National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Fish Community Monitoring at Pipestone National 

Monument 

2001 – 2014 Trend Report 

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2015/1066 
ON THE COVER 

Dr. Katie Bertrand from South Dakota State University (SDSU) teaching a student how to identify a fish (upper left), two 

SDSU students learning how to measure fish (upper right), Hope Dodd (HTLN) teaching students how to seine (lower left), and 

Tyler Cribbs (HTLN) teaching students how to measure flow rates (lower right). 

Photograph courtesy of Scott T. Sabo, SDSU 
 

 

 

Fish Community Monitoring at Pipestone National 

Monument 

2001 – 2014 Trend Report 

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2015/1066 

Hope R. Dodd, David G. Peitz, and J. Tyler Cribbs 

National Park Service 

Heartland I&M Network 

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield 

6242 West Farm Road 182 

Republic, MO 65738 

Matthew D. Wagner, Ryan Johnston, Allen DeGoei, Kjetil Henderson, Darrel Mecham, Matthew 

Perrion, Benjamin Schall, Scott Sabo, Shawn Cole, Brett Miller, and Brian D. S. Graeb 

South Dakota State University 

Department of Natural Resource Management 

100 Administration Lane 

Brookings, SD 57007 

October 2015 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Fort Collins, Colorado 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, 

Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of 

interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural 

resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the 

public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis 

about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. 

The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of 

the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy 

results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. 

This report received informal peer review. Data in this report were collected and analyzed using 

methods based on established, peer-reviewed protocols and were analyzed and interpreted within the 

guidelines of the protocols. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily 

reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of 

trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by 

the U.S. Government. 

This report is available in digital format from Heartland Inventory & Monitoring website 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/htln/), and the Natural Resource Publications Management 

website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). To receive this report in a format optimized 

for screen readers, please email irma@nps.gov. 

Please cite this publication as: 

H. R. Dodd, D. G. Peitz, J. T. Cribbs, M. D. Wagner, R. Johnston , A. DeGoei, K. Henderson, D. 

Mecham, M. Perrion, B. Schall, S. Sabo, S. Cole, B. Miller, and B. D. S. Graeb. 2015. Fish 

community monitoring at Pipestone National Monument: 2001 – 2014 trend report. Natural Resource 

Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2015/1066. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS 372/130230, October 2015 

ii 
Contents 

Page 

Figures...................................................................................................................................................iv 

Appendices............................................................................................................................................iv 

Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................1 

Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................2 

Introduction............................................................................................................................................3 

Objectives.......................................................................................................................................3 

Methods..................................................................................................................................................4 

Study Area and Reach Selection ....................................................................................................4 

Fish Collection................................................................................................................................4 

Habitat and Water Quality..............................................................................................................4 

Data Analysis..................................................................................................................................6 

Fish Metrics...............................................................................................................................6 

Habitat Metrics..........................................................................................................................7 

Results....................................................................................................................................................7 

Fish Community .............................................................................................................................7 

Habitat and Water Quality Relationships .....................................................................................13 

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................14 

Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................................16 

iii 
 

 

 

 

Figures 

Page 

Figure 1. Location of the two reaches sampled in 2001-2010 and 2013-2014 for fish 

community assessment...........................................................................................................................5 

Figure 2. Species richness at the Above Falls (solid diamonds) and Lower (open squares) 

reaches sampled in 2001-2010, 2013-2014............................................................................................8 

Figure 3. Diversity at the Above Falls (solid diamonds) and Lower (open squares) 

reaches sampled in 2001-2010, 2013-2014............................................................................................9 

Figure 4. Evenness at the Above Falls (solid diamonds) and Lower (open squares) 

reaches sampled in 2001-2010, 2013-2014............................................................................................9 

Figure 5. Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for the Above Falls (solid diamonds) and Lower 

(open squares) reaches sampled in 2001-2010, 2013-2014. ................................................................10 

Figure 6. Catch (top panel) and catch per area (bottom panel) for the Above Falls (solid 

diamonds) and Lower (squares) reaches sampled in 2001-2010, 2013-2014......................................11 

Figure 7. Multivariate control charts for individual species catch (top panel) and catch 

per area (bottom panel) at the Above Falls (solid diamonds) and Lower (open squares) 

reaches from 2004-2010, 2013-2014. ..................................................................................................12 

Figure 8. Number of Topeka Shiners collected at the Lower reach from 2001-2014.........................13 

Appendices 

Page 

Appendix A. Fish species collected at PIPE, 2001-2010 and 2013-2014..........................................A-1 

Appendix B. Habitat and water quality parameters collected at PIPE, 2001-2010 and 

2013....................................................................................................................................................B-1 

Appendix C. Mean water quality parameters collected hourly for 24 – 48 hours at PIPE, 

2007-2010 and 2013. .........................................................................................................................C-1 

iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Pipestone National Monument (PIPE), located in southwestern Minnesota, was established to protect 

and interpret the cultural resources surrounding the pipestone quarries and to provide American 

Indian tribes access to these quarries. A goal at PIPE is to maintain and restore the historic prairie 

ecosystem that surrounds these pipestone quarries, and an important component of tallgrass prairie 

systems is water quality/quantity and biotic integrity of prairie streams. Changes in land use have 

resulted in habitat loss and degradation, and poor water quality in many prairie streams. This has 

partially led to the decline of many native prairie fishes within their ranges, including the federally 

endangered Topeka Shiner (Notropis topeka). Although human disturbances within a watershed can 

alter a lotic system, PIPE may offer important habitat for conserving native and endangered species. 

In 2001, an annual fish monitoring program was initiated at PIPE to determine the status and longterm trends in fish community composition, and to correlate this community data to water quality and 

habitat conditions. Fish community data were collected at two reaches from 2001 to 2010 by 

Heartland I&M Network (HTLN) and 2013-2014 by HTLN and South Dakota State University 

(SDSU). One reach was sampled above the Winnewissa Falls, a 2.5 m waterfall, and a downstream 

reach was sampled near the western border of the park. In 2011 and 2012, Topeka Shiner status was 

assessed only at the downstream reach where this species has historically been found. Physical 

habitat and water quality were collected in conjunction with fish community sampling. 

