vermillion river watershed joint powers organization wenck fish sampling final report...p.o. box 249...

Vermillion River 2009 Fish Community

Monitoring Report

Prepared for

Vermillion River Watershed Joint

Powers Organization

November 2009

Wenck File #1305-13

Prepared for:

VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHEDJOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION

Vermillion River2009 Fish Community

Monitoring Report

Prepared by:

WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.1800 Pioneer Creek Center

P.O. Box 249Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249

(763) 479-4200

November 2009

T:\1305 Vermillion\13 Fish Monitoring Project\Report\Final Report\2009 Fish Community Monitoring Report_final.doc

1-1

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 STREAM FISH MONITORING ................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Field Reconnaissance and Reach Determination................................................. 2-2 2.2 Fish Community Monitoring ............................................................................... 2-4

3.0 MONITORING RESULTS ............................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Fish Community Summary Information.............................................................. 3-1 3.2 IBI Calculations ................................................................................................... 3-2

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 4-1

5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 5-1

TABLES

1 Sample Reach Information for the Seven Stream Fish Monitoring Sites. 2 Electrofishing Methods, Sample Date and Total Fishing Time. 3 General Fish Community Sampling Results. 4 Warmwater and Coldwater IBI Scoring for Stream Monitoring Sites

FIGURES

1 Stream Monitoring Sites in the Vermillion River Watershed 2 Stream Monitoring Site A1 3 Stream Monitoring Site A3 4 Stream Monitoring Site A4 5 Stream Monitoring Site A7 6 Stream Monitoring Site A10 7 Stream Monitoring Site A11 8 Stream Monitoring Site A14

APPENDICES A Field Photos B MN DNR Special Survey Permit No. 15932 C Stream Fish Field Monitoring Sheets D Species Summary Table E Trout Collections Summary Table F IBI Scoring: Warmwater and Coldwater Metrics and Calculations


1-1

1.0 Introduction

The Vermillion River Watershed covers approximately 335 square miles in Scott and Dakota

Counties in Minnesota and contains reaches designated as either warmwater or coldwater stream

fish communities . The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) is

tasked with developing policies and programs that protect and improve water resources within

the watershed. In the summer of 2008 the VRWJPO developed a biological monitoring plan as a

means to assess and track biological health throughout the watershed. The biological monitoring

plan described goals and objectives for monitoring aquatic macroinvertebrate and fish

community health as well as assessing the existing stream habitat and geomorphology in the

watershed.

Because the Vermillion River Watershed contains stream reaches that are designated as both

warmwater and coldwater fish communities, the VRWJPO is interested in determining the

appropriate means for assessing the fish community health in both warmwater and coldwater

reaches as well as establishing appropriate management goals for each community type. The

Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is a useful tool that has been developed for assessing the overall

health of a stream by monitoring some aspect of the biological community. IBIs have been

developed for both warmwater and coldwater stream fish communities. The Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) is currently coordinating with the VRWJPO on the

IBI monitoring. The VRWJPO has expanded their IBI monitoring program to monitoring sites in

addition to what MN DNR personnel are currently providing.

In the spring of 2009, the VRWJPO established a contract with Wenck Associates, Inc. (Wenck)

to assist with the fish sampling portion of the biological monitoring program at seven established

stream monitoring sites within the watershed that included reaches designated as either coldwater

and warmwater stream fish communities. One of the objectives of the 2009 biological


1-2

monitoring program are to collect fish community data from each of the identified reaches,

determine the status of the existing fish community health through the application of IBI metrics

to the fish community data, and to assist the VRWJPO with the development of attainable

management objectives for the different stream fish communities within the watershed.


2-1

2.0 Stream Fish Monitoring

Seven stream monitoring sites were identified by the VRWJPO for inclusion in the 2009 fish

community monitoring project (Figure 1). The seven monitoring sites include three reaches (sites

A1, A3, and A7) that are designated as coldwater fish communities (class 2A waters). The four

remaining reaches (sites A4, A10, A11 and A14) contain warmwater fish communities (class 2B

waters). Additionally there are four reaches that are designated as trout streams by the MN DNR,

sites A1, A3, A7, A10. The MN DNR designate trout streams based on set of criteria. If a reach

is designated a trout stream then the trout stream designation is carried out for that reach and its

tributaries to the end of the section the stream is located within. As a result, it is possible for a

warmwater tributary to a coldwater stream to be designated as a trout stream by the MN DNR.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has developed an IBI for warmwater rivers

and streams of Upper Mississippi River Basin (Niemela and Fiest, 2002). The MPCA IBI

provides the necessary protocols for stream fish monitoring including: defining the sampling

reach needed; identifying an index period for fish community monitoring; describing survey

methods required for different size streams; and establishing metrics for calculating IBI scores

from the collected data.

The MPCA has not developed an IBI for coldwater streams in Minnesota. However, an IBI for

coldwater streams in the Upper Midwest has been developed (Mundahl and Simon, 1998). This

coldwater IBI was developed from a variety of collection records from various agencies and

individuals across the Midwest. The IBI does not detail field methods and requirements to the

same extent provided in the MPCA warmwater IBI. However, the main collection method for

both the coldwater and warmwater IBIs are through stream electrofishing. As a result, the field

methods, including reach determination, sampling methods and data collections, for the all

reaches in 2009 fish community monitoring study in the Vermillion River followed the field


2-2

protocols established in the MPCA IBI for Warmwater Rivers and Streams of the Upper

Mississippi River Basin (Niemela and Fiest, 2002).

2.1 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE AND REACH DETERMINATION

The MPCA warmwater IBI describes the methods for determining the proper length of a stream

sample reach necessary for fish community monitoring. Based on previous studies in Wisconsin

by Lyons (1992) the proper sample reach for IBI monitoring has been determined to be 35 times

the mean width of the stream. The MPCA has added an additional condition that the minimum

sample reach be no less than 150 meters and the maximum reach be no more than 500 meters

(Niemela and Fiest, 2002).

Field reconnaissance of the seven sample sites was performed in early August. Using a 300 foot

survey tape, the width of the stream channel was measured a minimum of ten times for each

sample reach. The distance between channel width measurements varied from 50 to 100 feet,

depending on the average width of the stream. The channel width measurements were relatively

consistent for the sample sites, with all of the sites except site A14 averaging less than 15 feet in

width.

Based on the average stream widths, four of the seven sample reaches (sites A1, A4, A10 and

A11) were determined to be the minimum reach length of 150 meters (492 ft). Once the sample

reaches were determined, flagging was placed on a tree along the bank at the upstream and

downstream end of the reach for each site. The GPS coordinates were recorded with a hand-held

GPS unit at the upstream and downstream points. The GPS coordinates and the sample reach

lengths for all of sample sites are provided in Table 1. Photos of the sample reaches are provided

in Appendix A (field photos 1 - 8).

