vermillion river 2012 fish community monitoring report...the long-term biological monitoring...
TRANSCRIPT
Vermillion River 2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report
Wenck File #1305-16 DECEMBER 2012
Prepared for
Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organiza on Physical Development Division—14955 Galaxie Avenue
Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124
Wenck File #1305-16
Prepared for:
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION
Vermillion River 2012 Fish Community
Monitoring Report
Prepared by:
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249
(763) 479-4200
December 2012
i \\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1
2.0 STREAM FISH MONITORING ................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Field Reconnaissance and Reach Determination ................................................. 2-3 2.2 Fish Community Monitoring ............................................................................... 2-5
3.0 MONITORING RESULTS ............................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Fish Community Summary Information .............................................................. 3-1 3.2 IBI Calculations ................................................................................................... 3-3
4.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 4-1
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 5-1
TABLES
1 Sample reach information for the 14 stream fish monitoring sites 2 Electrofishing Methods and Sample Dates 14 stream fish monitoring sites 3 General Fish Community Sampling Results 14 stream fish monitoring sites 4 IBI scoring results for 14 stream fish monitoring sites applying the new MPCA statewide
IBI scoring protocol
CHARTS
1 Comparison of IBI Scores using the MPCA statewide protocol across 2009 to 2012 monitoring years
2 Comparison of IBI scores under MPCA statewide protocol to impairment listing thresholds for the fish community in the Southern Headwater Streams Category
3 Comparison of IBI scores under MPCA statewide protocol to impairment listing thresholds for the fish community in the Southern Streams Category
4 Comparison of IBI scores under MPCA statewide protocol to impairment listing thresholds for the fish community in the Southern Coldwater Streams Category
FIGURES
1 Stream Monitoring Sites in the Vermillion River Watershed 2 Stream Monitoring Site A1 3 Stream Monitoring Site A2
Table of Contents (cont.)
ii \\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
4 Stream Monitoring Site A3 5 Stream Monitoring Site A4 6 Stream Monitoring Site A5 7 Stream Monitoring Site A6 8 Stream Monitoring Site A7 9 Stream Monitoring Site A8 10 Stream Monitoring Site A9 11 Stream Monitoring Site A10 12 Stream Monitoring Site A12 13 Stream Monitoring Site A13 14 Stream Monitoring Site A14 15 Stream Monitoring Site A15
APPENDICES
A Field Photos B MN DNR Special Survey Permit No. 18532 C Species Summary Table D Trout Collections Summary Table E MPCA State Wide Fish IBI Fact Sheet
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
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 describes 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 summer and early fall of 2009, fish community monitoring was conducted by two parties for the VRWJPO; the MN DNR and Wenck Associates, Inc. (Wenck). Each party was responsible for conducting fish community monitoring at seven stream sampling locations in the watershed. Monitoring was again conducted by the MN DNR and Wenck in 2010, 2011 and 2012. In 2012 the VRWJPO began a watershed-wide study that will address a variety of water quality and biological impairments. The study will also development management goals for the Vermillion River watershed. This study is referred to as the Vermillion River Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan (WRAPP). The long-term biological monitoring program, including the fish and
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
1-2
macro-invertebrate datasets will form the basis for the stressor identification process for the biological impairments. This report provides data analysis and summary of the 2012 fish community monitoring results as well as providing comparisons of the results to previous monitoring years.
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
2-1
2.0 Stream Fish Monitoring
Fourteen stream monitoring sites were identified by the VRWJPO for inclusion in the 2009 fish
community monitoring project (Figure 1). In 2010, two changes were made to the 14 sites from
2009. The fish community monitoring in 2012 was conducted at the exact same 14 reaches as in
2010 and 2011 with the revisions from 2010 described as follows.
The first change was the relocation of site A10 approximately one-tenth of a mile downstream.
This reach was relocated due to site access issues. The new reach for A10 has not been
channelized (as the original A10 reach had) and contains a riparian zone of wetland and forest
vegetation as opposed to agricultural fields. Due to the close proximity of the relocated site to the
original site, data comparisons between the two reaches are appropriate.
The second change was the discontinuation of monitoring at site A11. This site is located on a
small tributary stream with limited habitat. Due to low water conditions at site A11, the fish
community was not monitored at this site in 2009. It was determined that this stream experiences
intermittent conditions during most years, and would not likely support a long term stable fish
community, and thus be an unlikely site for appropriate management or stream restoration
projects.
As a result, a new monitoring reach was established on Middle Creek in Farmington where
biomonitoring had not taken place as part of the biomonitoring plan implementation. This site
was labeled as site A15 (see Figure 1). The new A15 site provides a more visible site in the
watershed that is more likely to be the target of management dollars or projects by the VRWJPO,
MN DNR, or other partners.
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
2-2
The fourteen monitoring sites include ten reaches (sites A1, A2, A3, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A12,
and A13) that are designated as coldwater fish communities (class 2A waters). The four
remaining reaches (sites A4, A10, A14 and A15) are classified as warmwater fish communities
(class 2B waters). Additionally there are 12 reaches that are designated as trout streams by the
MN DNR, sites A1, A2, A3, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A12, A13 and A15. The MN DNR
designation of trout streams does not always follow the state beneficial use classification of 2A
coldwater communities, although classifying it as class 2A following a trout designation by the
DNR is the typical process for the MPCA. The MPCA Rulemaking process is proposing to
change any class 2B water that is currently a MN DNR designated trout stream to a class 2A
water, however this is still pending. If the MPCA were to implement the proposed rule changes,
some sites in the watershed could change from class 2B water to a class 2A water.
The fish community monitoring data that has been collected under the VRWJPO Biomonitoring
Plan was gathered for the intent of using the data to calculate Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
scores and making management decisions based on fish community health. IBI’s are tools that
are often used to assess the overall health of a water body based on the composition of a certain
facet of the biological community. During the 2009 and 2010 monitoring years there were two
fish community based IBI’s that were used to score each of the fourteen sampling reaches
monitored in the Vermillion River Watershed.
During past monitoring years two different IBI protocols, one warmwater protocol and one
coldwater protocol, were applied to the monitoring data at each site. The intent was to determine
type and health of the stream fish communities at the different reaches. The MPCA developed a
new state-wide IBI protocol in 2011. The intent of the updated IBI was to provide appropriate
scoring criteria to address all watersheds, rivers and streams across the State, including both
warmwater and coldwater systems. The data from 2009 through 2012 has been scored using the
new MPCA state-wide IBI scoring protocol. The database has not yet been released by the
MPCA allowing the general public to use the IBI protocol to score fish community datasets.