The fish community in Pipestone Creek differed between the upstream reach on the east side of the 

park and the downstream reach near the west boundary. The fish community above the falls 

consisted primarily of species tolerant to poor stream conditions with no Topeka Shiners collected at 

this reach during the 12 years sampled. Richness, diversity, stream integrity and abundance were 

generally low, potentially due to daily fluctuations in dissolved oxygen (DO). Levels of DO fell 

below 5 mg/L at night, a lethal level for many fish species (USEPA 1988). In comparison, the 

downstream reach had higher richness and diversity and showed fair to good stream integrity. 

Typical of prairie streams, the downstream reach consisted primarily of species moderately tolerant 

to poor water quality (Pflieger 1997, Bramblett et al. 2005, Fischer and Paukert 2008). The Lower 

reach contained 87% of the Topeka Shiner abundance within sites sampled at PIPE from 2001-2014. 

The remaining 13% of Topeka Shiners were collected at reaches located between the Lower and 

Above Falls reach that were no longer sampled after 2006. The presence of Topeka Shiners 

downstream of the falls indicates a higher quality fish community than that found above the falls. 

Fish community monitoring indicates the downstream reach of Pipestone Creek is more favorable for 

prairie fishes, including the Topeka Shiner. Although a small portion (~1 km) of Pipestone Creek 

flows through the park, PIPE may serve as a refuge for the endangered species. Continuation of the 

fish community monitoring program coordinated and directed by HTLN and implemented with 

assistance of SDSU will not only allow for professional development of SDSU students, but will 

provide an opportunity to research fish community interactions, environmental factors affecting these 

interactions, and Topeka Shiner population dynamics and movement, with implications for land use 

management throughout the Pipestone Creek watershed. 

1 
Acknowledgments 

We would like to thank Dr. Katie Bertrand from SDSU for organizing this educational opportunity 

for students to work with HTLN and PIPE staff. Thanks to Seth Hendriks and Glen Livermont, for 

their assistance in establishing a data collection partnership between PIPE, HTLN, and SDSU. We 

also thank the many park staff, interns, and volunteers who assisted with data collection throughout 

this long-term monitoring program. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Lloyd 

Morrison with data analysis and Sarah Hinman for assisting with formatting of the report. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

Pipestone National Monument (PIPE), located in southwestern Minnesota, is approximately 1.2 km2 

in size, of which 80% is native or restored tallgrass prairie. A goal at PIPE is to maintain and restore 

the historic prairie ecosystem surrounding the pipestone quarries. An integral part of tallgrass 

systems is water quality/quantity and biotic integrity of prairie streams. A severe threat to prairie 

systems has been the conversion of large portions of grasslands to cropland or livestock pasture 

(Knopf and Samson 1997) during the last century. These disturbances have increased sedimentation, 

nutrient loading, and other chemical pollution, potentially altering the water quality and habitat of 

prairie streams. In addition, other anthropogenic factors, such as dams, have also caused direct 

habitat loss and fragmentation (Mammoliti 2002). Many native fish populations have been adversely 

impacted throughout their ranges by factors associated with land use changes. As a result of habitat 

changes and a decline of water quality conditions in Midwestern streams, the Topeka Shiner 

(Notropis topeka), a native prairie stream fish found at PIPE, was listed as federally endangered in 

1998 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (63 FR 69008). At the time of listing, the Topeka 

Shiner inhabited less than 10% of its historic range (Tabor 1998). In addition to this federally 

protected species, several other Midwestern stream fishes are imperiled, making it necessary to 

protect prairie streams on publicly owned lands in order to offer refuge for native species. 

Native fish communities are an important component of prairie stream systems. Changes or shifts in 

stream habitat complexity and water quality often determine biotic communities, including fish 

(Lazorchak et al. 1998). Therefore, monitoring trends in fish community composition and associated 

habitat conditions serves as a surrogate for measuring water quality and overall stream integrity. 

Many fish species are considered intolerant of habitat alterations and monitoring their assemblages 

can serve as a useful tool for assessing changes in water and habitat quality (Karr 1981; Robison and 

Buchanan 1988; Pflieger 1997; Barbour et al. 1999; Peitz 2005). Accordingly, trends in the 

composition and abundance of fish populations have been historically used to assess changes in the 

biological integrity of streams (Karr 1981; Barbour et al. 1999; Moulton et al. 2002). Moreover, the 

intrinsic value of fish to the public as environmental indicators and for recreational opportunities 

makes the status of fish diversity a valuable interpretive topic for park visitors, as well as a tool for 

preserving/conserving aquatic resources and supporting management decisions at PIPE. 

Objectives 

The specific objectives for fish community monitoring at PIPE are: (1) to determine the status of and 

long term trends in fish richness, diversity, abundance, and community composition and, (2) to 

correlate the long-term community data to overall water quality and habitat conditions. 

3 
 

 

 

 

Methods 

Details on methods of site selection, fish sampling, and habitat and water quality data collection not 

listed in this report can be found in the Protocol for Monitoring Fish Communities in Small Streams 

in the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network (Dodd et al. 2008). 

Study Area and Reach Selection 

Approximately 1 km of Pipestone Creek flows through PIPE. The stream was stratified into four 

sections based on natural breaks in the stream (such as large pools or a waterfall). During 2001-2010 

and 2013-2014, two reaches were sampled for fish community assessment at Pipestone Creek: a 

reach above the Winnewissa Falls (Above Falls) where the creek flows into the park and one on the 

western border of the park (Lower) where the creek flows out of PIPE (Figure 1). A sample reach is a 

section of stream encompassing all channel units (riffles, runs, pools, glides) within the stream, 

resulting in a representative fish sample. Reach length was based on the ability to find areas of the 

stream with adequate water to collect fish from five sample sites (channel units) within the reach or 

the ability to find areas where seining would be effective (large, deep pools were excluded). In 2011 

and 2012, Topeka Shiner status was assessed at the Lower reach only. 