During the field reconnaissance visit to site A11, it was determined that water conditions within

the channel were not adequate for fish community monitoring in 2009. The wetted channel was

three to four feet in width containing less than six inches of standing water, which appeared to be


2-3

less than half of the high water level conditions for this channel. With the low water levels, the

majority of the areas of the channel that would contain habitat for fish (such as undercut banks or

woody snags) were dry. Fish that normally utilize this reach likely retreated downstream to areas

with more favorable water conditions. Due to the lack of water in the channel and the lack of

available habitat to sample, fish community monitoring was not conducted at site A11 in 2009.

Table 1: Sample reach information for the seven sites in the 2009 Vermillion River stream fish monitoring project.

Site Fish Community Upstream Coordinates Downstream Coordinates Average

Width Sample Reach

Length (meters) A1 Coldwater 44.618556 93.217583 44.618833 93.216194 12.9 ft 492 ft (150 m)

A3 Coldwater 44.632778 93.195028 44.632778 93.192917 14.7 ft 525 ft (160 m)

A4 Warmwater 44.609278 93.192250 44.610333 93.191889 7.4 ft 492 ft (150 m)

A7 Coldwater 44.655917 93.138111 44.654861 93.136972 14.9 ft 500 ft (152 m)

A10 Warmwater 44.614444 93.055639 44.615806 93.055694 6 ft 492 ft (150 m)

A11** Warmwater -- -- -- -- ~ 4 ft 492 ft (150 m)

A14 Warmwater 44.685778 92.955583 44.686500 92.954667 35 ft 1225 ft (373 m)

**Due to low water level conditions fish community monitoring was not conducted at site A11.

A special permit from the MN DNR is required for private entities or individuals to conduct fish

community monitoring such as electrofishing in Minnesota public waters. A letter and map of

the sample sites was sent to the MN DNR on August 17th, 2009 requesting a permit to conduct

fish community monitoring at the seven designated sites on the Vermillion River by means of

backpack or barge electrofishing. The special survey permit was issued by the MN DNR on

August 24th, 2009 (see Appendix B). The survey permit is valid until the end of the calendar year

and must be renewed for future years of the study. The survey permit also requires that the fish

community data collected be reported to the MN DNR. Survey results from this report will be

provided to the MN DNR to fulfill that requirement.


2-4

2.2 FISH COMMUNITY MONITORING

The index period for fish community sampling is defined as mid-June through mid-September in

the MPCA warmwater IBI protocol. The MN DNR has conducted monitoring in the Vermillion

River over the last five years, traditionally sampling in early September. The past MN DNR

monitoring has mainly focused on sampling for trout, but the MN DNR is currently coordinating

with the VRWJPO on the IBI monitoring at seven sites in the watershed. Discussions with the

MN DNR indicated that their 2009 IBI fish community monitoring efforts would be targeted for

early September to correspond to the previous years of monitoring, even though previous

monitoring was not conducted for the purposes of calculating IBIs. As a result, the 2009 fish

community monitoring conducted under this effort was targeted for early September to coincide

with the DNR monitoring efforts in the Vermillion River watershed.

The application of the different sampling methods are defined in the MPCA warmwater IBI

based on stream size (Niemela and Fiest, 2002), with the backpack unit used for small, wadeable

streams less that eight meters wide and the barge unit used on medium sized, wadeable streams

greater than eight meters wide. The backpack unit was used at five sites, sites A1, A3, A4, A7,

and A10 (see Appendix A – photos 9 and 10), while the barge unit was used at site A14 (see

Appendix A – photos 11 and 12).

All stream fish collections followed the methods outlined in the MPCA warmwater IBI, as well

as the MPCA Standard Operating Procedures for electrofishing (Rev. Feb. 2009). Each reach

was fished beginning from the downstream point established during field reconnaissance in an

upstream direction up to the upstream end of the established reach. All habitats within the

channel were sampled with the electrofishing units and all fish were netted during fishing.

Due to the relatively narrow width of most of the stream reaches, it was possible to effectively

sample all available instream habitats. The total electrofishing time of each reach was recorded at

the end of the sampling run for that site. The electrofishing method, sample times and sample

dates for each reach are presented in Table 2.


2-5

Table 2: Electrofishing methods, sample date and total fishing time for the seven sites in the 2009 Vermillion River stream fish monitoring project

Site Fish Community

Sampling Method Sample Date

Total Fishing Time

A1 Coldwater Backpack Unit 9/2/2009 2127 sec (35.5 min)


A4 Warmwater Backpack Unit 9/2/2009 1324 sec (22.1 min)



A11** Warmwater -- -- --

A14 Warmwater Barge Unit 9/30/2009 6161 sec (102.7 min)


Fish community monitoring at sites A1, A3, A4, A7 and A10 was conducted on September 2,

2009 and September 3, 2009. Monitoring at site A14 was initially attempted on September 15,

2009, but was not completed due an incompatible neutral/ground on the generator (i.e., power

supply) used for the barge electrofishing unit. The barge electrofishing unit was then sent in for

servicing to ensure that the generator had not damaged the unit. An alternate generator with a

compatible ground was used for the second sampling attempt which was conducted on

September 30th after servicing of the barge unit was complete.

The September 30, 2009 sample date for site A14 is outside of the standard sampling period

defined in the MPCA warmwater IBI as mid-June through mid-September. However, the flow

and temperature conditions in the watershed in 2009 were consistent throughout the month of

September, with warmer than average temperatures and stable, average flow conditions. Site

A14 is on the main stem of the Vermillion River in the lower half of the watershed. The flow,

water level and available habitat conditions during sampling on September 30, 2009 were not

significantly different than the conditions in the reach observed during field reconnaissance in

early August. As a result, the survey results from the fish community monitoring at site A14 on

September 30, 2009 are believed to be an accurate assessment of the fish community in the

reach. In future years all monitoring will be conducted within the identified index period of IBI

sampling.


2-6

During fish monitoring at each site, collected fish were placed in buckets or tubs. Water in the

buckets was changed during monitoring to provide adequate dissolved oxygen for the fish. For

reaches where electrofishing lasted more that one half hour or when a large number of fish were

collected, large tubs were set up with aerators. Fish mortality was negligible, with only a few

individual deaths during all the collecting.

After electrofishing was complete, a fish processing station was set up with a large numbers of

tubs and buckets, including aerators (see Appendix A – Photo 13). All individuals were

identified and sorted by species into a tub/bucket. Dr. Patrick Ceas of St. Olaf College served as

the expert ichthyologist for all field identifications for this project. Once the identification and

sorting was complete, the largest and smallest fish of each species were weighed and measured,

following the MPCA protocols for fish processing (see Appendix A – Photos 14 and 15). Batch

weights were then taken of the remaining fish for each species.

In some cases large fish were weighed and measured individually. In most cases all trout

collected were weighed and measured individually. All fish of each species were then counted

and released (see Appendix A – Photo 16). All fish community data collected, including fish

species, number of each species, lengths and weights were recorded on MPCA datasheets for

stream fish monitoring (see Appendix C – Field Sheets) Voucher specimens from each sample

site were kept and preserved, with the number of specimens recorded on the data sheet for the

site. Voucher specimens were sent to the MPCA to be archived with the fish community samples

collected from the Vermillion River watershed by the MPCA in 2008.