However, the MPCA has assisted the VRWJPO by completing the IBI scoring and providing the
individual metric scores to in order for the VRWJPO to further analyze and interpret the data.
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
2-3
2.1 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE AND REACH DETERMINATION
The MPCA warmwater IBI (Nemila and Fiest, 2002) 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 is 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). These reconnaissance and sampling methods were repeated in
2012.
For the seven stream reaches monitored by Wenck, field reconnaissance of the sample sites was
performed in August 2012. The seven sampling reaches were previously established during prior
years of the study. In 2009 and 2010, the width of the stream channel for each reach was
measured with a 300-foot survey tape 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. In 2012,
the widths of the reaches were “spot-checked” at several locations and found to be consistent
with the average width from previous monitoring years. The total reach sample length for each of
the seven sites monitored by Wenck was the same in 2012 as in previous years of the monitoring
program.
The seven stream reaches monitored by the MN DNR had been previously established during
brown trout assessment surveys, prior to the inception of the VRWJPO biological monitoring
program. The length of these sample reaches was determined based on the mark and recapture
surveys conducted for brown trout and not based on the MPCA protocol of 35 times the mean
width of the stream. These previously established sample reaches were surveyed by the MN
DNR as part of the IBI assessments.
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
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
2-4
with a hand-held GPS unit at the upstream and downstream points (Table 1). Photos of the
sample reaches from 2012 are provided in Appendix A (field photos 1 - 7).
Table 1: Sample reach information for the fourteen sites in the 2012 Vermillion River stream fish monitoring project.
Site
Stream
Classification Upstream Coordinates Downstream Coordinates
Average
Width
Sample Reach
Length (meters)
A1 Coldwater 44.619 -93.218 44.619 -93.216 12.9 ft 492 ft (150 m)
A2 Coldwater 44.640 -93.219 44.639 -93.216 9 ft 1120 ft (341 m)
A3 Coldwater 44.633 -93.195 44.633 -93.193 14.7 ft 525 ft (160 m)
A4 Warmwater 44.609 -93.192 44.610 -93.192 7.4 ft 492 ft (150 m)
A5 Coldwater 44.629 -93.169 44.631 -93.167 14 ft 1114 ft (339 m)
A6 Coldwater 44.639 -93.157 44.639 -93.154 22 1350 ft (411 m)
A7 Coldwater 44.656 -93.138 44.655 -93.137 14.9 ft 500 ft (152 m)
A8 Coldwater 44.659 -93.116 44.661 -93.114 25 ft 1179 ft (359 m)
A9 Coldwater 44.667 -93.055 44.665 -93.054 32 ft 1120 ft (341 m)
A10 Warmwater 44.617 -93.055 44.618 -93.054 9.5 ft 492 ft (150 m)
A12 Coldwater 44.640 -93.025 44.641 -93.022 15 ft 1107 ft (337 m)
A13 Coldwater 44.640 -93.008 44.661 -93.008 17 ft 981 ft (299 m)
A14 Warmwater 44.686 -92.956 44.687 -92.955 35 ft 1225 ft (373 m)
A15 Warmwater 44.649 -93.155 44.649 -93.153 15.6 ft 546 ft (166 m)
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 July 10th, 2012 by Wenck 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 July 13th, 2012 (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 were provided to the MN DNR to fulfill that requirement.
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
2-5
2.2 FISH COMMUNITY MONITORING
The index period for fish community sampling is defined as mid-June through mid-September in
the previous MPCA warmwater IBI protocol. The sampling index period for the new State-wide
IBI developed by the MPCA is not yet available. The MN DNR has conducted monitoring in the
Vermillion River, traditionally sampling in late August through early September. In 2012, the
IBI fish community monitoring efforts were conducted from late August through mid-September
to correspond to the previous years of DNR monitoring, as well as previous years of monitoring
under the VRWJPO monitoring program.
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 than eight meters wide and the barge unit used on medium sized, wadeable streams
greater than eight meters wide. The fish sampling methods for the new MPCA IBI scoring
protocol were kept the same as the previous versions of the IBI. The backpack unit was used at
ten sites, (see Appendix A – photo 8), while the barge unit was used at four sites (see Appendix
A – photo 9).
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 electrofishing method and sample dates for each reach are
presented in Table 2.
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
2-6
Table 2: Electrofishing methods and sample date for the 14 sites in the 2012 Vermillion River stream fish monitoring project. Site Stream Classification Sampling Method Sample Date
A1 Coldwater Backpack Unit 08/29/2012
A2 Coldwater Backpack Unit 09/11/2012
A3 Coldwater Backpack Unit 09/11/2012
A4 Warmwater Backpack Unit 08/29/2012
A5 Coldwater Backpack Unit 09/06/2012
A6 Coldwater Barge Unit 09/07/2012
A7 Coldwater Backpack Unit 09/11/2012
A8 Coldwater Barge Unit 09/07/2012
A9 Coldwater Barge Unit 09/13/2012
A10 Warmwater Backpack Unit 08/29/2012
A12 Coldwater Backpack Unit 09/12/2012
A13 Coldwater Backpack Unit 09/10/2012
A14 Warmwater Barge Unit 09/21/2012
A15 Warmwater Backpack Unit 09/11/2012
All fish were placed in buckets or tubs and water in the buckets was changed during monitoring
to provide adequate dissolved oxygen for the fish. For reaches where electrofishing lasted more
than 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 of the
collecting.
After electrofishing was complete, a fish processing station was set up (see Appendix A – Photo
10) whereby all individuals were identified and sorted by species into a separate tub/bucket. Dr.
Patrick Ceas of St. Olaf College served as the expert ichthyologist for reaches monitored by
Wenck. Once the identification and sorting was complete, the largest and smallest individuals of
each species were weighed and measured, following the MPCA protocols (see Appendix A –
Photo 11). Batch weights were then taken of the remaining individuals 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
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
2-7
and released. All fish community data collected, including fish species, number of each species,
lengths and weights were recorded on MPCA datasheets for stream fish monitoring.