Fish Collection 

Fish communities were sampled in August/September from 2001-2010, and 2013-2014. Fish were 

collected using a common sense seine (also referred to as a minnow seine) of 1.8 m depth and a mesh 

size of 6.44 mm. In each year fish were collected from three to five sites (channel units) within the 

reach. In pool or run channel units, a two-person crew dragged the seine across the bottom, trapping 

fish against a bank or shallow water area until the seine could be raised out of the water. Block seines 

were deployed if flow between pools was present, in an attempt to isolate fish in the selected pool. In 

riffle channel units, kick seining was used with one or two people disturbing the substrate in a 

downstream direction, dislodging fish into the seine. In 2011 and 2012, only Topeka Shiners were 

targeted for collection at the Lower reach. Additionally, backpack electrofishing (pulsed DC) was 

employed at two pools within the Lower reach in 2011, specifically for collection of Topeka Shiners. 

Once collected, fish were retained in the net in water or in an aerated bucket of water until they could 

be examined. All fish were identified to species, if possible, and counted. From 2001-2005, all 

Topeka Shiners were measured, weighed, sexed, and aged (juvenile vs. adult). Beginning in 2006, a 

subsample of 30 individuals per species (including Topeka Shiners) at each reach were measured and 

weighed, and any diseases or anomalies were recorded. Fish difficult to identify in the field were 

preserved for laboratory identification. All other fish (including all Topeka Shiners) were released 

back into the sample reach. 

Habitat and Water Quality 

Physical habitat and water quality were collected in conjunction with fish sampling during 2001-

2010 and 2013. In-stream habitat (width, depth, length, substrate, etc.), streambank erosion, and 

riparian vegetation were collected at each site within the reach (see Dodd et al. 2008 for a list of all 

habitat parameters collected). Prior to fish collection, discrete water quality measurements 

(temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity) were collected at each site within the reach 

4 
during 2001-2006 using hand-held meters. In 2007-2010 and 2013, continuous sampling replaced 

discrete water quality sampling. Data loggers were deployed at reaches to obtain hourly temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and turbidity data for a minimum of 24 hours. Only 

physical habitat data related to site size (width, depth, length) and water temperature were collected 

in 2014. 

Figure 1. Location of the two reaches sampled in 2001-2010 and 2013-2014 for fish community 

assessment. The Lower reach (yellow) was sampled in 2011 and 2012 to assess status of Topeka 

Shiner. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

Data Analysis 

Fish Metrics 

Six biological metrics were calculated for both reaches (Above Falls and Lower reach) sampled 

during 2001-2010 and 2013-2014. These metrics reflect fish community diversity (species richness, 

community diversity and evenness), abundance (catch and catch per area), and overall stream 

integrity (Index of Biotic Integrity). Community diversity was assessed using Simpson’s Diversity 

Index (see Dodd et al. 2008), which indicates the probability that two individuals picked at random 

from the reach are the same species. This index has an inverse relationship with diversity; the index 

decreases as diversity increases. Because it is more intuitive that an increasing index score 

correspond to increasing diversity, the inverse of the Simpson’s Index (1-SI) was used in analyses. 

Therefore, a diversity value (1-SI) of 1 corresponds to a completely diverse community while a value 

of 0 indicates no diversity. Pielou’s evenness index was used to assess community evenness within 

and among years (see Attrill 2002 for equation). In this report, catch refers to the total number of 

fish caught, and catch per area (CPA) is this catch divided by the surface area of the reach that was 

sampled (mean width * total length of stream sampled in reach). 

The index of biotic integrity (IBI) developed by Karr (1981) and used regionally in Midwest steams 

by Fausch et al. (1984) was calculated to assess stream integrity and health. The IBI includes 12 

metrics: 1) total number of fish species; 2) number and identity of darter species; 3) number and 

identity of sunfish species; 4) number and identity of sucker species; 5) number and identity of 

species intolerant to poor water quality and habitat conditions; 6) proportion of individuals as green 

sunfish; 7) proportion of individuals as omnivores; 8) proportion of individuals as insectivorous 

cyprinids; 9) proportion of individuals as top carnivores; 10) number of individuals in sample; 11) 

proportion of individuals as hybrids; 12) proportion with an anomaly (disease, eroded fins, lesions, or 

tumors). Each of the 12 raw metric values was scored as 1 (worst), 3, or 5 (best). The metric scores 

were added to calculate an IBI score that ranges from 12 to 60. Based on this IBI score, the overall 

integrity of the stream is classified from very poor to excellent: very poor = 0-20; poor = 21-30; fair 

= 31-40; good = 41-50; excellent (reference condition) = 51-60. More detailed methods on 

calculating biological metrics used in this report can be found in Karr (1981), Fausch et al. (1984), 

and Dodd et al. (2008). 

Because the Above Falls reach is different in water quality (dissolved oxygen) and in-stream habitat 

composition (substrate type and site dimensions; see Table 5 in Peitz 2005) than the Lower reach, 

reaches were analyzed separately. Regression analyses were used to evaluate trends in fish metrics 

across time using α = 0.05 as the level of significance. Any metrics that demonstrated a significant 

temporal trend would be used in analyses with habitat and water quality parameters to determine if 

changes in abiotic factors account for the trends in fish communities. Prior to regression analysis, a 

natural logarithm transformation was used to correct for non-normality of catch and CPA data. In 

addition, a Durbin-Watson test for serial autocorrelation was performed on all fish metrics using α =

0.05 as the level of significance. Two metrics, evenness at the Lower reach and Topeka Shiner 

abundance, were found to be inconclusive for autocorrelation. All other fish metrics were not 

significantly autocorrelated. Therefore, we conducted linear regression analysis without data 

transformation. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control charts were used in addition to regression analyses to indicate deviation of the community 

from baseline conditions. This is accomplished by plotting measurements through time with 

reference to a baseline that represents the averages of empirical measurements and serves as a 

reference point for establishment of control limits. Control limits specify thresholds beyond which 

variability in the measurement of interest indicates a process is going out of control (Morrison 2008). 