3-1

3.0 Monitoring Results

3.1 FISH COMMUNITY SUMMARY INFORMATION

Total electrofishing time at the six sites ranged from 22 to 102 minutes (see Table 2), with longer

fishing times mainly driven by the amount of fish collected and not sample reach length. There

were a total of 2240 fish collected from 23 different species across the six sites that were

monitored in 2009 (see Appendix D – Species Summary Table).

Species diversity ranged from a low of three species collected at site A1 to a high of 17 species

collected from site A14 (Table 3). Total fish collected ranged from a low of 14 fish collected

from site A1 to a high of 1402 fish collected from site A14 (Table 3). Field photographs of a

variety of the species collected during the study are provided in Appendix A (Photos 17 – 28).

Table 3: General fish community sampling results for the seven sites in the 2009 Vermillion River stream fish monitoring project.

Site Fish Community

MN DNR Trout Stream

Total Species Total Fish

A1 Coldwater Yes 3 14


A4 Warmwater No 7 60


A10 Warmwater Yes 7 95

A11** Warmwater No -- --

A14 Warmwater No 17 1401

All Sites -- -- 24 2240


White suckers were the most numerous fish collected, totaling 628 or 28 percent of the combined

total catch for all six sites. Bigmouth shiners comprised 16 percent of the combined total catch


3-2

but this species was only collected at one site (A14). All other species comprised less than ten

percent of the combined total catch for the six monitoring sites. White suckers and central

mudminnows were the only fish collected at all six monitoring sites (see Appendix D – Species

Summary Table). Johnny darters and pearl dace were collected at five sites; brook stickleback,

brown trout and largemouth bass were collected at four sites; and creek chubs and green sunfish

were collected at three sites. The other 14 of the 23 species observed during the 2009 Vermillion

River fish monitoring were collected at only one or two sites (see Appendix D – Species

Summary Table).

Brown trout were collected from four sites during the study, of which two of the sites are

classified as coldwater fish communities (sites A3 and A7) and from two sites that are classified

as having a warmwater fish community (sites A10 and A14). Based on conversations with the

MN DNR fisheries staff familiar with the project area, it is not uncommon to collect an

occasional brown trout on the main stem of the Vermillion River in the lower reaches of the

watershed that are classified as warmwater fisheries. Brown trout of catchable size for

recreational anglers were collected at all four sites where trout were observed with the largest

specimens being a 26.6 and 25 inch trout collected at site A3, an 18.5 inch trout at site A7, a 17

inch trout from site A10, and a 21.5 inch trout collected from site A14. See Appendix E for a

summary of all trout collected during the study.

3.2 IBI CALCULATIONS

The 2009 Vermillion River stream fish monitoring project included stream monitoring sites that

are classified as having either warmwater or coldwater fish communities. The purpose of the

monitoring was to collect stream fish community datasets to be used to calculate IBI scores for

each sample site. The VRWJPO is in the process of determining appropriate management goals

for the stream fish communities throughout the watershed and as a result requested that both

warmwater and coldwater IBI scoring be applied to the data collected from each site. The

warmwater scoring criteria used for the study was taken from the MPCA IBI for warmwater

streams of the Upper Mississippi River (Neimela and Fiest, 2002) and the coldwater IBI scoring


3-3

criteria was taken from Mundahl and Simon’s coldwater IBI for streams of the Upper

Midwestern States (1998).

The MPCA warmwater IBI provides separate scoring criteria for sites depending on the

watershed size. There are four watershed sizes identified in the warmwater IBI, with the sites

from the Vermillion River 2009 fish monitoring project falling into two of the categories: small

streams (5 – 35 mi2 watershed) and moderate sized streams (35 – 200 mi2 watershed area). The

metrics used to calculate the IBI scores for each stream size category are provided in

Appendix E.

Five of the sites from the Vermillion River 2009 fish monitoring project fall into the small

stream category (sites A1, A3, A4, A7 and A10) while only one of the sites falls into the

moderate size stream category (site A14). Each of the two categories uses ten metrics to calculate

the IBI score for the site, with a maximum score of ten for each metric, resulting in a maximum

score of 100 for the warmwater IBI.

The MPCA warmwater IBI use categorical, as opposed to continuous, scoring for metrics,

meaning that the metric score is dependant on an assigned category given a value of 0, 2, 5, 7 or

10. Eight of the ten the metrics used for the warmwater IBI are the same for both the small and

moderate size streams. The two unique metrics for the small-size streams are the “number of

minnow species” and “percent dominant two species” while the moderate-size stream metrics are

the “number of darter, sculpin and madtom species” and “number of piscivore species” metrics

(see Appendix E).

The coldwater IBI scoring criteria (Mundahl and Simon, 2002) uses 12 total metrics each with a

maximum score of 10 for a total score of 120. The coldwater IBI also uses categorical, as

opposed to continuous, scoring for the metrics. The coldwater IBI does not alter the metric

scoring for sites based on watershed sized as is done by the MPCA warmwater IBI. Therefore

the same 12 metric scoring system was applied to all six of the sites from the Vermillion River

2009 fish monitoring project. The scoring criteria for the coldwater IBI (Mundahl and Simon,

2002) are provided in Appendix E.


3-4

The scoring for the warmwater and coldwater IBIs are presented in Table 4 for the six sites from

the 2009 Vermillion River stream fish monitoring project. IBI scores could not be calculated for

site A1 because less than the minimum of 25 fish were collected from this sample reach. Based

on both the warmwater and coldwater IBI scoring protocols, site A1 would not be assigned an

IBI rating. For the other five sites, warmwater IBI scores ranged from a low of 42 out of 100 at

site A3 to a high of 68 out of 100 at site A7 (Table 4). Three of the sites received a rating of

“fair” and two sites received a rating of “good” for the warmwater fish community IBI scoring.

(Table 4). There were no sites that received a rating of “poor” when applying the warmwater IBI

criteria, with the exception of site A1, which was assigned this rating due to the total fish catch

falling below the minimum required to calculate an IBI score.

Table 4: Warmwater and coldwater IBI scores calculated for all fish community monitoring sites from the 2009 Vermillion River stream fish monitoring project.

Warmwater Scoring (Nemila and Fiest, 2002)

Coldwater Scoring (Mundahl and Simon, 1998)

Site

Fish

Community Score Rating Max Score Rating Max

A1* coldwater -- no rating 100 -- no rating 120

A3 coldwater 42 fair 100 45 fair 120

A4 warmwater 55 fair 100 35 fair 120

A7 coldwater 68 good 100 15 poor 120

A10 warmwater 45 fair 100 30 poor 120

A11** warmwater na na 100 Na na 120

A14 warmwater 64 good 100 15 poor 120

*Less than 25 fish were collected. IBI scores can not be calculated for collections of less than 25 fish. **Due to low water level conditions fish community monitoring was not conducted at site A11

For the coldwater IBI scoring, the scores in general were lower than the scores using the

warmwater IBI criteria (Table 4). The coldwater IBI scores ranged from a low of 15 at site A7

and A14 to a high of 45 at site A3. For the five sites, three were given a rating of “poor” and two

were given a rating of “fair”. There were no sites that rated as “good” when applying the

coldwater IBI scoring criteria. The IBI metric scoring worksheets for both the warmwater and

coldwater scoring criteria are provided in Appendix E.