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
3-1
3.0 Monitoring Results
3.1 FISH COMMUNITY SUMMARY INFORMATION
There were a total of 2,632 fish collected from 22 different species across the 14 sites that were
monitored in 2012 (see Appendix C – Species Summary Table). Species diversity ranged from a
low of four species collected at site A1 to a high of 15 species collected from sites A5 (Table 3).
Total fish collected ranged from a low of eight fish collected from site A1 to a high of 483 fish
collected from site A5 (Table 3).
Table 3: General fish community sampling results for the 14 sites in the 2012 Vermillion River stream fish monitoring project.
Site Stream Classification MN DNR
Trout Stream Total
Species Total Fish A1 Coldwater Yes 4 8
A2 Coldwater Yes 8 115
A3 Coldwater Yes 8 77
A4 Warmwater No 10 422
A5 Coldwater Yes 15 483
A6 Coldwater Yes 11 239
A7 Coldwater Yes 11 81
A8 Coldwater Yes 14 209
A9 Coldwater Yes 12 137
A10 Warmwater Yes 11 120
A12 Coldwater Yes 7 160
A13 Coldwater Yes 9 188
A14 Warmwater No 13 304
A15 Warmwater Yes 8 89
All Sites -- -- 22 2,632
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
3-2
The most abundant fish of the 2012 sampling were green sunfish, totaling 826 fish or 31 percent
of the total catch. White suckers were the second most abundant fish collected in 2012, totaling
657 individuals and comprising 25 percent of the total catch. Fathead Minnows were the third
most abundant fish collected in 2012, totaling 223 or about nine percent of the combined total
catch for all 14 sites. Brown trout accounted for about eight percent, central mudminnows
accounted for 6.4 percent, and johnny darters accounted for approximately five percent of the
total combined catch. All other individual species comprised less than five percent of the
combined total catch for the 14 monitoring sites (see Appendix C).
During the 2012 sampling, green sunfish, central mudminnows and white suckers were the three
species collected at all of the 14 monitoring sites. These species have been among the most
widespread in terms of sites across most monitoring years of the project; however 2012 is the
first year where all three species were collected at every site. Iowa darters were collected from
11 of the 14 monitoring sites in 2012 (see Appendix C – Species Summary Table). Iowa darters
are one of the few species rated as sensitive that are collected in the watershed. Brown trout,
fathead minnows and largemouth bass were collected at 10 sites. Northern Pike and johnny
darters were collected from eight sites, while bluegills were collected from seven sites. The other
12 of the 22 species observed during the 2012 Vermillion River fish monitoring were collected at
six or fewer sites (see Appendix C – Species Summary Table).
Brown trout were collected from 10 sites during the 2012 study, of which eight are classified as
coldwater fish communities (sites A2, A3, A5, A6, A6, A8, A12 and A13), and from two sites
that is classified as having a warmwater fish community (site A10 and A14). Based on previous
MN DNR sampling efforts, 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. Additionally, A10 is currently classified as a warmwater reach but is a
tributary to the South Branch of the Vermillion River and trout have been consistently collected
from this reach.
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
3-3
The largest brown trout collected in 2012 was a 24 inch trout collected at site A3. The large
female trout found at site A3 the three previous years of the study was not observed in 2012. Site
A3 has consistently produced some of the largest trout captured during all years of the study.
Other large trout collected during the study include 19, 18, 17 and 16-inch trout collected at site
A2, one 18-inch and one 16-inch trout at site A3, 18-inch and 16-inch trout collected from site
A10, and a 21-inch trout collected at site A12. See Appendix D for a summary of all trout
collected during the study.
3.2 IBI CALCULATIONS
The 2012 Vermillion River stream fish monitoring project included stream monitoring sites
designated as 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. During previous years of the study, both coldwater and warmwater IBI scoring criteria were
applied to the fish community monitoring data at each reach to assist the VRWJPO in
determining appropriate management goals for the stream fish communities throughout the
watershed.
In 2011 the MPCA released a draft pamphlet outlining some of the information for a new set of
IBI scoring criteria to cover all rivers and streams, both warmwater and coldwater, across the
State of Minnesota. Under the new MPCA statewide IBI, each monitoring reach will be scored
with only one set of metrics appropriate to the size of the stream and the type of fish community
(warmwater versus coldwater). The application of the appropriate MPCA stream category
scoring protocol matches the criteria the MPCA is using to list the impairment designations for
the Vermillion River watershed. The results from the 2012 monitoring are discussed in the
context of the new MPCA Statewide IBI scoring protocols and along with all years of the
monitoring data from the Vermillion River biological monitoring program.
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
3-4
The MPCA has developed nine stream categories across two geographic regions: Northern and
Southern. There are four stream categories in each region and one statewide category, termed
“low gradient” streams. All of the 14 stream monitoring sites in the Vermillion River fall into the
Southern geographic region. The 14 sites are within the following three categories: Southern
Headwaters; Southern Streams; or Southern Coldwater. Streams within the Southern Headwaters
category are defined as small to moderate, high gradient, warm/cool water streams in southern
Minnesota with a watershed area less than 30 square miles. Three Vermillion River monitoring
reaches, A4, A10, and A15, are within this category.
Streams within the Southern Streams category are defined as large warm/cool water streams and
small rivers in southern Minnesota where the watershed area is greater than 30 but less than 300
square miles. Only Site A14, which is a sample reach on the main stem of the Vermillion River
in the lower quarter of the overall watershed, falls within this category. The streams within the
Southern Coldwater category include all coldwater streams in southern Minnesota. This category
does not include a watershed size requirement. There are ten monitoring reaches in the
Vermillion River that fall within this category, including sites A1, A2, A3, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9,
A12 and A13.
During previous years, the IBI scoring criteria were applied to the fish monitoring data within a
spreadsheet and the warmwater and coldwater scores were calculated for each reach. The scoring
criteria, metrics and methodology for the new MPCA Statewide IBI are not yet available to the
public. As a result, in 2011 the IBI scores for the 14 sample sites were calculated by the MPCA
and submitted to the VRWJPO. The MPCA scored the monitoring data for all three of the
previous monitoring years, applying the appropriate stream scoring criteria (i.e. Southern
Headwaters; Southern Streams; or Southern Coldwater) to each site. In 2012, VRWJPO
submitted the data to the MPCA and again scored the data from 2012 for all sites. The IBI scores
using the new MPCA statewide criteria are provided in Table 4, comparing all four years of
monitoring data.