Univariate control charts were used to assess richness, diversity, and evenness with control limits 

based on the average and standard deviation of the first ten years of baseline data. To determine the 

appropriate baseline, sample variance for N = 3, N = 4, N=5, etc. years of data up to the entire 12 

year data set was plotted and graphically analyzed. At ten years of data, the sample variance showed 

an asymptote or decline for each of the fish metrics; therefore, the first ten years of data were 

selected as the baseline. 

Using catch and catch per area of all species in the community, trends in overall fish assemblages 

were evaluated by multivariate control charts with both reaches analyzed separately. Multivariate 

control charts are a distance-based ordination that considers the relative abundance relationships of 

all species in a community and computes the distance of the community at any point in time from a 

centroid. This distance is then plotted over time, and a bootstrapping technique is used to generate 

percentiles that serve as control limits (Anderson and Thompson 2004). We used the program control 

chart.exe to construct the multivariate control charts (Anderson 2008), inputting catch or catch per 

area for each species in each year at a reach. We used the first three years for calculating the centroid 

and evaluated the divergence from this period in future years. CY dissimilarity, which modifies zero 

values by adding a constant before logarithmic transformations, was used as the distance measure. 

The first ten years were used in the bootstrap procedure, with the 95th percentile of the distribution of 

deviations across sites used as a control limit. 

Habitat Metrics 

Physical habitat measures related to site size (width, depth, length, and area) and flow (velocity) were 

summarized using means for each reach. In 2007, continuous water quality sampling replaced 

discrete measurements, and a combination of discrete and continuous data are reported. For data 

collected from 2001-2006, averages (across sites in a reach) of discrete water quality measurements 

were calculated. For 2007- 2010 and 2013, continuous measurements were collected, and means of 

those measurements taken during fish sampling (i.e., the 2-3 hour time period fish were collected in 

that reach) as well as means of all data collected during the 24 – 48 time period are reported. Not all 

water quality parameters were collected every year at both reaches. Therefore, sample sizes vary 

depending on the reach and water quality variable sampled. Only water temperature measurements 

were collected in 2014. 

Results 

Fish Community 

A total of 22 species (excluding specimens that could not be identified to species) were collected at 

the two sample reaches during 2001-2010 and 2013-2014 (Appendix A). Richness, diversity, and 

evenness at both reaches revealed considerable variability over time (Figures 2, 3, 4). Richness at the 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Above Falls reach was typically less than the Lower reach (with the exception of 2002) and ranged 

from 2 to 7 species, while the Lower reach ranged from 7 to 14 species. Richness fell below the 

control limit at the Above Falls reach in 2004 when only 2 species were collected (Figure 2). At the 

Above Falls reach, diversity ranged widely from 0.27 to 0.81, whereas diversity at the Lower reach 

was less variable, ranging from 0.46 to 0.87 (Figure 3). Diversity and evenness at the Above Falls 

reach were near or at the control limit in 2008 (Figures 3 and 4) where 83% of the community 

consisted of Fathead Minnows (Pimephales promelas), most of which were young of the year (<30 

mm). At the Lower reach, diversity and evenness fell below or near the control limit in 2004 due to 

the community consisting primarily of Common Shiners (Luxilus cornutus, 72%). Species richness, 

community diversity and evenness revealed no significant linear trends across years at the Above 

Falls (richness: F1,10 = 0.406, P = 0.538; diversity: F1,10 = 0.509, P = 0.492; evenness: F1,10 = 0.044, P 

= 0.837 ) or Lower reaches (richness: F1,10 = 2.215, P = 0.167; diversity: F1,10 = 3.750, P = 0.082; 

evenness: F1,10 = 3.931, P = 0.076). 

The diversity metric accounts for both species richness and evenness of abundance across species. As 

expected, years with higher richness and evenness had higher diversity at the Lower reach (richness: 

F1,10 = 14.195, P = 0.004; evenness: F1,10 = 78.587, P < 0.001). At the Above Falls reach, years with 

high community evenness also had significantly higher diversity (F1,10 = 74.964; P < 0.001 ); 

however, years with higher richness showed lower diversity, although this relationship was not 

significant (F1,10 = 1.829, P = 0.206). Above the falls, the community was dominated by one or two 

species most years that would account for low diversity. Fathead Minnow dominated in 2002, 2003, 

2006, 2007, and 2008. Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) were common in 2001, 2006, and 

2013; and Blacknose Dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) were most abundant in 2013 and 2014 (Appendix 

A). 

Figure 2. Species richness at the Above Falls (solid diamonds) and Lower (open squares) reaches 

sampled in 2001-2010, 2013-2014. The solid horizontal line is the 95% control limit for the Above Falls 

8 
 

 

reach. The dashed horizontal line is the 95% control limit for the Lower reach. The average and standard 

deviation of the first ten years of data were used to calculate control limits. 

Figure 3. Diversity at the Above Falls (solid diamonds) and Lower (open squares) reaches sampled in 

2001-2010, 2013-2014. The solid horizontal line is the 95% control limit for the Above Falls reach. The 

dashed horizontal line is the 95% control limit for the Lower reach. The average and standard deviation of 

the first ten years of data were used to calculate control limits. 