4-1

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

Fish community monitoring was conducted at six of the seven identified stream sites during the

2009 Vermillion River stream fish monitoring project. One site was not surveyed due to low

water conditions. Of the six sites surveyed, IBI scores were calculated for only five sites, due to

an insufficient total catch at site A1 (less than the 25 fish minimum required for IBI scoring). In

general, all fish communities scored better when applying the warmwater IBI scoring criteria as

opposed to when applying the coldwater scoring criteria. The warmwater IBI scores ranged from

42 to 68 and were rated as fair to good. The coldwater IBI scores ranged from 15 to 45 and were

rated from poor to fair (see Section 3 – Table 4). There were no coldwater reaches sampled that

received ratings of good or excellent.

Site A1

Site A1 is an upper reach on the main stem of the Vermillion River that is designated as a

coldwater fish community. There were only 14 fish collected during the 2009 monitoring at Site

A1, which is less than the minimum total catch recommended for scoring using either the

warmwater or coldwater IBI. There appeared to be adequate water levels at the time of sampling

but there was a limited amount of pool habitat on this reach and there were no deep pools

present. The lack of pool habitat may cause fish to utilize this reach of the Vermillion River less

frequently late in the monitoring season during warmer, low water conditions. Site A1 should be

sampled again in proceeding years to determine if the 2009 results were an anomaly or indicative

of a very poor fish community. It may be necessary to redefine this sample reach or possibly

sample this reach multiple times during the index period at different flow conditions to see if

scores change/improve.


4-2

Site A3

Site A3 is the coldwater site that received the highest score when applying the coldwater IBI

metrics (see Table 4). However the overall rating of the fish community was still only rated as

“fair”. Site A3 had high metric scores for low “number of minnow species” and “number of

benthic species” collected. An increase in the number of the species from these two groups is

usually an indicator of disturbance or declining habitat conditions. Site A3 also had the highest

percentage of coldwater individuals of all the coldwater sites monitored in 2009, but the “total

number of coldwater individuals” collected still received a score of “0” for this metric, indicating

that habitat or water quality conditions necessary for a healthy coldwater fish community are not

present. When applying the warmwater IBI scoring criteria, Site A3 received a score of 42 and a

rating of “fair”. The site scored moderately well for the “number of wetland species”, “percent

dominant two species”, and “number of fish per 100 meters” metrics. Site A3 scored low to

poorly for all other metrics under the warmwater scoring.

Site A4

Site A4 received a rating of fair when applying the warmwater IBI scoring criteria. This site is a

small, headwater tributary to the Vermillion River. The channel is very narrow and was

relatively shallow. There was a mixture of hard, rock substrates with areas of fine silt and clay.

Overall species diversity was poor at this site but high metric scores were received for the

“percent of tolerant species”; “percent dominant two species”; and “number of fish per 100

meters.” Site A4 received a rating of fair when applying the coldwater IBI scoring criteria. The

site had a high metric score for the low “number of minnow species” present and fair metric

scores for the “total number of species”, “number of coldwater species”, “number of tolerant

species” and “percent of intolerant individuals” metrics. The site received low metric scores for

all other metrics.

Site A7

An interesting aspect of the 2009 fish monitoring study is that Site A7 is designated as a

coldwater steam fish community that scored “poor” using the coldwater IBI metrics but scored

“good” using the warmwater IBI scoring metrics. Site A7 actually received the highest score of


4-3

all reaches sampled when applying the warmwater IBI metrics (see Table 4). The high number of

species (16) collected, high number of minnow species collected and overall high number of

warmwater individuals collected all resulted in low scores for metrics under the coldwater IBI

but also resulted in high scores for metrics under the warmwater IBI scoring. The IBI results

from this study suggest two possible conclusions for site A7: 1) that the stream is a coldwater

community that has experienced significant disturbance and is now dominated by tolerant or

warmwater species; or 2) that the stream is a warmwater/coolwater community that exhibits

good community health and is capable of supporting trout or other coldwater species. Further

investigation of the stream, including historic water quality and fish community records,

macroinvertebrate IBI results from 2009, as well as habitat and geomorphic results from 2009,

would be necessary to determine if the site is a disturbed coldwater community or a “coolwater”

community.

Site A10

Site A10 is a small tributary stream that is a warmwater stream that is narrow but moderately

deep and well shaded by tall grassy vegetation on the stream banks. The site is also designated as

a MN DNR trout stream due to it being a tributary to a reach meeting the criteria for a trout

stream designation. Site A10 received a score of 45 and a rating of “fair” when applying the

warmwater IBI scoring criteria. The site scored well for the “percent dominant two species” and

“number of fish per 100 meters” metrics. The site also scored moderately well for the “number

of wetland species” and “number of invertivore species” metrics under the warmwater IBI

criteria. Site A10 received a score of 30 and a rating of “poor” when applying the coldwater IBI

scoring criteria. The site scored moderately well for the “total number of species”, “number of

coldwater species”, “number of benthic species”, and “number of coldwater individuals” metrics.

The site scored poorly for all other coldwater metrics.

Site A14

Site A14 is on the mainstem of the Vermillion River and is the site that is located farthest

downstream in the watershed of all reaches sample in the 2009 study. The site received a score of

64 and a rating of “good” when applying the warmwater IBI metrics. The site received high


4-4

metric scores for “total number of species”, “number of wetland species”, and “number of fish

per 100 meters.” Site A14 scored moderately well for most of the metrics in the warmwater IBI

and only the “number of intolerant species” metric scored poorly for site A14. Site A14 received

a score of 15 and a rating of “poor” when applying the coldwater IBI scoring criteria. The site

scored moderately well for the “number of benthic species” and “number of coldwater species”

metrics but scored poorly for all other metrics. Site A14 was the longest reach sampled in the

2009 study. There were some deep pools, as well as some woody snags, creating favorable

habitat for fish in this reach. However, the prevalence of long, shallow, sandy runs within the

reach may be limiting the fishing community at some level and preventing this reach from

receiving higher IBI scores.

Overall, the fish community sites in 2009 study scored moderately well when applying the

warmwater IBI criteria and in general scored poorly when applying coldwater IBI criteria. The

overall low scores for the coldwater reaches are related to low scores for several metrics

including “percent of salmonids as brook trout”; “percent of intolerant individuals”; “percent of

coldwater individuals”; “percent of white suckers”; “percent top carnivores”; “number of

coldwater individuals” and “number of warmwater individuals”.