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
3-5
Table 4: IBI scores calculated using the new MPCA Statewide IBI scoring criteria for all fish community monitoring sites from the Vermillion River stream fish monitoring project from 2009 through 2012.
Site Stream
Classification MPCA IBI Category 2009 IBI 2010 IBI 2011 IBI 2012 IBI
Listing Threshold
A1 Coldwater Southern Coldwater 41 33 45 39 <45
A2 Coldwater Southern Coldwater 36 42 43 38 <45
A3 Coldwater Southern Coldwater 42 55 52 42 <45
A4 Warmwater Southern Headwaters 73 75 75 61 <51
A5 Coldwater Southern Coldwater 45 40 36 34 <45
A6 Coldwater Southern Coldwater 34 36 41 34 <45
A7 Coldwater Southern Coldwater 40 45 36 34 <45
A8 Coldwater Southern Coldwater 51 39 48 39 <45
A9 Coldwater Southern Coldwater 42 49 38 29 <45
A10 Warmwater Southern Headwaters 80 74 80 80 <51
A12 Coldwater Southern Coldwater 40 38 41 49 <45
A13 Coldwater Southern Coldwater 46 48 42 29 <45
A14 Warmwater Southern Streams 43 38 40 47 <45
A15 Warmwater Southern Headwaters -- 75 75 71 <51
T:\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
4-1
4.0 Conclusions
Fish community monitoring was conducted at 14 stream sites during the 2012 Vermillion River
stream fish monitoring project. A statewide IBI scoring criteria developed by the MPCA was
applied to monitoring data from 2012 as well as previous monitoring years. A comparison of the
IBI scores for each of the 14 monitoring sites across all three monitoring years is provided as
Chart 1. The monitoring sites from the Vermillion River watershed fall into three different
stream categories from the MPCA IBI protocol: Southern Headwater Streams; Southern Streams
and Southern Coldwater Streams. Each of the three stream categories uses a different set of
scoring metrics, appropriate for that stream category. In 2012, the MPCA provided the VRWJPO
with the scoring results from the individual metrics for each of the 14 monitoring reaches for all
four years of the monitoring program. Analysis of the metric scoring for the sites from each
category is provided.
Chart 1: Comparison of IBI scores under the new MPCA Statewide scoring criteria across four monitoring years (2009-2012).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A12 A13 A14 A15
IBI Scores
Monitoring Station
2009
2010
2011
2012
Impairment Threshold
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
4-2
Southern Headwater Streams
There are three monitoring reaches within the Southern Headwaters category, sites A4, A10 and
A15. All three of these stream sites scored high under the new MPCA Statewide IBI scoring
criteria, with scores ranging from 61 to 80 in 2012. The threshold for listing of the fish
community as impaired is 51 or below (see Table 4 and Chart 2) within this stream category. All
three streams scored well above the listing threshold during all four monitoring years. There are
seven metrics for streams in the Southern Headwaters category listed in the MPCA IBI scoring
(Sandberg, 2011):
• Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are Detritivores
• Relative abundance (%) of individuals with DELT Anomalies
• Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are Generalist Feeders
• Taxa richness of Sensitive species
• Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are short-lived
• Relative abundance (%) of individuals that can spawn multiple times
• Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are Very Tolerant
The total score for the IBI is 100. One of the metrics, abundance of DELT Anomalies has a score
of zero unless anomalies are present, in which case negative points are given. The remaining six
metrics add up to the max score of 100, which makes each metric worth a maximum of 16.7.
The three stream reaches in the Southern Headwater Streams Category have been scoring very
well across all four years of monitoring data and therefore are receiving high individual scores
for many of the metrics. Specific metrics that are scoring particularly well include: relative
abundance of taxa that are generalist feeders; relative abundance of individuals that are short
lived; and relative abundance of individuals that are serial spawners (multiple times per year).
All three of these metrics have a “negative” relationship, indicating that as the percentage of
these individuals increase in the overall total catch the metric score goes down. Alternately, as
these individuals comprise a lower number of the total catch the metric score increases. Some of
the species that are classified within these metrics are present in the Vermillion River watershed,
however, they are comprising a small enough percentage of the total catch at the Southern
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
4-3
Headwater reaches that the metric scores are high, resulting in high total IBI scores for these
sites.
Chart 2: Comparison of the Southern Headwater Streams IBI scores under new MPCA statewide protocol to impairment listing thresholds.
Southern Streams
Site A14 is the only warmwater stream reach within the South Streams category. This site is on
the main stem of the Vermillion River and is currently located the farthest downstream in the
overall watershed. The threshold for listing of the fish community within this stream category as
impaired is 45 or below (see Table 4 and Chart 3). Site A14 scored below the impairment listing
threshold during the first three monitoring years, but was above the impairment threshold in
2012 for the first time with a score of 47. There are nine metrics in the Southern Streams
category of the MPCA IBI (Sandberg, 2011):
• Relative abundance (%) of taxa Benthic Insectivores (excludes tolerant)
• Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are Detritivores
73 80
0
75 74
75 75 80
75
61
81
71
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
A4 A10 A15
IBI S
ocre
Monitoring Station
2009
2010
2011
2012
Impairment Threshold: 51
Score below 51 considered impaired
Score above 51 considered healthy
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
4-4
• Relative abundance (%) of individuals with a female mature age <=2
• Relative abundance (%) of individuals with DELT Anomalies
• Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are Sensitive
• Taxa richness of short-lived species
• Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are Tolerant
• Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are Tolerant
• Relative abundance (%) of individuals the dominant 2 species
The Southern Streams category again uses the DELT anomalies metric, which gives a zero or
negative score. The other eight metrics add up to a total of 100, which equates to a max metric
score of 12.5. Site A14 has generally scored low on many of the above metrics. The overall IBI
scores at site A14 appear to be driven by moderately high scores for the relative abundance of
taxa that are detritivores and also by the low to very low scores for the relative abundance of taxa
that are sensitive, relative abundance of taxa that are tolerant, relative abundance of individuals
that are tolerant and relative abundance of the dominant two species.
Chart 3: Comparison of the Southern Streams IBI scores under new MPCA statewide protocol to impairment listing thresholds.