Figure 4. Evenness at the Above Falls (solid diamonds) and Lower (open squares) reaches sampled in 

2001-2010, 2013-2014. The solid horizontal line is the 95% control limit for the Above Falls reach. The 

dashed horizontal line is the 95% control limit for the Lower reach. The average and standard deviation of 

the first ten years of data were used to calculate control limits. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

The IBI modified from Fausch et al. (1984) was used to rate stream quality from poor to excellent. 

Because fish anomalies (deformities, eroded fins, lesions, tumors) were not recorded in 2001-2005, 

the range of IBI scores possible for those years are denoted as two separate lines for both reaches in 

Figure 5. The top line during 2001-2005 assumes there are no anomalies (best metric score = 5), and 

the bottom line assumes greater than 1% of fish with anomalies (worst metric score = 1). Regardless 

of accounting for fish anomalies, the Above Falls reach rated as poor to fair while the Lower reach 

rated as having fair to good stream integrity (Figure 5) due to higher richness, number of darter 

species (sensitive taxa), and proportion of insectivorous minnows. In 2006-2010 and 2013-2014 

when anomalies were recorded, the anomaly metric scored as one (>1% of fish with anomalies) for 

both reaches each year. Therefore, it is highly probable that fish anomalies were present in 2001-

2005 and that the IBI scores that accounted for greater than 1% of fish with anomalies is likely 

realistic for 2001-2005 data. IBI at the Above Falls and Lower reaches showed no significant 

temporal trends (Above: F1,10 = 3.315, P = 0.0987; Lower: F1,10 = 4.915, P = 0.051). 

Figure 5. Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for the Above Falls (solid diamonds) and Lower (open squares) 

reaches sampled in 2001-2010, 2013-2014. Solid blue, green, yellow, and red horizontal lines represent 

boundaries between IBI rating categories. The secondary (bottom) set of IBI scores for Above Falls and 

Lower reaches during 2001 to 2005 represent the range of scores that were possible, given that the 

proportion of fish with an anomaly (disease, eroded fins, lesions, or tumors) metric was not recorded for 

those years. 

In most years, fewer fish were collected above the falls compared to the Lower reach, with the 

exception of 2008 and 2014 when large numbers of young of the year Fathead Minnow and 

juvenile/adult Blacknose Dace (both tolerant species) were collected above the falls (Figure 6 top 

panel, Appendix A). At the Above Falls reach, catch ranged from 4 to 589 fish, and catch per area 

(CPA) ranged from 0.02 to 5.16 fish/m2 (Figure 6). Catch and CPA ranged from 46 to 665 fish and 

0.20 to 2.65 fish/m2 (Figure 6), respectively, in the Lower reach with a spike in abundance occurring 

in 2003 due to large numbers of Common Shiner (Luxilus cornutus; moderately tolerant species) and 

10 
 

 

Fathead Minnow (Appendix A). There were no significant temporal trends in catch or CPA found at 

either reach (catch Above: F1,10 = 1.087, P = 0.322; CPA Above: F1,10 = 0.909, P = 0.363; catch 

Lower: F1,10 = 2.986, P = 0.115; CPA Lower: F1,10 = 0.977, P = 0.346). 

Figure 6. Catch (top panel) and catch per area (bottom panel) for the Above Falls (solid diamonds) and 

Lower (squares) reaches sampled in 2001-2010, 2013-2014. 

Individual species catch (i.e., numbers collected of each species, excluding unidentified species) for 

both reaches remained below the control limit (solid line for Above Falls and dashed line for Lower 

reach; Figure 7 top panel) for most years sampled. However, species catch neared the control limit in 

2008 and crossed the control limit in 2014 at the Above Falls, due to the high number of Fathead 

Minnows collected in 2008 and Blacknose Dace collected in 2014 (Appendix A). Species CPA at 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

the Above Falls reach crossed the control limit (solid line) in 2004 and 2010 (Figure 7 bottom panel), 

years when total fish abundance was low (Figure 6 bottom panel). At the Lower reach, species catch 

never crossed but approached the control limit in 2005 and 2013. When sample area was taken into 

account for individual species, CPA for the Lower reach crossed the control limit in 2004, 2009, 

2010, and 2013 (Figure 7 bottom panel). 

Figure 7. Multivariate control charts for individual species catch (top panel) and catch per area (bottom 

panel) at the Above Falls (solid diamonds) and Lower (open squares) reaches from 2004-2010, 2013-

2014. Fish not identified to species were excluded. The solid horizontal line is the 95% control limit 

(based on 2001-2010 data) for the Above Falls reach. The dashed horizontal line is the 95% control limit 

for the Lower reach. The first three years of data were used as the centroid and, therefore, are not shown. 

Distance on the y-axis indicates the distance to the centroid. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Over the 12 year sampling period, species abundances were dominated by Fathead Minnow (45%), 

Blacknose Dace (22%), and Creek Chub (15%) at the Above Falls reach (Appendix A). In the Lower 

reach, abundant species included Common Shiner (32%), Fathead Minnow (17%), Bigmouth Shiner 

(Notropis dorsalis, 11%), and Central Stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum, 11%), which made up 

approximately 71% of the total abundance across the 12 years. A total of 153 Topeka Shiners were 

collected within the park during the 2001-2014 sampling period, with the Lower reach accounting for 

87% of the abundance. No Topeka Shiners have been collected at the Above Falls reach. The 

remaining 13% of Topeka Shiners were collected in 2006 at two sampling reaches located between 

the Lower and Above Falls reaches. These two reaches were retired in 2007. There was no linear 

trend in Topeka Shiner abundance among years at the Lower reach (F1,12 = 0.231, P = 0.640; Figure 

8). 

Figure 8. Number of Topeka Shiners collected at the Lower reach from 2001-2014. 