Overall the stream fish monitoring collected a high number of white suckers, tolerant species and

warmwater individuals from all sites in the study. These metrics indicate that water quality and

habitat conditions within a reach are favoring species tolerant of watershed or stream channel

disturbance, such as increased temperature or increased silt/suspended sediment loads. The

collections at coldwater reaches collected a low number of top carnivores and coldwater

individuals. Based on the IBI metrics, healthy coldwater systems should be dominated by species

that favor coldwater conditions and include a high percentage of top carnivores.

There were no brook trout collected during this study. Brook trout are the trout species native to

Minnesota trout streams but this species is less tolerant of conditions often associated with

disturbed systems, such as increased temperature, loss of deep pool habitat/refugia or increased

sediment loads. As a result, brook trout have been extirpated from many trout streams in


4-5

Minnesota and across the upper Midwest. Brown trout are more tolerant of increased temperature

and sediment loads as compared to brook trout, which is the reason brown trout are often stocked

in coldwater systems. The MN DNR stocking program for the Vermillion River began in 1988,

with brook trout stocked during only one year of the program (after three years of brown trout

stocking) and brown trout being stocked during all other years. In order for brook trout to

become reestablished within the Vermillion River watershed, they would have to be stocked

under the MN DNR program or an alternate stocking effort. An analysis would need to be

conducted to determine if the current habitat and water quality conditions are adequate to allow

the establishment of a brook trout population in the Vermillion River, so that valuable resources

are not wasted. Another factor that would need to be examined is if it would be possible for the

brook trout population to coexist with the current brown trout population. The current brown

trout stocking efforts in the watershed have been successful and the species is currently highly

valued by local anglers. Therefore, it could be undesirable from a public standpoint to develop a

brook trout or alternate stocking program that would jeopardize the current trout fishery. The

lack of brook trout in the Vermillion River will continue to result in a low score for “percent of

salmonids as brook trout” metric under the coldwater IBI scoring criteria.

Due to the low coldwater IBI scores across all sites monitored in 2009, it appears that large scale

watershed and stream channel improvements may be necessary to improve the health of the

coldwater fish communities in the Vermillion River watershed if they are expected to meet

coldwater stream fish standards. In general, it appears that smaller scale changes or

improvements to watershed and stream channel conditions would be necessary to improve the

warmwater fish communities in the Vermillion River. It is also possible that the warmwater fish

communities are not as sensitive to the current disturbance conditions in the watershed, such as

temperature, which disproportionately affects coldwater fish communities.


5-1

5.0 References

Fish Community Sampling Protocol For Stream Monitoring Sites. (Revised February 2009). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Biological Monitoring Program.

Lyons, J. 1992. The Length of Stream to sample with towed electrofishing unit when fish species

richness is estimated. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Vol. 12. pp. 198-203.

Mundahl, Neal D. and Simon, Thomas P. 1999. Development and Application of an Index of

Biotic Integrity for Coldwater Streams of the Upper Midwestern United States. pp. 383-415 In Thomas P. Simon (ed.) “Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities”. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.

Niemela, Scott and Fiest, Michael D. 2002. Index of Biological Integrity Guidance for Coolwater

Rivers and Streams of the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Biological Monitoring Program.


Figures

ÈF

ÈFÈF

ÈF

ÈF

ÈFÈF

_̂Dakota County Office

£¤52

©̈79

""3 ""316£¤61

""55

§̈¦35

45679

456747

170th St E

©̈89

A3

A1

A7

A4A10

A11A14

VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2009 Fish Monitoring Sites

NOV 2009Figure 1

3 0 31.5Miles ³

1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429

Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers

COPY

RIGH

T

LegendWatershed District Legal Boundary

ÈF Fish Monitoring Sites

StreamOrder1st Order2nd Order3rd Order4th Order9th Order

Mxd: L:\1305\12\mxd\Monitoring Stations.mxdLast Modified: 8/7/2008 3:39:09 PM

")

")

Verm

illion R

iver

VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2009 Fish Monitoring Site A1

NOV 2009Figure 2

80 0 8040Feet ³



COPY

RIGH

T

LegendA-1 Fish Monitoring Site

") Downstream End

") Upstream End

Streams

Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM

") ")South Creek


NOV 2009Figure 3

80 0 8040Feet ³



COPY

RIGH

T


") Downstream End

") Upstream End

Streams



")

")

Unna

med t

o Verm

illion R

iver


NOV 2009Figure 41800 Pioneer Creek Center

Maple Plain, MN 55359-0429

COPY

RIGH

T

80 0 8040Feet ³


LegendA-4 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End") Upstream End

Streams


")

")

MIddle Creek

North Creek




COPY

RIGH

T

80 0 8040Feet ³


Streams



")

")




COPY

RIGH

T

80 0 8040Feet ³


Streams


")

")

Unnamed to Vermillion River


NOV 2009Figure 7

80 0 8040Feet ³



COPY

RIGH

T


") Downstream End

") Upstream End

Streams


")

")

Vermillion River


NOV 2009Figure 8

80 0 8040Feet ³



COPY

RIGH

T


") Downstream End

") Upstream End

Streams



Appendix A

Field Photos

Photo 1: Looking upstream at stream reach A1 Photo 2: Looking upstream at stream reach A3

Photo 3: Looking upstream at stream reach A4 Photo 4: Stream reach A7

Photo 5: Looking upstream at stream reach A10 Photo 6: Looking upstream at stream Reach A11. Photo shows stagnant pool next to the road. The channel is only partially visible at the top of the photo. This reach was not

sampled due to extremely low water levels resulting in lack of instream habitat.

Photo 7: Looking upstream at stream reach A14 Photo 8: Looking downstream at stream reach A14

Photo 9: Back-pack monitoring at site A1 Photo 10: Back-pack monitoring at Site A4

Photo 11: Barge electrofishing unit used at site A14 Photo 12: Fish monitoring with barge unit at Site A14

Photo 14: Weighing and measuring fish at Site A3Photo 13: Processing (identification and sorting) of fish at Site A14

Photo 15: Recording length of brown trout collected at site A7

Photo 16: Counting fish collected at Site A7

Photo 17: Male (above) and female (below) brown trout collected from Site A3

Photo 18: Northern Pike collected from Site A7

Photo 19: Iowa Darter Collected from Site A7 Photo 20: Johnny darter (photo is not of specimen collected in the Vermillion River Watershed).

Photo 21: Central mudminnow; collected from all sites. (photo is not of specimen collected in the Vermillion River

Watershed).Photo 22: Pearl dace collected at Site A10

Photo 23: Central stoneroller (photo is not of specimen collected in the Vermillion River Watershed).

Photo 24: Brook stickleback collected at Site A7.

Photo 25: Common carp collected at site A14. Photo 26: Creek chub (photo is not of specimen collected in the Vermillion River Watershed).

Photo 28: Large white sucker with lesion; collected from Site A7.

Photo 27: White Sucker; collected at all sites.


