Literature Cited

Benson, N.G. 1988. The Missouri River the resources their uses and values. Special Publication 8. NorthCentral Division, American Fisheries Society.

Braaten, P. J., and C. S. Guy, editors. 1995. Population structure and habitat use of benthic fishes alongthe Missouri River. Corps of Engineers, Annual Report PD-95-5832.

Carlander, K.D. 1987. A history of scale age and growth studies of North American freshwater fish.Pages 3-14 in RC. Summerfelt and G.E. Hall, editors. Age and Growth ofFish. Iowa StateUniversity Press, Ames, Iowa.

Casselman, J.M. 1990. Growth and relative size of calcified structures of fish. Transactions of theAmerican Fisheries Society 119:673-688.

DeVries, D.R, and RV. Frie. 1996. Determination of age and growth. Pages 483-512 in B.R Murphyand D.W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,Maryland.

Dieterman, D. J., M. P. Ruggles, M. L. Wildhaber, and D. L. Galat, editors. 1996. Population structureand habitat use of benthic fishes along the Missouri and Lower Yellowstone Rivers. 1996 AnnualReport of Missouri River Benthic Fish Study PD-95-5832 to U. S. Army Corps of Engineers andU. S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Frissell, c.A., W.J. Liss, C.E. Warren, and M.D. Warren. 1986. A hierarchical framework for streamhabitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10:199214.

Hesse, L. W., J. C. Schmulbach, J. M. Carr, K. D. Keenlyne, D. G. Unkenholz, J. W. Robinson, and G. E.Mestl. 1989. Missouri River fishery resources in relation to past, present, and future stresses.Pages 352-371 in D. P. Dodge, editor, Proceedings of the international large river symposium.Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106.

Miliken, G. G., and D. E. Johnson. 1984. Analysis of messy data, Volume I: designed experiments.Wadsworth, Inc., Belmont, California. 473 pp.

Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin ofthe Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Special Publication 191.

Sappington, L. C., D. J. Dieterman, and D. L. Galat. 1997. 1997 Standard operating procedures toevaluate population structure and habitat use benthic fishes along the Missouri and lowerYellowstone Rivers. Environmental and Contaminants Research Center, Columbia, MO.

Weisberg, S. 1993. Using hard-part increment data to estimate age and environment effects. CanadianJournal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:1229-1237.

200

Appendices

Appendix A.. Acronyms for Missouri River Benthic Fish Consortium cooperating agencies,macro- and mesohabitats, ftsh collection gears, and ftshes (including scientiftc names) used in thisreport.

AGENCIES

BOR

COE

ECRC

IACRU

IDCRU

KSCRU

MOCRU

MRBFC

MTCRU

MTFWP

SDCRU

USGS-BRD

MACRO- and MESO-HABITATS

Continuous Maerohabitats:

CHXO

ISB

ISB-BARS

ISB-CHNB

ISB-POOL

ISB-STPS

OSB

Bureau of Reclamation

Corps of Engineers

Environmental and Contaminants Research Center

Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Missouri River Benthic Fish Consortium

Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Unites States Geological Survey-Biological Resources Division

Main Channel Cross-Over

Inside Bend

Inside Bend Bar

Inside Bend Channel Border

Inside Bend Pool

Inside Bend Steep Shoreline

Outside Bend

201

Appendix A. continued

Discrete Macrohabitats:

SCC

SCC-DEEP

SCC-SHLW

SCN

TRM

Discrete Macrohabitats

TRM-LRGE

TRM-SMLL

WILD

FISH COLLECTION GEARS

BS

BT

DTN

EF

SGN

Secondary Channel: Connected

Secondary Channel Connected: Deep

Secondary Channel Connected: Shallow

Secondary Channel: Non-Connected

Tributary Mouth

Large Tributary Mouth

Small Tributary Mouth

Wild Card Macrohabitat

Bag Seine

Benthic Trawl

Drifting Trammel Net

Boat Electrofishing

Stationary Gill Net

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF FISHES(arranged alphabetically by four-letter code)

Code Common Name Scientific NameBDKF Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus

BHCP Bighead carp Hypopthalmichthys nobilis

BHMW Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax

BKBH Black bullhead Ameiurus melas

BKCP Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

BKSB Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans

BKSS Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus

BLCF Blue catfish [ctalurusjUrcatus

BLGL Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

BMBF Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus

BMSN Bigmouth shiner Notropis dorsalis

202

Appendix A continued

Code Common Name Scientific NameBNMW Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus

BRBT Burbot Lota Iota

BSMW Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni

BUSK Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus

CARP Common carp Cyprinus carpio

CKCB Creek chub Semotilus atrotrUlculatus

CNCF Channel catfish lctalurus puntatus

CSCO Ciscoe Coregonus artedi

ERSN Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides

FHCB Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis

FHCF Flathead catfish Pylodictus olivaris

FHMW Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas

FWDM Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens

GDSN Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

GDEY Goldeye Hiodon alosoides

GNSF Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

GSCP Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella

GSOS Green sunfish x Orangespotted Lepomis cynellus x L humilis

GTSN Ghost shiner Notropis buchanani

GZSD Gizzard shad DorosotrUl cepedianum

HBNS Hybognathus sp. Hybognathus sp.

HFCS Highfin carpsucker Carpiodes velifer

JYDR Johnny darter EtheostotrUl nigrum

LESF Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis

LKCB Lake chub Couesius plumbeus

LMBS Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

LNDC Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae

203


Code Common Name Scientific NameLNGR Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus

LNSK Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus

LVFS Larval fish Unidentified

MDSP Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi

MQTF Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis

NHSK Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans

NRBD Northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos

NTPK Northern pike Esox lucius

OSSF Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis

PDFH Paddlefish Polydon spathula

PDSG Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus

PLDC Pearl dace Margariscus margarita

PNMW Plains minnow Hybognathus placitus

QLBK Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus

RBST Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax

RBTT Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

RDSN Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis

RKBS Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris

RVCS River carpsucker Carpoides carpio

RVRH River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum

RVSN River shiner Notropis blennius

SCBS Striped bass Morone saxatilis

SFCB Sicklefin chub Macrhybopsis meeki

SFSN Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera

SGCB Sturgeon chub Macrhybopsis gelida

SGER Sauger Stizostedion canadense

SGWE Sauger x Walleye Stizostedion canadense x S. vitreum

204


Code Common Name Scientific NameSHRH Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum

SKCB Speckled chub Macrhybopsis aestivalis

5MBF Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus

5MBS Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu

SMMW suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis

SNGR Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus

SNSN Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus

SNSN Sand shiner Notropis stranimeus

STBS Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus

STCT Stonecat Noturus flavus

STGR Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus

STSN Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius

SVCB Silver chub Macrhybopsis storeriana

TFSD Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense

UNID Unidentified Unidentified

U-BF Unidentified buffalo Ictiobus sp.

U-CY Unidentified minnow Unidentified Cyprinidae

U-CN Unidentified sunfish Unidentified Centrarchidae

U-CS Unidentified carpsucker Carpiodes sp.

U-CT Unidentified sucker Unidentified Catostomidae

U-LP Unidentified Lepomis Lepomis sp.

U-NO Unidentified shiner Notropis sp.

U-RH Unidentified redhorse Moxostoma sp.

U-ST Unidentified Stizostedion Stizostedion sp.

WLYE Walleye Stizostedion vitreum

WSMW Western silvery minnow Hybognathus argyritis

WTBS White bass Morone chrysops

WTCP White crappie Pomoxis annularis

WTPH White perch Morone americana

WTSK White sucker Catostomus commersoni

205


Code. YOYF

YWPH

Common NameAge-O fish (young-of-the-year)

Yellow perch

206

Scientific NameUnidentified

Perea flaveseens

Appendix B.

Riverine Habitat Categories

Secondary ChannelConnected: Shallow

Secondary ChannelConnected: Dee

- - - Thalweg

Tributary Mouth

•••I

Outside Bend - - - biJPU ~h~.llel ".- Cross-Over,

IIIIII

I,I,

I,,,,,,"

Secondary ChNon- Conne e

207

population structulre and habitat use ofbenthic~fishes ......age and growth ofmissouri river benthic...

Documents