Habitat and Water Quality Relationships 

Because none of the analyzed fish metrics showed a significant temporal trend, no regression 

analyses were performed between fish metrics and environmental variables. For years in which 

specific fish metrics fell near or crossed their control limits, the measured habitat and water quality 

parameters provided little explanation for these deviations (Appendices B and C). Above the falls, 

site width and sample area were slightly larger in 2004 (Appendix B) when richness and species CPA 

crossed the control limits (only 2 species and 4 individuals were collected that year). In 2008, when 

diversity and evenness above the falls was near or at the control limit due to a spike in Fathead 

Minnow abundance (mostly young of the year), habitat parameters were within range of those 

collected in other years sampled (Appendices B and C). At the Lower reach, water temperature 

during sampling was lowest in 2004 (Appendix B) when diversity, evenness, and species CPA fell 

near or crossed their control limits. Although species CPA also crossed the control limit in 2009, 

2010, and 2013, the habitat parameters collected those years were within range of those collected in 

other years where species CPA did not cross the control limit. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 

The fish community in Pipestone Creek differed between the upstream reach (Above Falls) located 

near the east side of the park boundary and the downstream (Lower) reach near the west boundary. 

Much of the Pipestone Creek watershed is agricultural row crop land use. The creek originates as a 

channelized drainage ditch upstream of the park. This is reflected in the Above Falls reach where the 

stream channel is straight, uniform, and consists predominately of bedrock and steep banks 

(Appendix B). Pipestone Creek is listed as a 303(d) stream for impaired aquatic life (MNPCA 2014). 

Large diel fluctuations in dissolved oxygen (DO) were recorded above the falls, where levels 

dropped near or below 5 mg/L at night (see Appendices B and C), a lethal level for many fish species 

(USEPA 1988). High inputs of nutrients from agricultural land use coupled with an open canopy 

creates optimal conditions for periphyton and filamentous algae to flourish, creating high DO 

concentrations during the day (>13 mg/L) via photosynthesis and low DO levels at night (< 5mg/L) 

through respiration. These fluctuations in DO levels are likely the driving mechanism behind the 

poorer quality fish community above the falls where richness, diversity, stream integrity (IBI), and 

abundance were lower compared to the downstream reach. Above the falls, community diversity and 

evenness and individual species catch and species CPA crossed or neared control limits due to the 

dominance of young of the year Fathead Minnow in 2008 and juvenile/adult Blacknose Dace in 

2014. Although no significant temporal trends were found in fish communities above the falls, years 

with higher richness typically had lower diversity due to dominance by one species each year (i.e., 

low evenness in species abundances). The most abundant species among the 12 year sampling period 

(Fathead Minnow, Blacknose Dace, and Creek Chub) are all tolerant of poor water quality and 

habitat conditions. It is typical for one or two species to dominate a degraded stream that experiences 

large daily changes in water quality or lacks habitat heterogeneity. 

Below Winnewissa Falls, the stream begins to meander within the park, with the downstream reach 

having more heterogeneous physical habitat conditions of riffle, run, and pool channel units with a 

variety of substrate sizes (Appendix B), more gradual banks, and stable diel water quality conditions 

(Appendix C). As a result of these more suitable conditions, the downstream reach was characterized 

by higher richness, stream integrity, and diversity. Similar to the Above Fall reach, there were no 

significant temporal trends in fish communities at the Lower reach. However, the community at the 

Lower reach showed significantly higher diversity in years with both higher richness and greater 

evenness of species abundances. Because diversity accounts for both richness and evenness within 

the community, we would expect streams with more suitable habitat and stable water quality 

conditions would contain more species and that species abundances would be spread more evenly 

within the community, thus contributing to higher diversity. We did find that in 2004 the community 

was dominated by one species, Common Shiner, which is likely the reason diversity, evenness, and 

individual species CPA neared or crossed the control limits for these community metrics. In 2004, 

approximately three inches of rain fell within a 24 hour period, causing water levels to rise and 

sampling to be delayed by one day until water levels receded. The resulting high water levels may 

have displaced certain species downstream which would explain why one species was dominate and 

why the community composition deviated from baseline conditions at the Lower reach. This rain 

event may also explain why richness and species CPA at the Above Falls reach crossed control limits 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in 2004( 2 species and 4 fish collected). Water temperature at the Lower reach in 2004 was the 

lowest among the 12 years sampled, but water temperature above the falls was within range of other 

years sampled. This low water temperature at the downstream reach is likely due to sample collection 

taking place in early morning hours and not due to a true deviation in water temperature as a result of 

the rain event. In later years where individual species CPA crossed the control limits (2009, 2010, 

and 2013), there was not one particular environmental variable or set of variables measured that 

could explain the deviation of fish communities from the baseline. Habitat and water quality 

parameters were within range of years where the community did not deviate from the baseline. The 

addition of sampling riffle habitats beginning in 2006 may appear to explain the deviation in species 

CPA in later years. However, no species were collected in riffles that were not collected in pool or 

run habitats in similar abundances; and richness, evenness, and diversity did not deviate from 

baseline conditions in those years. 

Pipestone Creek showed greater biotic integrity (i.e., IBI) at the Lower reach due to a higher number 

of native fish species, number of darter species (sensitive taxa), and proportion of insectivorous 

minnows. Stream integrity based on fish community data did not change significantly across years 

and rated as fair to good quality. Based on aquatic invertebrate community data, overall stream 

quality also showed no change during 14 years of sampling Pipestone Creek (Bowles et al. 2013). 

The fish community consisted largely of species moderately tolerant to poor environmental 

conditions, including Common Shiner, Bigmouth Shiner, and Central Stoneroller. However, prairie 

streams, by nature, are harsh environments and often flood in the spring and dry in summer. Native 

prairie fishes are adapted and tolerant of these variable and harsh conditions. 