Appendix B

MN DNR Special Survey Permit

No. 15932


Appendix C

Stream Fish Community Monitoring: Field Data Sheets


Appendix D

Species Summary Table

Species Summary Table for all Six monitoring SitesVermillion River 2009 Fish Monitoring Study

Species Combined

Total CatchPercentage of

Total CatchNumber of

Sites Observed SitesBigmouth Shiner 356 15.9% 1 A14Black Bullhead 70 3.1% 1 A7Black Crappie 3 0.1% 1 A7Blacknose Dace 132 5.9% 1 A14Bluegill 4 0.2% 1 A7Bluntnose Minnow 180 8.0% 1 A14Brook Stickleback 59 2.6% 4 A3, A4, A7, A10Brown Trout 49 2.2% 4 A3, A7, A10, A14Central Mudminnow 149 6.7% 6 AllCentral Stoneroller 7 0.3% 1 A14Common Carp 11 0.5% 1 A14Creek Chub 154 6.9% 3 A7, A10, A14Fathead Minnow 2 0.1% 2 A7, A14Golden Shiner 6 0.3% 1 A7Green Sunfish 112 5.0% 3 A3, A7, A14Iowa Darter 97 4.3% 2 A4, A7Johnny Darter 114 5.1% 5 A1, A4, A7, A10, A14Largemouth Bass 36 1.6% 4 A3, A4, A7, A14Longnose Dace 1 0.0% 1 A14Northern Pike 12 0.5% 2 A7, A14Pearl Dace 21 0.9% 5 A3, A4, A7, A10, A14Tadpole Madtom 37 1.7% 1 A14White Sucker 628 28.0% 6 All23 Species 2240 100.0%

T:\1305 Vermillion\13 Fish Monitoring Project\Data Analysis\VRWJPO_Warmwater IBI Calculations_2009


Appendix E

Trout Collections Summary Table

Brown Trout Summary Table for all Six monitoring SitesVermillion River 2009 Fish Monitoring Study

Site Fish Length (inches) Weight (lbs)Site A1 No Brown Trout Collected -- --Site A3 Brown Trout 25 *

Brown Trout 26.6 *Brown Trout 8.6 0.31Brown Trout 15.6 1.37Brown Trout 14 1.20Brown Trout 10.4 0.40

Site A4 No Brown Trout Collected -- --Site A7 Brown Trout 10.6 0.44

Brown Trout 9.7 0.36Brown Trout 5.0 0.04Brown Trout 4.1 0.03Brown Trout 5.4 0.06Brown Trout 18.6 2.69Brown Trout 5.1 0.05Brown Trout 4.8 0.04Brown Trout 4.8 0.04Brown Trout 4.8 0.04Brown Trout 4.8 0.05Brown Trout 3.9 0.03Brown Trout** (20 Individuals) -- 0.61

Site A10 Brown Trout 17.1 1.84Brown Trout 10.3 0.42Brown Trout 4.5 0.05Brown Trout 10.4 0.44Brown Trout 10.2 0.41Brown Trout 10.6 0.41Brown Trout 9.3 0.28Brown Trout 9.8 0.37Brown Trout 9.1 0.30

Site A11 No Fish Collected -- --Site A14 Brown Trout 21.5 3.55

Brown Trout 4.8 0.04Brown Trout 10.9 0.44

* Weights were not recorded for these fish** IBI scoring allows for batch weights of of fish. These trout were not weighedand measured individually.


Appendix F

IBI Scoring: Warmwater and Coldwater Metrics and Calculations

Upper Mississippi River Basin Index of Biological Integrity 18

Table 4. Scoring criteria for the 10 metrics used to calculate the IBI for small streams (5 to 35 mi2 drainage area) in the Upper Mississippi River Basin of Minnesota. Scoring Criteria Metric 10 7 5 2 0 Species richness and composition metrics Total number of species 14 or more 11-13 8-10 5-7 0-4 Number of wetland species1 3 or more 1 or 2 0 Number of minnow species1 5 or more 4 2 or 3 1 0 Number of intolerant species 2 or more 1 0 Percent tolerant species2 0-40 41-55 56-70 71-85 86-100 Percent dominant two species2 0-52 53-64 65-76 77-88 89-100 Trophic and reproductive function metrics Number of invertivore species1 5 or more 4 2 or 3 1 0 Percent simple lithophils2 49-100 37-48 25-36 13-24 0-12 Fish abundance and condition metrics Number of fish per 100 meters1 5 or more 0–4 Percent DELT anomalies2 0-1 2 or 3 4 or more

1Number of wetland species, number of minnow species, number of invertivore species, and number of fish per 100 meters metrics do not include tolerant species. 2Round all percent metrics to the nearest 1 percent.


Table 5. Narrative guidelines for interpreting the overall IBI scores for small streams (5 to 35 mi2 drainage area) in the Upper Mississippi River Basin (modified from Karr 1981, and Lyons 1992a)

Overall IBI Score

Biological Integrity Rating

Fish Community Attributes

100-80 Excellent Comparable to the best situations with minimal human disturbance; typically more than 13 species present; no more than 50% of the catch is comprised of tolerant species or dominated by two species; assemblage typically includes 1 to 3 intolerant species and 1 to 5 wetland, minnow, and invertivore species; simple lithophilic spawners comprise up to 50% of the community; a full array of age and size classes are represented

79-60 Good Species richness somewhat below expectations, from 8 to 15 species possible, but more commonly 9 to 13; no more than 70% of the catch is comprised of tolerant species or dominated by two species; assemblage typically includes 1 to 3 intolerant species and 1 to 5 wetland, minnow, and invertivore species; simple lithophilic spawners make up to 50% of the community; size/age distributions may show signs of imbalance.

59-40 Fair Decreased species richness, from 6 to 14 species possible, but more commonly 8 to 10; typically, from 50% to 90% of the catch is comprised of tolerant species or dominated by two species; assemblage typically includes no intolerant species, or if present, only 1 species; 1 to 3 wetland, minnow and invertivore species; simple lithophilic spawners comprise up to 30% of the community; size/age distributions may show signs of imbalance.

39-20 Poor Decreased species richness; from 5 and 9 species possible, but more commonly 6 to 8; almost all are tolerant species (80-98%); the dominant two species comprise from 60 to 90% of the catch; assemblage typically includes 1 to 3 wetland, minnow, and invertivore species, no intolerant species, or if present, only 1 species; simple lithophilic spawners typically make up no more than 20% of the community; size/age distributions may show signs of imbalance; growth rates and condition factors sometimes depressed; hybrids sometimes common.

19-0 Very Poor The community is indicative of a severely modified landscape and in-stream habitat; very few species present, typically between 1 and 6; almost all are tolerant forms (90-100%), the dominant two species comprise from 80 to 100% of the catch; wetland, minnow, intolerant, and invertivore species are not present, or if so, typically only 1 species present; simple lithophilic spawners comprise no more than 5% of the catch; hybrids, or exotics may be common; age/size distributions are abnormal; DELT fish (fish with deformities, eroded fins, lesions, or tumors) may be present in the most severely degraded environments.