43 38 36
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
A14
IBI S
core
Monitoring Station
2009
2010
2011
2012Impairment Threshold: 45
Score below 45 considered impaired
Score above 45 considered healthy
T:\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
4-5
In general the relative high percentage of tolerant species (i.e. taxa) and tolerant individuals, as
well as the low number of sensitive species is keeping the overall IBI score at site A14 low and
in general below the impairment threshold.
Southern Coldwater Streams
The ten remaining stream reaches fall within the Southern Coldwater Streams category. Among
the ten monitoring sites in the Southern Coldwater Streams category, there is low to moderate
variation in the IBI scores across years (see Chart 4). The threshold for listing of the fish
community as impaired is 45 or below (see Table 4 and Chart 4) within this stream class. Due to
the moderate variation in the IBI scores for the streams in this class, many of the streams had
scores both above and below the threshold over the four years of monitoring including sites A3,
A8, A9, A12 and A13. Other sites such as A2 and A6 scored below the listing threshold all four
years of the study.
Chart 4: Comparison of IBI scores under MPCA statewide protocol to impairment listing thresholds for the fish community in the Southern Coldwater Streams Category
4136
42
45
34
40
51
42 40
46
33
42
55
40
36
45
39
49
38
4845
43
52
36
41
36
48
38 41 423938
42
34 33 34
39
29
49
29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
A1 A2 A3 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A12 A13
IBI Score
Monitoring Station
2009
2010
2011
2012
Impairment Threshold: 45
Score above 45 considered healthy
Score below 45 considered impaired
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
4-6
There are eight metrics used in the Southern Coldwater Streams IBI category (Sandberg, 2011):
• Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are Sensitive in coldwater streams
• Number of taxa that are Tolerant in coldwater streams
• Relative abundance (%) of individuals with DELT Anomalies
• Relative abundance (%) individuals that are Herbivores
• Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are Native Coldwater species
• Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are Native Coldwater species
• Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are Pioneer species
• Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are Detritivores
The Southern Coldwater Streams category again uses the DELT anomalies metric, which gives a
zero or negative score. Therefore the other seven metrics add up to a total of 100, which equates
to a max metric score of 14.3. All ten of the coldwater reaches are generally scoring at or below
the impairment threshold, indicating that the streams are scoring poorly on several metrics while
scoring well on only a few metrics. The main metrics that appear to be driving the coldwater IBI
scores in the Vermillion River include moderately good scores for the relative abundance of
herbivore species and relative abundance of pioneer species, along with low to very low metric
scores for the relative abundance of native coldwater taxa (i.e. species) and relative abundance of
native coldwater individuals. Metric scores for abundance of sensitive individuals and number of
coldwater tolerant taxa varied from year to year across sites but in general resulted in low overall
scores.
The high scores for the abundance of herbivore species and relative abundance of pioneer species
are for metrics that have a negative relationship. The coldwater sites are scoring well for both of
these metrics due to the low number or complete absence of these species and individuals. It is
likely that the sites will continue to always score well on these metrics in the future as the species
that comprise these metrics are not prevalent or even absent from the watershed.
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
4-7
The most abundant coldwater species in the Vermillion River watershed is the brown trout,
which is an introduced species. As a result it is not counted in the native coldwater taxa or
individuals metrics. There are two native coldwater species that have been collected during the
biological monitoring program, the brook stickleback and the pearl dace. These two species are
currently very limited within the watershed in terms of distribution and total individuals. For
example in 2012, brook stickleback were collected from only five sites with only ten individuals
collected and pearl dace were collected at only two sites with five total individuals. By contrast,
the brown trout were collected at ten of the 14 sites and there were 209 individuals collected. The
two native coldwater species metrics account for almost 30 percent of the total IBI score and
most reaches are scoring zero out of 14 almost every year for the native coldwater individuals
metric and zero to five most years for the native coldwater taxa metric.
There are nineteen total species in the native coldwater species metric. A review of the MN DNR
FishMapper (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/map/form/mapper.html) was conducted to query for
potential collection records of all of the 19 species includes in the MPCA native coldwater
species metric. The two species main that have been document in the Vermillion River during
recent or historical collections include the brook stickleback and the pearl dace. There is one
record of a brook trout collected by the MN DNR in 2004, which was likely associated with a
stocking effort that was conducted by the DNR in an attempt to establish brook trout in the
Vermillion River. There are no collection records of the other 19 species on the used in the
native coldwater species metrics. Based on known species range distributions, it is unlikely that
the 16 native coldwater fish with no recorded collections were ever present in the Vermillion
River Watershed. Species such as redside dace are found in watersheds to the south, such as the
Cannon River but have never been collected in the Vermillion River and likely never occurred
there. Other species such as finescale dace are found in the northern part of Minnesota and
species such as fantail darters and mottled sculpin are not found in low gradient streams such as
the Vermillion River. The very low number of native coldwater species that have either
historically occurred or currently exist in the watershed is limiting the IBI scores of the
coldwater streams. This indicates it would be difficult to increase the IBI scores to above the
impairment threshold.
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
4-8
The coldwater stream reaches are also receiving relatively low scores for the taxa richness of
tolerant species in coldwater streams and relative abundance of individuals that are sensitive in
coldwater streams. Over the course of the biological monitoring program a fairly large number of
tolerant species and individuals have been collected from all sites in the watershed, including
tolerant warmwater species found in coldwater reaches. Additionally, there have been very few
species rated as sensitive found in the watershed. The only coldwater species rated as sensitive
collected in the Vermillion River watershed over the course of the monitoring program is the
pearl dace, which has been collected at a very low rate in terms of distribution across sites and
total individuals collected.
Conclusions
When applying the MPCA Statewide IBI scoring protocol the 14 monitoring sites within the
Vermillion River Watershed exhibit small to moderate amounts of variation in their scoring in
each stream category. In general, the warmwater steams in the South Headwater Streams
category had consistently high scores, above the impairment listing threshold for all sites for all
years of the monitoring program. The mainstem of the Vermillion River downstream of Highway
52 is the only portion of the watershed in the Southern Streams category. Most years this portion
of the river has fallen below the impairment threshold due to the prevalence of tolerant species
and the limited presence of sensitive species.
The monitoring reaches within the Southern Coldwater Streams category also scored consistently
using the MPCA IBI protocol, in general scoring at or below the impairment listing threshold
with little variation across monitoring years. The coldwater reaches are currently being limited
by the very low number and distribution of native coldwater species and individuals, as well as
sensitive coldwater species and individuals, in the Vermillion Watershed. The MPCA is
currently undergoing a revision to their rulemaking process that has the potential to change the
status of some 2B waters over to 2A waters, which would change the IBI scoring metrics applied
to the reaches. If the status of current steams within the Southern Headwater Streams category
were switched over to a 2A water and scored under the Southern Coldwater Streams category, it
is likely that the IBI scores would decrease and may fall below the impairment threshold.
\\francis\vol1\1305 Dakota\16\Report\2012 Fish Community Monitoring Report_Final.docx
5-1
5.0 References
Fish Community Sampling Protocol For Stream Monitoring Sites. (Revised February 2009). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Biological Monitoring Program.
Sandberg, J. 2011. Fish Indices of Biotic Integrity (F-IBI) used to assess streams and rivers in the
State of Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 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
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Sites
DEC 2012Figure 1Engineers - Scientists
Business Professionalswww.wenck.com
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-2232
Wenck
3 0 31.5Miles±Path: L:\1305\15\Figure 1_ All Monitoring Stations.mxd
Date: 3/19/2013 Time: 3:15:02 PM User: MadJC0259
LegendWatershed District Legal Boundary
[¡ DNR Fish Monitoring Sites
[¡ Wenck Fish Monitoring SitesStreams
")
Verm
illion R
iver
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A1
DEC 2012Figure 2
80 0 8040Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-1 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream EndStreams
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
")
")
")
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A2
DEC 2012Figure 3
100 0 10050Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-2 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream End
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
") ")Unnamed to Vermillion RiverUnnamed to Unnamed
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A3
DEC 2012Figure 4
100 0 10050Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-3 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream EndStreams
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
")
")
Unna
med t
o Verm
illion R
iver
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A4
DEC 2012Figure 5
100 0 10050Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-4 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream EndStreams
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
")
")
Vermillion River
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A5
DEC 2012Figure 6
130 0 13065Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-5 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream EndStreams
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
")
")
Vermillion River
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A6
DEC 2012Figure 7
100 0 10050Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-6 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream EndStreams
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
")
")
Unnamed to Vermillion River
Unnamed to Unnamed
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A7
DEC 2012Figure 8
100 0 10050Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-7 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream EndStreams
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
")
")
Vermillion River
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A8
DEC 2012Figure 9
150 0 15075Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-8 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream EndStreams
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
")
")
Vermillion River
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A9
DEC 2012Figure 10
150 0 15075Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-9 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream EndStreams
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
")
")
")
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A10
DEC 2012Figure 11
100 0 10050Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-10 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream EndStreams
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
")
")
South Branch Vermillion River
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A12
DEC 2012Figure 12
150 0 15075Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-12 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream EndStreams
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
")
")So
uth B
ranch
Verm
illion R
iver
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A13
DEC 2012Figure 13
150 0 15075Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-13 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream EndStreams
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
")
")
Vermillion River
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A14
DEC 2012Figure 14
100 0 10050Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-14 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream EndStreams
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
")
")
Unnamed to Unnamed
VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JPO2012 Fish Monitoring Site A15
DEC 2012Figure 15
150 0 15075Feet ³
1800 Pioneer Creek CenterMaple Plain, MN 55359-0429
Wenck Associates, Inc.Environmental Engineers
COPY
RIGH
T
LegendA-15 Fish Monitoring Site") Downstream End
") Upstream EndStreams
Mxd: L:\1305\13\mxd\A1 Monitoring Site.mxdLast Modified: 10/28/2009 2:27:09 PM
Appendix A
Field Photos
Photo 1: Site A1 Photo 2: Site A3
Photo 3: Site A4 Photo 4: Site A7
Photo 5: Site A10 Photo 6: Site A14
Photo 7: Site A15 Photo 8: Back-pack unit at Site A15
Photo 9: Barge-unit set up at Site A14 Photo 10: Fish processing at Site A10
Photo 11: Weighing Trout at Site A3
Appendix B
MN DNR Special Survey Permit
No. 18532
Appendix C
Species Summary Table
T:\1305 Dakota\16\Report\App C_Species Summary Table
Species Summary Table for Fourteen monitoring SitesVermillion River 2012 Fish Monitoring Study
Species Combined
Total CatchPercentage of
Total CatchNumber of
Sites Observed SitesBigmouth Shiner 22 0.8% 3 A5, A8, A14Black Bullhead 27 1.0% 6 A2, A4, A5, A6, A9, A13Blacknose Dace 2 0.1% 1 A7Bluegill 21 0.8% 7 A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A14, A15Bluntnose Minnow 52 2.0% 3 A8, A9, A14Brook Stickleback 10 0.4% 5 A3, A5, A10, A13, A15Brown Trout 209 7.9% 10 A2, A3, A5, A6, A7, A8, A10, A12, A13, A14Central Mudminnow 169 6.4% 14 All SitesCommon Carp 22 0.8% 2 A7, A9Creek Chub 12 0.5% 5 A2, A4, A5, A8, A10Fathead Minnow 223 8.5% 10 A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A13, A14Golden Shiner 11 0.4% 5 A2, A5, A8, A9, A15Green Sunfish 826 31.4% 14 All SitesHybrid Sunfish 6 0.2% 1 A4Iowa Darter 113 4.3% 11 A1, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A14, A15Johnny Darter 137 5.2% 8 A5, A6, A8, A9, A10, A12, A13, A14Largemouth Bass 69 2.6% 10 A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A12, A14, A15Northern Pike 33 1.3% 8 A2, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A12, A13Northern Red Bellied Dace 3 0.1% 1 A10Pearl Dace 5 0.2% 2 A10, A14Tadpole Madtom 3 0.1% 1 A14White Sucker 657 25.0% 14 All Sites
2632 100.0%
Appendix D
Trout Collections Summary Table
Brown Trout Summary Table for all Six monitoring SitesVermillion River 2012 Fish Monitoring Study
Site Fish Length (in) Length (mm)Site A1 No Brown Trout Collected -- --Site A2 Brown Trout 19.0 482
Brown Trout 15.0 381Brown Trout 4.2 106Brown Trout 3.9 100Brown Trout 4.5 115Brown Trout 4.3 109Brown Trout 14.1 357Brown Trout 14.9 378Brown Trout 4.6 117Brown Trout 4.4 112Brown Trout 4.5 114Brown Trout 17.3 439Brown Trout 13.7 348Brown Trout 16.2 412Brown Trout 4.5 114Brown Trout 9.8 249Brown Trout 6.0 152Brown Trout 5.9 149Brown Trout 5.6 142Brown Trout 15.5 393Brown Trout 5.0 127Brown Trout 12.9 328Brown Trout 18.5 470Brown Trout 14.7 373Brown Trout 13.3 337Brown Trout 15.4 391Brown Trout 14.9 378Brown Trout 16.0 405Brown Trout 11.4 289Brown Trout 10.3 261Brown Trout 4.5 113Brown Trout 4.8 122Brown Trout 5.0 128Brown Trout 5.1 130Brown Trout 4.6 116Brown Trout 4.7 120Brown Trout 5.6 142
Site A3 Brown Trout 16.7 425Brown Trout 15.4 392Brown Trout 14.8 375Brown Trout 12.6 321Brown Trout 11.2 285Brown Trout 12.8 324Brown Trout 24.2 615Brown Trout 18.4 467Brown Trout 10.8 275Brown Trout 7.2 184Brown Trout - Avg for 28 Young of Year Fish 5.5 140
Brown Trout Summary Table for all Six monitoring SitesVermillion River 2012 Fish Monitoring Study
Site Fish Length (in) Length (mm)Site A4 No Brown Trout Collected -- --Site A5 Brown Trout 5.0 128
Brown Trout 4.9 124Brown Trout 5.3 134Brown Trout 4.1 104Brown Trout 5.4 136
Site A6 Brown Trout 5.0 126Brown Trout 4.8 122Brown Trout 5.3 135
Site A7 Brown Trout 10.8 273Brown Trout 5.0 126
Site A8 Brown Trout 11.0 278Brown Trout 6.6 167Brown Trout 5.2 133Brown Trout 5.2 131
Site A9 No Brown Trout Collected -- --Site A10 Brown Trout 17.9 455
Brown Trout 16.0 405Brown Trout 10.8 274Brown Trout 11.2 283Brown Trout 10.6 270Brown Trout 8.0 204
Site A12 Brown Trout 21.2 539Brown Trout 11.2 284Brown Trout 4.2 106Brown Trout 11.0 280Brown Trout 13.0 330Brown Trout 13.9 353Brown Trout 9.1 231Brown Trout 11.8 300Brown Trout 6.0 153Brown Trout 4.1 105Brown Trout 4.4 112Brown Trout 4.1 104Brown Trout 4.1 105Brown Trout 12.9 327Brown Trout 9.1 230Brown Trout 4.1 105Brown Trout 7.3 185Brown Trout 4.6 116
Brown Trout Summary Table for all Six monitoring SitesVermillion River 2012 Fish Monitoring Study
Site Fish Length (in) Length (mm)Site A13 Brown Trout 11.3 287
Brown Trout 8.4 213Brown Trout 7.1 179Brown Trout 8.8 223Brown Trout 4.7 120Brown Trout 4.1 105Brown Trout 5.1 130Brown Trout 4.4 112Brown Trout 3.6 92Brown Trout 4.5 115Brown Trout 4.3 108Brown Trout 4.6 116Brown Trout 4.6 116Brown Trout 12.5 316Brown Trout 12.6 319Brown Trout 14.8 375Brown Trout 9.5 242Brown Trout 9.7 246Brown Trout 8.8 224Brown Trout 9.6 243Brown Trout 7.7 196Brown Trout 4.1 105Brown Trout 4.5 115Brown Trout 4.2 107Brown Trout 4.0 101Brown Trout 4.7 119Brown Trout 4.1 105Brown Trout 5.6 141Brown Trout 5.4 138Brown Trout 8.4 212
Site A15 No Brown Trout Collected -- --Site A14 Brown Trout 4.9 124
brown Trout 5.0 128Brown Trout 5.2 132Brown Trout 5.4 138Brown Trout 5.7 144
Appendix E
MPCA State Wide Fish IBI Fact Sheet
The following document provides an overview of recently‐developed Fish Indices of Biotic Integrity (F‐
IBI) used to assess streams and rivers in the State of Minnesota. Complete documentation of the F‐IBI,
including information regarding development, calibration, scoring and application will be available in
2012. Any questions regarding this document or the F‐IBI in general may be referred to:
John Sandberg
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Brainerd, MN
218‐316‐3913
1
For the purposes of F‐IBI development, Minnesota’s streams and rivers were partitioned into nine
classes, across two geographic regions.
Southern Classes
Southern Rivers
Southern Streams
Southern Headwaters
Southern Coldwater
Northern Classes
Northern Rivers
Northern Streams
Northern Headwaters
Northern Coldwater
Statewide
Low Gradient
The classification framework partitions natural variability in fish community structure, based largely on
patterns observed among least‐impacted sites. Fish communities occurring at sites within each class are
more similar to each other than to those in other classes. The classification factors are unaffected by
human disturbance to ensure that the framework reflects natural variability and that the resulting F‐IBI
reflect impacts.
Regionalization largely follows major watershed boundaries and reflects significant post‐glacial barriers
to fish migration (e.g. St. Anthony Falls). Classification criteria are briefly described within individual
one‐page summaries and a complete “classification key” is available on page 9 including a map of the
geographic regions and the relevant watershed area and reach gradient thresholds.
F‐IBI development was stratified by class, with a unique suite of metrics, scoring functions, impairment
thresholds, and confidence intervals identified for each. Metric lists and descriptions are included in the
individual class summaries, as well as impairment thresholds and 90% confidence limits for F‐IBI score.
Lists of species associated with each metric are available upon request. F‐IBI scores higher than the
upper confidence limit reflect good biological condition, while scores below the lower confidence limit
reflect poor biological condition. When F‐IBI scores fall within the confidence interval, interpretation
and assessment of waterbody condition involves consideration of potential stressors, and draws upon
additional information regarding water chemistry, physical habitat, land use activities, etc. Assessment
decisions are made by MPCA’s Watershed Assessment Teams; documentation for the Water Quality
Assessment process can be found at:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water‐types‐and‐programs/minnesotas‐impaired‐waters‐
and‐tmdls/assessment‐and‐listing/tmdl‐water‐quality‐assessment.html
2
Southern Rivers
Classification Criteria:
Large warm/coolwater rivers in southern MN and the western portion of the Red River Basin
Sites in southern Minnesota and the Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin (GLAB) ecoregion, where
watershed area exceeds 300 square miles.
Examples:
Red River of the North, Minnesota River, St. Croix River (below Taylors Falls), Red Lake River
(within GLAB), Blue Earth River, Chippewa River, Otter Tail River (within GLAB), Zumbro River
Exclusions:
Mississippi River (below St. Anthony Falls), Minnesota River (above Laq qui Parle confluence)
Biocriteria:
Upper CL: 50
Impairment threshold: 39
Lower CL: 28
MetricName Category Response Metric_Desc_tech
DetNWQTXPct trophic negative Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are detritivorous
GeneralPct trophic negative Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are generalist feeders
Insect‐TolPct trophic positive Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are insectivore species (excludes tolerant species)
Piscivore trophic positive Taxa richness of piscivorous species
SLvdPct life history negative Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are short‐lived
SSpnTXPct reproductive negative Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are serial spawners (multiple times per year)
TolPct tolerance negative Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are tolerant
VtolTXPct tolerance negative Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are very tolerant
SensitiveTXPct tolerance positive Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are sensitive (scoring adjusted for gradient)
SLithop reproductive positive Taxa richness of simple lithophilic spawning species (scoring adjusted for gradient)
DomTwoPct dominance negative Combined relative abundance of two most abundant taxa
FishDELTPct tolerance negative Relative abundance (%) of individuals with Deformities, Eroded fins, Lesions, or Tumors
3
Southern Streams
Classification Criteria:
Large warm/coolwater streams and small rivers in southern MN and the far‐western portion of
the Red River Basin
Sites in southern Minnesota and the Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin (GLAB) ecoregion, where
watershed area exceeds 30 square miles but is less than 300 square miles.
Examples:
Cobb River, Tamarac River, Sleepy Eye Creek, Middle River, Rock River, Hawk Creek, Minnehaha
Creek, Shell Rock River
Biocriteria:
Upper CL: 54
Impairment threshold: 45
Lower CL: 36
MetricName Category Response Metric_Desc_tech
BenInsect‐TolTXPct trophic positive Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are benthic insectivores (excludes tolerant species)
DetNWQTXPct trophic negative Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are detritivorous
MA<2Pct reproductive negative Relative abundance (%) of early‐maturing individuals (female mature age <=2 years)
SensitiveTXPct tolerance positive Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are sensitive
SLvd life history negative Taxa richness of short‐lived species
TolTXPct tolerance negative Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are tolerant
TolPct tolerance negative Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are tolerant
DomTwoPct dominance negative Combined relative abundance of two most abundant taxa
FishDELTPct tolerance negative Relative abundance (%) of individuals with Deformities, Eroded fins, Lesions, or Tumors
4
Southern Headwaters
Classification Criteria:
Small, moderate to high‐gradient warm/coolwater streams in southern MN and the far‐western
portion of the Red River Basin
Sites in southern Minnesota and the Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin (GLAB) ecoregion, where
watershed area is less than 30 square miles and gradient is greater than 0.5 m/km.
Examples:
Cobb Creek, Otter Creek, Pine Island Creek, Milliken Creek, Little Cottonwood River, Okabena
Creek, Chaska Creek
Biocriteria:
Upper CL: 58
Impairment threshold: 51
Lower CL: 44
MetricName Category Response Metric_Desc_tech
DetNWQTXPct trophic negative Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are detritivorous
GeneralTXPct trophic negative Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are generalist feeders
Sensitive tolerance positive Taxa richness of sensitive species
SLvdPct life history negative Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are short‐lived
SSpnPct reproductive negative Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are serial spawners (multiple times per year)
VtolTXPct tolerance negative Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are very tolerant
FishDELTPct tolerance negative Relative abundance (%) of individuals with Deformities, Eroded fins, Lesions, or Tumors
5
Southern Coldwater
Classification Criteria:
Coldwater streams in southern MN and the far‐western portion of the Red River Basin
Examples:
South Fork of Root River, Trout Run, Vermillion River, Valley Creek, Hemingway Creek
Biocriteria:
Upper CL: 58
Impairment threshold: 45
Lower CL: 32
MetricName Category Response Metric_Desc_tech
CWSensitivePct_10DrgArea tolerance positive Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are sensitive in coldwater streams (scoring adjusted for drainage area)
CWTol_10DrgArea tolerance negative Taxa richness of tolerant species in coldwater streams (scoring adjusted for drainage area)
NativeColdTXPct_10DrgArea habitat positive Relative abundance (%) of taxa that are native coldwater species (scoring adjusted for drainage area)
NativeColdPct habitat positive Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are native coldwater species
HerbvPct trophic negative Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are herbivorous
SdetTXPct_10DrgArea trophic negative Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are detritivorous (scoring adjusted for drainage area)
PioneerPct life history negative Relative abundance (%) of individuals that are pioneer species
FishDELTPct tolerance negative Relative abundance (%) of individuals with Deformities, Eroded fins, Lesions, or Tumors
11
Classification Key for F‐IBI Applicable to Minnesota’s Streams and Rivers 1a. Northern…………..5 1b. Southern…………..2 Southern 2a. coldwater………………..Southern Coldwater (pg 5) 2b. warmwater……………..3
3a. Drainage area >300 sq mi………………….Southern Rivers (pg 2) 3b. Drainage area <300 sq mi………………….4 4a. Drainage area >30 sq mi…………... Southern Streams (pg 3) 4b. Drainage area <30 sq mi……………5 5a. Gradient >0.50 m/km…………Southern Headwaters (pg 4) 5b. Gradient <0.50 m/km…………Low‐Gradient (pg 10) Northern 5a. coldwater………………Northern Coldwater (pg 9) 5b. warmwater……………6
6a. Basin = Red…………..7 6b. Basin = other……........8 7a. Drainage area >350 sq mi………………………Northern Rivers (pg 6) 7b. Drainage area <350 sq mi………………………9
8a. Drainage area >500 sq mi………………Northern Rivers (pg 6) 8b. Drainage area <500 sq mi………………9
9a. Drainage area >50……………....Northern Streams (pg 7) 9b. Drainage area <50………………10 10a. Gradient >0.50 m/km…...Northern Headwaters (pg 8)
10b. Gradient <0.50 m/km…...Low‐Gradient (pg 10)