Although Pipestone Creek is considered impaired for aquatic life and a small portion (~1 km) of the 

stream flows through the park, the conditions at the downstream boundary of the park are more 

favorable for native prairie fishes, including the Topeka Shiner. Because 80% of the land within the 

park’s 1.2 km2 boundary is native or restored prairie, PIPE may serve as refuge for this endangered 

species and other native fishes despite the creek’s impaired status. Further study and data collection 

will be useful in determining environmental and biotic factors that allow for the existence of Topeka 

Shiners and a more healthy fish community at the downstream reach. Collection of additional water 

quality data, particularly DO and temperature, for several weeks seasonally (especially during 

summer low flows) would be useful at the reach above the falls, where water quality is suspected to 

have a large impact on the fish community. No substantial declines in fish communities were 

observed over time at either sample reach, and the park appears to play some role in protecting native 

fishes as evidenced by the higher quality fish community and presence of Topeka Shiners at the 

downstream reach. Through the partnership between HTLN and SDSU, opportunities are available 

to research fish community interactions, environmental factors affecting these interactions, and 

Topeka Shiner population dynamics and movement. This research will have implications for land use 

management within the park and throughout the watershed that may improve habitat conditions to 

sustain a healthy fish community and protect an endangered species. 

15 
 

Literature Cited 

Anderson, M. J. 2008. Control chart: A computer program, Department of Statistics, University of 

Auckland. 

Anderson, M. J. and A. A. Thompson. 2004. Multivariate control charts for ecological and 

environmental monitoring. Ecological Applications 14:1921-1935. 

Attrill, M.J. 2002. Community-level indicators of stress in aquatic ecosystems. Pages 473-508 in 

S.M. Adams, editor. Biological indicators of aquatic ecosystem stress. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols 

for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrate, and fish, 2nd 

edition. EPA 841-B-99-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

Bowles, D.E., J.A. Luraas, J.T. Cribbs. 2013. Aquatic invertebrate monitoring at Pipestone National 

Monument: 1996-2010 status and trend report. Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/HTLN/NRTR—2013/824. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Bramblett, R. G., T. R. Johnson, A. V. Zale. 2005. Development and evaluation of a fish assemblage 

index of biotic integrity for Northwestern Great Plains Streams. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 134:624-640. 

Dodd, H. R., D. G. Peitz, G. A. Rowell, D. E. Bowles, and L. M. Morrison. 2008. Protocol for 

monitoring fish communities in small streams in the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring 

Network. Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2008/052. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Fausch, K. D., J. R. Karr, and P. R. Yant. 1984. Regional application of an index of biotic integrity 

based on stream fish communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:39-55. 

Fischer, J. R. and C. P. Paukert. 2008. Habitat relationships with fish assemblages in minimally 

disturbed Great Plains regions. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 17:597-609. 

Karr J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21–27. 

Knopf, F. L. and F. B. Samson. 1997. Conservation of grassland vertebrates. Pages 273-289 in F.L. 

Knopf and F.B. Samson, editors. Ecology and Conservation of Great Plains Vertebrates. 

Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. 

Lazorchak, J. M., Klemm, D. J., and D. V. Peck. 1998. Environmental monitoring and assessment 

program-surface waters: field operations and methods for measuring the ecological condition of 

wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

DC. 

16 
 

 

Mammoliti, C. S. 2002. The effects of small watershed impoundments on native stream fishes: a 

focus on the Topeka shiner and hornyhead chub. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 

105 (3-4): 219-231. 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MNPCA). 2014. Minnesota’s Impaired Waters List website. 

Available at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/minnesotasimpaired-waters-and-tmdls/impaired-waters-list.html (accessed 14 April 2015). 

Morrison, L.W. 2008. The use of control charts to interpret environmental monitoring data. Natural 

Areas Journal 28: 66-73. 

Moulton, S. R. III, J. G. Kennen, R. M. Goldstein, and J. A. Hambrook. 2002. Revised protocols for 

sampling algal, invertebrate, and fish communities as part of the National Water-Quality 

Assessment Program. Open-file Report 02-150. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 

Peitz, D.G. 2005. Fish community monitoring in prairie park streams with emphasis on Topeka 

shiner (Notropis topeka): Summary report 2001-2004. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Peitz, D.G. and G.A. Rowell. 2004. Fish community monitoring in prairie streams with emphasis on 

Topeka Shiner (Notropis topeka). National Park Service, Prairie Cluster Prototype Monitoring 

Program, Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Republic, MO. 

Pflieger, W. L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, 

Missouri. 

Robison, H. W., and T. M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press, 

Fayetteville, Arkansas. 

Tabor, V. M. 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to list the Topeka shiner 

as endangered. Federal Register 63:69008-69021. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1988. Water quality standards criteria 

summaries: A compilation of state/federal criteria. EPA/440/5-88/024. USEPA, Office of Water 

Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A. Fish species collected at PIPE, 2001-2010 and 2013-2014. 

Common Name Scientific Name 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2013 2014 

Above Falls 

White Sucker Catostomus commersonii 8 5 0 2 2 10 7 19 13 3 5 0 

Bigmouth Shiner Notropis dorsalis 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 

Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 9 11 2 28 259 

Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Brassy Minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 0 0 2 0 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 3 

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus 60 3 5 2 6 55 12 18 10 1 24 27 

Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas 2 34 23 0 6 49 33 488 1 0 5 19 

Non-carp minnow spp. Cyprinidae spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 

Notropis spp. Notropis spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 26 0 3 0 

Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 7 1 0 0 

Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

TOTAL 75 49 34 4 15 134 59 589 68 7 65 352 

Lower 

White Sucker Catostomus commersonii 12 3 14 8 5 23 2 3 5 10 2 5 

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 

Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Bigmouth Shiner Notropis dorsalis 242 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 18 

Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus 0 0 0 0 1 17 8 6 5 0 11 37 

Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus 0 62 0 15 29 21 18 3 0 0 38 26 

Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 16 33 88 6 3 42 36 64 7 2 4 15 

Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus 19 183 302 88 48 102 64 35 29 22 13 15 

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus 2 3 15 0 1 1 20 20 9 4 7 24 

Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas 44 0 193 0 0 17 33 28 30 0 2 160 

Luxilus spp. Luxilus spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Non-carp minnow spp. Cyprinidae spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 

Notropis spp. Notropis spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 

Red Shiner Cyprinella lutrensis 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus 43 0 24 2 0 16 11 3 1 0 0 8 

A-1 
 

 

 

Appendix A (continued). 