No Score Thorough sampling finds few or no fish; impossible to calculate IBI.


Table 6. Scoring criteria for the 10 metrics used to calculate the IBI for moderate size streams (35 to 200 mi2 drainage area) in the Upper Mississippi River Basin of Minnesota. Scoring Criteria Metric 10 7 5 2 0 Species richness and composition metrics Total number of species 20 or more 16-19 12-15 8-11 0-7 Number of darter, sculpin, and madtom species

4 or more 3 2 1 0

Number of wetland species1 3 or more 1 or 2 0 Number of intolerant species 4 or more 3 2 1 0 Percent tolerant species2 0-35 36-50 51-65 66-80 81-100 Trophic and reproductive function metrics Number of invertivore species1 8 or more 6 or 7 4 or 5 2 or 3 0-1 Number of piscivore species 5 or more 4 2 or 3 1 0 Percent simple lithophils2 61-100 46-60 31-45 16-30 0-15 Fish abundance and condition metrics Number of fish per 100 meters1 5 or more 0 Percent DELT anomalies2 0-1 2 or 3 4 or more

1Number of wetland species, number of invertivore species, and number of fish per 100 meters metrics do not include tolerant species 2Round all percent metrics to the nearest 1 percent.


Table 7. Narrative guidelines for interpreting the overall IBI scores for moderate size streams (35 to 200 mi2 drainage area) in the Upper Mississippi River Basin (modified from Karr 1981, and Lyons 1992a)

Overall IBI Score

Biological Integrity Rating

Fish Community Attributes

100-80 Excellent Comparable to the best situations with minimal human disturbance; from 15 to 23 species possible, but more commonly 17 to 21; tolerant species typically less than 50% of the catch; assemblage typically includes 3 or more darter, sculpin, and madtom species, 3 or more wetland species; 6 to 8 invertivore species; 2 to 7 piscivore species, and 1 to 3 intolerant species; simple lithophilic spawners may comprise up to 70% of the catch; a full array of age and size classes are represented.

79-60 Good Species richness somewhat below expectations, from 13 to 21 species possible, but more commonly 15 to19; tolerant species typically less than 50% of the catch; assemblage includes 1 to 3 darter, sculpin, and madtom species, 2 or more wetland species, 3 to 8 invertivore species, 1 to 5 piscivore species, and 1 to 2 intolerant species; Simple lithophilic spawners may comprise up to 70% of the catch; size/age distributions may show signs of imbalance.

59-40 Fair Decreased species richness, from 6 to 17 species possible, but more commonly 10 to 14; tolerant forms typically less than 50% of the catch; assemblage includes 1 to 3 darter, sculpin, and madtom species, 1 or more wetland species, 3 to 6 invertivore species, up to 3 piscivore species, and 1 to 2 intolerant species; simple lithophilic spawners may comprise up to 70% of the catch; size/age distributions may show signs of imbalance.

39-20 Poor Decreased species richness; from 6 to 13 species possible, but more commonly 8 to 11; tolerant forms typically over 50% of the catch; assemblage typically includes no more than 1 darter, sculpin, and madtom species; wetland, intolerant, and piscivore species may not be present or if so typically only 1; 2 to 5 invertivore species; simple lithophilic spawners may comprise up to 20% of the catch; size/age distributions may show signs of imbalance; growth rates and condition factors sometimes depressed; hybrids sometimes common.

19-0 Very Poor The community is indicative of an environment that is severely modified by human disturbance; very few species present, typically less than 6; almost all are tolerant forms (90-100%); darters, sculpins, and madtom, wetland species, intolerant species, invertivore species, and piscivore species are not present, or if so, typically only 1 species present; simple lithophilic spawners comprise no more than 20% of the catch; hybrids, or exotics may be common; age/size distributions are abnormal; DELT fish (fish with deformities, eroded fins, lesions, or tumors) may be present in the most severely degraded environments.

No Score Thorough sampling finds few or no fish; impossible to calculate IBI.

Warmwater IBISite A1

Sample Date 9/2/2009Reach Length (feet) 492

Fishing Time 2127 secFishing Method Back-pack Unit

Drainage Area Range 5 - 35 mi2

Species Name Number Collected Darter, Sclupin, Tolerant Intolerant Wetland Minnow Piscivore Invertivore Omnivore LithophilsCentral Mudminnow 5 1 1 1Johnny Darter 2 1 1White Sucker 7 1 1 1

Total 14Tolerant Fish Total 12

Metrics Calculation ScoreTotal Number of Species 3 0Number of Wetland Species** 0 0Number of Minnow Species** 0 0Number of Intolerant Species 0 0Percent Tolerant Species 86% 0Percent Dominant Two Species 86% 0Number of Invertivore Species** 1 0Percent Simple Lithophils 50% 0Number of Fish Per 100 Meters** 1 0Percent Delt anomolies 0 0

Total 0Total IBI Score Less than 25 fish collected - IBI Score not calculated

** Does not include tolerant species

T:\1305 Vermillion\13 Fish Monitoring Project\Data Analysis\VRWJPO_Warmwater IBI Calculations_2009



Fishing Time 2590Fishing Method Back-pack Unit


Species Name Number Collected Darter, SclupTolerant Intolerant Wetland Minnow Piscivore Invertivore Omnivore LithophilsBrook Stickleback 20 1 1 1Brown Trout 6 1Central Mudminnow 3 1 1 1Green Sunfish 7 1Largemouth Bass 1 1Pearl Dace 1 1 1 1White Sucker 7 1 1 1


Metrics Calculation ScoreTotal Number of Species 7 2Number of Wetland Species** 1 5Number of Minnow Species** 1 2Number of Intolerant Species 0 0Percent tolerant species 82% 2Percent Dominant Two Species 60% 7Number of Invertivore Species** 1 2Percent Simple Lithophils 16% 2Number of Fish Per 100 Meters** 5 10Percent Delt anomolies 0 10

Total IBI Score 42Rating Fair Range 40-59

** Does not include tolerant species Max Score 100





Species Name Number Collected Darter, SclupTolerant Intolerant Wetland Minnow Piscivore Invertivore Omnivore LithophilsBrook Stickleback 18 1 1 1Central Mudminnow 1 1 1 1Iowa Darter 10 1 1 1 1Johnny Darter 14 1 1Largemouth Bass 1 1Pearl Dace 4 1 1 1White Sucker 12 1 1 1









Species Name Number Collected Darter, SclupinTolerant Intolerant Wetland Minnow Piscivore Invertivore Omnivore LithophilsBlack Bullhead 70 1 1 1Black Crappie 3 1Bluegill 4 1Brook Stickleback 2 1 1 1Brown Trout 32 1Central Mudminnow 110 1 1 1Creek Chub 4 1 1Fathead Minnow 1 1 1 1 1Golden Shiner 6 1 1 1Green Sunfish 89 1Iowa Darter 87 1 1 1 1Johnny Darter 3 1 1Largemouth Bass 33 1Northern Pike 6 1 1Pearl Dace 11 1 1 1White Sucker 164 1 1 1



Total IBI Score 68Rating Good Range 60-79






Species Name Number Collected Darter, Scl Tolerant Intolerant Wetland Minnow Piscivore Invertivore Omnivore LithophilsBrook Stickleback 19 1 1 1Brown Trout 9 1Central Mudminnow 28 1 1 1Creek Chub 4 1 1Johnny Darter 2 1 1Pearl Dace 4 1 1 1White Sucker 29 1 1 1








Fishing TimeFishing Method


No monitoring conducted due to low water condictions

Species Name Number Collected Darter, Sclupin, MTolerant Intolerant Wetland Piscivore Invertivore Omnivore LithophilsBrook SticklebackBrown TroutCentral MudminnowCreek ChubJohnny DarterPearl DaceWhite Sucker


Metrics Calculation ScoreTotal Number of Species 0Number of Wetland Species** -2Number of Minnow Species** -1Number of Intolerant Species 0Percent tolerant species #DIV/0!Percent Dominant Two Species #DIV/0!Number of Invertivore Species** -2Percent Simple Lithophils #DIV/0!Number of Fish Per 100 Meters** #VALUE!Percent Delt anomolies 0

Total IBI Score 0Rating




Fishing Time 102 min 4 secFishing Method Barge Unit


Species Name Number Collected Darter, SclupTolerant Intolerant Wetland Piscivore Invertivore Omnivore LithophilsBigmouth Shiner 356 1Blacknose Dace 132 1 1Bluntnose Minnow 180 1Brown Trout 3 1Central Mudminnow 2 1 1 1Central Stoneroller 7Common Carp 11 1 1Creek Chub 146 1Fathead Minnow 1 1 1 1Green Sunfish 16 1Johnny Darter 93 1 1Largemouth Bass 1 1Longnose Dace 1 1 1 1Northern Pike 6 1 1Pearl Dace 1 1 1Tadpole Madtom 37 1 1 1White Sucker 409 1 1 1


Metrics Calculation ScoreTotal Number of Species 17 7Number of Darter, Sclupin and Madtom species 2 5Number of Wetland Species** 3 10Number of Intolerant Species 1 2Percent tolerant species 64% 5Number of Invertivore Species** 5 5Number of Piscivore Species 3 5Percent Simple Lithophils 39% 5Number of Fish Per 100 Meters** 135 10Percent Delt anomolies 0 10

Total IBI Score 64Rating Good Range 60-79


Coldwater IBI Site A1



Species Name Number Collected Tolerant Minnow Intolerant Top Carniv Benthic ColdwaterCentral Mudminnow 5 1Johnny Darter 2 1White Sucker 7 1 1

Total 14Tolerant Individuals 12Intolerant Individuals 0Coldwater Individuals 0Top Carnivore Individuals 0

Metrics Calculation ScoreTotal Number of Species 3 0Number of Coldwater Species 0 0Number of Minnow Species 0 0Number of Benthic Species 2 0Number of Tolerant Species 2 0Percent Salmonids as Brook Trout 0% 0Percent intolerant Individuals 0% 0Percent Coldwater Individuals 0% 0Percent White Suckers 50% 0Percent Top Carnivores 0% 0Number Coldwater Individuals 0 0Number Warmwater Individuals 14 0

Total 0Total IBI Score Less than 25 fish collected - IBI Score not calculated

Max Score 120

T:\1305 Vermillion\13 Fish Monitoring Project\Data Analysis\VRWJPO_Coldwater IBI Calculations_2009




Species Name Number Collected Tolerant Minnow Intolerant Top Carniv Benthic ColdwaterBrook Stickleback 20 1Brown Trout 6 1 1Central Mudminnow 3 1Green Sunfish 7 1Largemouth Bass 1 1Pearl Dace 1 1 1White Sucker 7 1 1




Max Score 120




Average Width (meters) 2.3

Species Name Number Collected Tolerant Minnow Intolerant Top Carniv Benthic ColdwaterBrook Stickleback 18 1Central Mudminnow 1 1Iowa Darter 10 1 1Johnny Darter 14 1Largemouth Bass 1 1Pearl Dace 4 1 1White Sucker 12 1 1




Max Score 120





Species Name Number Collected Tolerant Minnow Intolerant Top Carniv Benthic ColdwaterBlack Bullhead 70 1Black Crappie 3Bluegill 4Brook Stickleback 2 1Brown Trout 32 1 1Central Mudminnow 110 1Creek Chub 4 1 1Fathead Minnow 1 1 1Golden Shiner 6 1 1Green Sunfish 89 1Iowa Darter 87 1 1Johnny Darter 3 1Largemouth Bass 33 1Northern Pike 6 1Pearl Dace 11 1 1White Sucker 164 1 1



Total IBI Score 15Rating Poor Range 10-30

Max Score 120





Species Name Number Collected Tolerant Minnow Intolerant Top Carniv Benthic ColdwaterBrook Stickleback 19 1Brown Trout 9 1 1Central Mudminnow 28 1Creek Chub 4 1 1Johnny Darter 2 1Pearl Dace 4 1 1White Sucker 29 1 1




Max Score 120



Fishing TimeFishing Method

No monitoring conducted due to low water condictions

Species Name Number Collected Tolerant Minnow Intolerant Top CarnivBenthic ColdwaterBrook SticklebackBrown TroutCentral MudminnowCreek ChubJohnny DarterPearl DaceWhite Sucker

Total 0Tolerant Individuals 0Intolerant IndividualsColdwater IndividualsTop Carnivore Individuals

Metrics Calculation ScoreTotal Number of Species 0 0Number of Coldwater Species 0 0Number of Minnow Species 0 0Number of Benthic Species 0 0Number of Tolerant Species 0 0Percent Salmonids as Brook Trout 0% 0Percent intolerant Individuals #DIV/0! 0Percent Coldwater Individuals #DIV/0! 0Percent White Suckers #DIV/0! 0Percent Top Carnivores #DIV/0! 0Number Coldwater Individuals 0 0Number Warmwater Individuals 0 0

Total IBI Score 0




Fishing Time 102 min 4 secFishing Method Barge Unit


Species Name Number Collected Tolerant Minnow Intolerant Top Carnivore Benthic ColdwaterBigmouth Shiner 356 1Blacknose Dace 132 1 1Bluntnose Minnow 180 1 1Brown Trout 3 1 1Central Mudminnow 2 1Central Stoneroller 7 1Common Carp 11 1 1 1Creek Chub 146 1 1Fathead Minnow 1 1 1Green Sunfish 16 1Johnny Darter 93 1Largemouth Bass 1 1Longnose Dace 1 1 1Northern Pike 6 1Pearl Dace 1 1 1Tadpole Madtom 37 1White Sucker 409 1 1




Max Score 120

vermillion river watershed joint powers organization wenck fish sampling final report...p.o. box 249...

Documents