Common Name Scientific Name 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2013 2014 

Topeka Shiner Notropis topeka 0 0 19 0 13 33 36 10 0 0 0 0 

Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 7 1 0 1 0 

Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 

Stonecat Noturus flavus 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Unknown madtom Noturus spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Blackside Darter Percina maculata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 

Iowa darter Etheostoma exile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum 1 0 7 1 2 9 5 3 1 0 6 2 

Yellow perch Perca flavescens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

TOTAL 382 355 665 122 103 283 277 188 89 46 87 313 

A-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B. Habitat and water quality parameters collected 

at PIPE, 2001-2010 and 2013-2014. 

Reach 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007A 2008A 2009A 2010A 2013A 2014 

Mean Width (m) 

Above 3.6 3.8 3.6 4.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.5 

Lower 4.0 4.5 3.8 4.2 3.7 4.4 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.1 4.6 

Mean Length (m) 

Above 7.0 4.9 5.3 7.7 5.4 4.4 6.1 6.7 6.5 7.1 6.9 

Lower 16.4 16.6 13.2 12.9 14.4 12.6 7.7 9.5 8.3 11.2 11.6 21.5 

Total Area (m2

) 

Above 123.9 93.5 96.1 173.4 95.4 78.3 109.1 114.1 120.8 133.8 121.5 90.9 

Lower 331.7 376.8 250.6 272.5 262.8 275.9 136.5 175.0 175.0 231.6 268.6 208.4 

Mean Depth (cm) 

Above 25.4 32.2 20.6 43.2 33.8 20.2 20.5 20.3 22.8 40.4 19.5 

Lower 28.0 57.2 30.2 51.6 46.6 22.9 23.5 23.8 32.8 45.7 23.1 6.5 

Mean Velocity (m/s) 

Above 0.23 0.17 0.07 0.50 0.57 0.09 

Lower 0.15 0.17 0.10 0.60 0.46 0.10 

Mean Water Temperature (o

C) 

Above 15.0 20.0 20.9 15.1 19.0 14.2 19.0 21.3 20.8 15.4 

Lower 15.6 16.3 15.6 13.7 15.8 17.5 22.3 17.4 20.5 22.1 15.6 11.0 

Mean Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 

Above 5.94 16.56 13.66 7.68 13.45 4.98 8.99 12.40 4.53 9.35 

Lower 8.22 8.76 7.56 9.25 9.22 7.58 8.20 8.03 7.29 7.34 9.34 

Mean pH 

Above 8.40 8.28 7.75 8.10 6.92 7.83 7.96 7.55 7.65 

Lower 8.30 8.24 8.15 8.30 7.72 8.17 8.13 8.21 7.93 8.18 

Mean Specific Conductance (uS/cm) 

Above 692.2 731.4 584.2 495.0 709.7 761.5 489.0 590.0 

Lower 645.6 704.2 570.8 472.6 714.5 686.5 814.0 595.0 549.0 

Mean Turbidity (cm) 

Above 56.6 69.6 75.6 26.8 78.2 B B B B B 

Lower 60.1 91.0 59.2 20.2 87.2 91.6 B B B B B 

A Water quality data were collected hourly using dataloggers. Averages for these years include only data 

collected during the hours of fish sampling. B Turbidity was collected using a probe that records data in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) rather than 

cm of visibility. 

Empty fields indicate data were not collected in that year. 

B-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C. Mean water quality parameters collected hourly for 24 – 48 hours at 

PIPE, 2007-2010 and 2013. 

Water Temperature 

(

o

C) 

Dissolved Oxygen 

(mg/L) pH Specific Conductance 

(uS/cm) Turbidity (NTU) 

Above Falls 

2007A 

2008 18.6 (15.2 - 22.0) 8.00 (4.40 - 12.89) 7.82 (7.56 - 8.12) 696.6 (679 - 711) 8.8 (1.9 - 23.4) 

2009 21.4 (17.6 - 25.5) 10.21 (6.83 - 18.01) 7.88 (7.64 - 8.21) 770.0 (563 - 819) 9.9 (3.5 - 17.6) 

2010 21.0 (17.4 - 23.9) 6.16 (4.12 - 9.22) 7.69 (7.55 - 8.03) 586.0 (203 - 797) 19.1 (0 - 76.1) 

2013 16.9 (15.0 - 19.3) 10.64 (8.88 - 12.01) 7.78 (7.65 - 7.95) 601.9 (588 - 618) 4.2 (3.3 - 7.2) 

Lower 

2007 22.3 (18.5 - 25.9) 7.95 (6.87 - 10.05) 8.21 (8.12 - 8.39) 713.0 (690 - 731) 23.7 (22.8 - 26.3) 

2008 19.4 (17.0 - 22.2) 8.03 (6.79 - 10.72) 8.20 (8.05 - 8.38) 682.9 (671 - 690) 2.0 (0 - 12.2) 

2009 21.9 (18.7 - 23.9) 7.49 (6.73 - 9.37) 8.23 (8.16 - 8.32) 771.8 (638 - 819) 3.7 (2.0 - 5.1) 

2010 21.5 (17.8 - 24.5) 6.95 (5.09 - 7.64) 7.95 (7.81 - 8.02) 617.1 (189 - 784) 12.5 (0 - 40.6) 

2013 18.6 (15.7 - 21.7) 10.45 (7.87 - 14.87) 8.33 (8.12 - 8.58) 521.3 (489 - 545) 5.93 (4.6 - 8.6) 

A Water quality data loggers were not deployed at the Above Falls reach in 2007. 

C-1 

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific 

and other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities. 

NPS 372/130230, October 2015 
 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM