(DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
TAXONOMY
NAME - DARTER, LEOPARD
OTHER COMMON NAMES - DARTER and LEOPARD
ELEMENT CODE -
CATEGORY - Fish
PHYLUM AND SUBPHYLUM - CHORDATA,
CLASS AND SUBCLASS - OSTEICHTHYES,
ORDER AND SUBORDER - PERCIFORMES,
FAMILY AND SUBFAMILY - PERCIDAE,
GENUS AND SUBGENUS - PERCINA,
SPECIES AND SSP - PANTHERINA,
SCIENTIFIC NAME - PERCINA PANTHERINA
AUTHORITY -
TAXONOMY REFERENCES -
COMMENTS ON TAXONOMY -
Leopard Darter
Percina pantherina (Moore and Reeves, 1955)
KINGDOM: Animal GROUP: Fish
PHYLUM: Chordata CLASS: Osteichthyes
ORDER: Perciformes FAMILY: Percidae
The characters of the holotype are followed, in parentheses, by
the limits of variation in meristic characters and proportional
measurements of all the paratypes. The scales are small: 11 (9-13)
from spinous dorsal to lateral line; 90 (83-94) in the lateral line;
16 (15-19) from anal origin to lateral line; and 32 (31-32) around the
caudal peduncle. The cheeks and opercles are completely invested with
exposed or imbedded scales. The nape is naked or has embedded scales.
A small patch of scales or a single large scale lies between the
pelvic fin bases. The fin-ray counts are as follows: D. XIV-12 (XIV
to XIV-11 to 14); A. II, 9 (II,9to 11); P1, 14-14 (13-13 or 14-14);
P2, I, 5 in all; principal caudal rays 17 (16 to 17); head in standard
length 3.7 (3.2-3.7); head depth at occiput in standard length 7.6
(6.9-7.7); head depth in head length 2.0 (2.0-2.2); upper jaw in head
2.8 (2.8-3.2); orbit in head 4.7 (3.4-4.8); eye in head 5.0 (4.0-5.7);
bony interorbital width in snout (adults only) 3.2 (2.5-3.3);
Taxonomy - 1 (DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
postorbital length of head in head 1.8 (1.8-2.0); snout in head 3.5
(3.5-4.7); snout in orbit 0.75 (0.97-1.3); and least depth of caudal
peduncle in head length 3.5 (3.3-4.4) (02).
The following color description is taken principally from freshly
killed paratypes (02). The dark iris is conspicuously marked with
gold-colored flecks. Jet-black bands extend from the eyes through the
nostrils to cover the premaxillae for their full length, but diminish
in intensity on the posterior two-thirds. The brownish parietal spot
is shaped like a disk with a small anterior portion removed. A
median faint, light line crosses the upper lip and separates the two
preorbital bands. The subocular bar is slightly inclined backward
(less evident in half-grown examples and absent in young). The
background color of the back is pale olive; underparts immaculate and
with a yellowish-olive tint which is soon lost in the young after
fixation, leaving the specimens quite white. The vertically elongated
caudal spot is indistinct in adult males, but conspicuous in young
females. The spinous dorsal fin has olive rays with alternating
checks and the interradial membranes are intensely black on their
basal halves anteriorly, but this diminishes in intensity backward.
There are no bright colors, other than black, on the interradial
membranes of any fins. The soft dorsal rays are similar to the spines
in color, but much paler and never have pigment on the rays which are
bordered by files of fine black dots. Conspicuous markings are
absent on the caudal fin but rows of melanophores appear along the
pale olive fin rays in greatest intensity on the outer principal rays.
The anal and pelvic fins are white with scattered melanophores on the
interradial membranes. The pectoral fins are clear except for
melanophores in single files along the fin rays. The distinctive
lateral band consists of 10 or 11 circular black spots rather broadly
connected by a fainter black band overlaid by an olive-yellow hue.
Eleven to 13 squarish dorsal blotches, mesially broken in two in the
region of the spinous dorsal, mark the back. Between the dorsal and
lateral series there is an irregular row of smaller blotches,
occasionally doubled anteriad. The dorsolateral spots are discrete
and round in the young to half grown and in females, but poorly
defined in adult males. On a half-grown specimen the background color
is very pale, but the scales are outlined with a reddish tint. The
underparts of the same specimens are white. A sharply defined black
streak marks the midventral line of the caudal peduncle and extends
anteriad on each side of the anal base (02).
The leopard darter (Percina pantherina) is closely related to
the blackside darter (P. maculata) but is readily distinguished from
the latter on the basis of two main characteristics: The scales are
smaller (81-84 scales in the lateral line versus 62-77) and the 11-14
dark blotches along the lateral band are square or round and tend to
be deeper than long. The eye is dark and there are well developed
preorbital, suborbital, and postorbital bars. Dark spots or blotches
and saddles cover the dorsum. Color is light olive above and whitish
below. Some specimens have faint traces of three bars on the caudal
fin but relatively little pigment on the other fins. Maximum size is
about 3 inches (01).
Moore and Reeves (02) described the leopard darter as Hadropterus
pantherinus. When Hadropterus was synonymized under the genus Percina
Taxonomy - 2 (DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
by Bailey et al. (03), the current name Percina pantherina was
established for the species (04). Fish currently recognized as
leopard darters were captured much earlier than 1955, including the
earliest known collections which were made by O.P. Hay in 1884 (04).
Subsequently, a single specimen was collected in 1927 from the upper
reaches of the Mountain Fork River near Potter, AR, by an expedition
of the University of Oklahoma Zoology Museum (05).
Information on type specimens can be found in; USNM, UMMZ, MCZ,
and OAM. The holotype is deposited in the U.S. National Museum (USNM
101183), and paratypes can be found under the following; UMMZ 81815,
167121 and 167122, MCZ 38491, OAM 2559 and 4948, and USNM 198108.
Taxonomy - 3 (DRAFT) - Status
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
STATUS
Coded Status
T: Federal Threatened
COMMENTS ON STATUS -
U.S. STATUSES AND LAWS:
The leopard darter (Percina pantherina) has been designated a
Threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(50 CFR 17.11; P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1540),
as amended. The species has this status wherever found including the
States of Arkansas and Oklahoma.
Critical Habitat is designated for this species in portions of
the Little River, Glover Creek, and the Mountain Fork River and its
tributaries. Critical Habitat is designated within McCurtain and
Pushmatah counties, OK, and in Polk County, AR (50 CFR 17.95(e)).
Special Rules; all the provisions regarding "take" of a species
(50 CFR 17.31) apply to this species except that it may be taken in
accordance with applicable state law (i.e., research/survey purposes)
(50 CFR 17.44(d)). Any violation of State law will also be a
violation of the Endangered Species Act.
This species is protected by the Lacey Act (P.L. 97-79, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) which makes it unlawful to import,
export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any wild animal
(alive or dead including parts, products, eggs, or offspring):
(1) in interstate or foreign commerce if taken, possessed,
transported or sold in violation of any State law or
regulation; or
(2) if taken or possessed in violation of any U.S. law,
treaty, or regulation or in violation of Indian tribal law.
It is also unlawful to possess any wild animal (alive or dead
including parts, products, eggs, and offspring) within the U.S.
territorial or special maritime jurisdiction (as defined in
18 U.S.C. 7) that is taken, possessed, transported, or sold in
violation of any State law or regulation, foreign law, or Indian
tribal law.
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCIES
USFWS -Responsible for the management/recovery, listing, and
law enforcement/protection of this species.
USFS -Responsible for the law enforcement/protection of this
species with applicable State and Federal laws on
public lands under their control. Also responsible
for management/recovery on Forest Service lands. The
Forest Service is responsible for integrating
management, protection, and conservation of Federally
Status - 1 (DRAFT) - Status
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
listed species into the Forest Planning process
(36 CFR 219.19 and 219.20). Management practices that
would cause detrimental changes in water temperature
or composition, water course blockage, or sediment
deposits within 100 feet of the edges of perennial
streams, lakes or other bodies of water are prohibited
(36 CFR 219.27(e)).
All Federal agencies have responsibility to ensure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of Critical Habitat (50 CFR 402),
and to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the
conservation of the species.
STATE STATUSES AND LAWS:
STATE: Arkansas
DESIGNATED STATUS: Threatened
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
STATE STATUTE: Arkansas Statutes 47-101,47-117 to 47-119,47-501,
47-505.
STATE: Oklahoma
DESIGNATED STATUS: Recognized Threatened
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: Oklahoma Dept. of Wildlife Conservation
STATE STATUTE: 29 Oklahoma Statutes Annotated 3-201,2-109,2-135,
7-501,7-502,7-504,7-602.
INTERNATIONAL STATUSES, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS:
None.
ECONOMIC STATUSES:
This species has value to naturalists and as a component of
Arkansas and Oklahoma's natural heritage of biotic diversity.
75/03/18:40 FR 12297/ - Review of status for listing
76/07/06:41 FR 27735/27738 - Proposed Threatened with Critical Habitat
78/01/27:43 FR 03711/03716 - Listing as Threatened w/ Critical Habitat
78/05/23:43 FR 22042/ - Correction, final rule
83/12/08:48 FR 55100/55102 - Five year status review
85/07/22:50 FR 29900/29901 - Five year status review
Status - 2 HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS
HABITAT - AQUATIC
INLAND AQUATIC
SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTRY TYPES
SAF TYPE STAGE CLOSURE
Longleaf Pine shrub--seedling
Longleaf Pine young tree
Longleaf Pine mature tree
Longleaf Pine Old Growth
Loblolly Pine-Shortleaf Pine shrub--seedling
Loblolly Pine-Shortleaf Pine young tree
Loblolly Pine-Shortleaf Pine mature tree
Loblolly Pine-Shortleaf Pine Old Growth
Shortleaf Pine-Oak shrub--seedling
Shortleaf Pine-Oak young tree
Shortleaf Pine-Oak mature tree
Shortleaf Pine-Oak Old Growth
shrub--seedling
young tree
mature tree
Old Growth
LAND USE -
Cropland and Pasture
Deciduous Forest Land
Evergreen Forest Land
Mixed Forest Land
Streams and Canals
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY CODES
NWI NWICLS NWIMOD NWISPEC
Riverine, intermittent UB3
Riverine, intermittent UB1
Riverine, intermittent SB3
Riverine, intermittent SB1
Riverine, intermittent RB2
Riverine, intermittent RB1
Riverine, intermittent OW0
Riverine, upper perennial UB3
Riverine, upper perennial UB1
3SB
Riverine, upper perennial SB1
Riverine, upper perennial RB2
Riverine, upper perennial RB1
Riverine, upper perennial OW0
Riverine, lower perennial UB3
Riverine, lower perennial UB1
Riverine, lower perennial SB3
Riverine, lower perennial SB1
Riverine, lower perennial RB2
Riverine, lower perennial RB1
Riverine, lower perennial OW0
COMMENTS ON HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS -
Water quality was good in streams where leopard darters were
Habitat Associations - 1 collected. The following water quality characteristics were listed
by Eley et al. (06); water temperature, 0 degrees C in winter to 33
degrees C in summer; dissolved oxygen, 4.0 mg/l in summer to 15.0 mg/l
in winter; total dissolved solids, 20 to 100 mg/l; suspended solids,
20 to 100 mg/l; apparent color units, 10 to 150; pH, 6.5 to 8.0;
CaCo3 total alkalinity, 10 to 15 mg/l; total phosphorus < 0.01 to 0.30
mg/l; total nitrogen, < 0.5 to 6.5 mg/l.
Leopard darters were captured in all three major habitat types.
The frequency of occurrence in each type varied with the season. In
summer and fall, the species occupied pools. During winter and spring
they were captured in riffle and run habitats more frequently than
during summer and fall, but even during these seasons, most were found
in pools.
Leopard darters were captured at depths of 8 to 122 cm, but were
taken most frequently at depths of 20 to 79 cm. Relative densities in
various depth intervals were significantly different from a uniform
distribution. Observed frequencies were less than expected for depths
of 0 to 19 cm and > 80 cm, but were greater than expected for depths
of 20 to 79 cm. Total range of depths used and relative density of
leopard darters at various depth intervals varied somewhat between
seasons. A wider range of depths was used during winter and spring
than during summer and fall. Relative densities during spring formed
a bimodal distribution with one peak at moderately shallow depths and
one peak at moderately deep depths.
Darters were captured in areas having water velocities of 0 to 96
cm/s, but were taken most frequently in areas having water velocities
of 0 to 19 cm/s. Relative densities in various water velocity
intervals were significantly different from a uniform distribution.
Observed frequencies were less than expected for velocities > 20 cm/s
and greater than expected for velocities < 19 cm/s. The total range
of water velocities varied somewhat between seasons. Leopard darters
were captured over a wider range of velocities during winter and
spring than during summer and fall. However, relative densities were
consistently higher in areas of little or no velocity during every
season. Because only one leopard darter was captured in > 80 cm/s
velocity interval during spring, the exceptionally high density for
that interval is questionable.
Leopard darters were captured over substrates ranging from gravel
and rubble to bedrock, but were found most frequently over rubble and
boulder substrates. Relative densities over various substrate types
was significantly different from a uniform distribution. Observed
frequencies were greater than expected over rubble, rubble and
boulder, and boulder substrates. Use of substrate varied only
slightly between seasons. Relative densities were higher over smaller
substrates during the winter and spring and higher over larger
substrates during summer and fall.
Surrounding land types that if altered may adversely impact the
leopard darter and its habitat include: Forest lands including oak-
hickory forest, pine-oak mixed forest, longleaf/slash and loblolly/
shortleaf pine. Agricultural areas consisting mainly of hay, pasture,
cattle, and chicken ranching. Past agricultural crops have included
cotton. Several rural highways cross over leopard darter habitat in
both Oklahoma and Arkansas.
Habitat Associations - 2 (DRAFT) - Food Habits
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
FOOD HABITS
TROPHIC LEVEL -
CARNIVORE
LIFESTAGE FOOD FOOD PART
General Arthropods
Food Habits - 1 (DRAFT) - Environment Associations
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G = General A = Adult
LIM = Limiting RA = Resting Adult
J = Juvenile FA = Feeding Adult
RJ = Resting Juvenile BA = Breeding Adult
FJ = Feeding Juvenile P = Pupae
L = Larvae E = Egg
RL = Resting Larvae
FL = Feeding Larvae
LIFESTAGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G Aquatic Features: Pool areas
G
Environment Associations - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
LIFE HISTORY
FOOD HABITS:
The only data on the food habits of the leopard darter are those
of Robison (04) who examined the stomachs of 7 museum specimens.
Primary food items found in the stomach contents were Simulin sp.,
Pseudocloen sp., and the dipterans; Chironomidae and Chadboridae.
Fragments of a coleopteran and green algae also were found.
The following table shows the percentage of frequency and the
average number of items found in seven stomachs of Percina pantherina
(04):
Taxon Frequency Average Number
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Pseudocloen sp. 57.1 7.0
Coleoptera 14.3 1.0
Diptera
Simuliidae 71.4 49.4
Simulium sp. 71.4 48.0
larvae 14.3 7.0
pupae 28.6 2.0
Chironomidae
Chaoboridae
Chaoborus sp. 14.3 1.0
Chlorophyta 57.1 -
Unidentified
animal material 100.0 -
Frequency is the percent of the stomachs examined containing the
item listed. The average number is of the food items found in
stomachs which contained that item (04).
HOME RANGE/TERRITORY:
No information is known concerning territoriality in leopard
darters.
PERIODICITY:
Periodicity is unknown for this species.
MIGRATION PATTERNS:
Migration patterns are unknown for Percina pantherina.
COVER/SHELTER REQUIREMENTS:
Adult leopard darters typically are associated with the upland
reaches of the Little River and its major tributaries. Streams are
characterized by relatively steep gradients that drain mountainous or
hilly terrain, with rubble, boulder, and bedrock bottoms. The species
Life History - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
is most often found in larger and intermediate streams and typically
does not inhabit smaller headwater tributaries. They are, however,
occasionally collected in smaller streams (10).
All the early literature described the leopard darter as a riffle
dwelling species (02,11,12,06). However, more recent data demonstrates
that moderately shallow pool areas are the preferred habitat of adult
leopard darters in the Cossatot River (06), despite considerable
sampling effort to collect them in adjacent riffles. Jones (09)
observed that leopard darters in Glover Creek occurred most frequently
in pool habitat during all seasons, although specimens occasionally
were captured in riffles and runs during winter and spring.
Quantitative measurements of darter relative density within various
intervals of water depth, water velocities, and substrates showed that
densities were highest at depths of 20 to 79 cm, at velocities of 0
to 19 cm/s, and in rubble and boulder substrate types (09). See the
field N-Habitat for additional information.
REPRODUCTIVE SITE REQUIREMENTS:
Nothing is known about the reproductive behavior or habitat of
the species and no observations of spawning were made in Glover Creek
during a study (10). However, the occurrence of leopard darters in
riffle areas during spring suggests that this habitat may be used for
spawning.
REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS:
Available data indicate that the leopard darter population has
remained stable throughout most of Glover Creek and at several
locations in the Cossatot River. Insufficient data is available to
evaluate leopard darter populations in other tributaries. No data
pertaining to distribution and abundance of subadult leopard darters
is available.
Nothing is known of the reproductive behavior or spawning habitat
of the species. However, Jones (09) hypothesized that leopard darters
probably spawn in riffles during the spring. This hypothesis is
supported by the increased incidence of capture in riffles during the
spring.
Sexing of the species can be accomplished by examining the
modified midventral scales. Only males have these enlarged midventral
scales on the breast and in an incomplete row on the midbelly (10).
Since the scales are permanent, sexing can be done during any season.
Of the 88 specimens examined by Robison (04), 45 were males and 43
were females. These values give a sex ratio of approximately 1:1.
Of the 165 specimens collected prior to 1977, 88 were examined by
Robison (04) for age and growth. The smallest individual examined,
was 22 mm Standard Length (SL). The largest specimen was a female
76.8 mm SL and was over 3 years old. Of the 139 specimens collected
in Glover Creek (11), 137 were measured for Total Length (TL). Total
Lengths ranged from 45 to 92 mm TL, with a mean and standard deviation
of 70.2 and 9.0 respectively. The individuals measuring 92 mm TL were
the largest known leopard darters collected. In addition, scales were
removed from 14 specimens in the OK State Univ. Mus. for age
determinations. Leopard darters 53 to 74 mm TL were 1 year old and
those 74 to 80 mm TL were 2 years old. After comparing age
Life History - 2 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
determinations with the length frequency distribution, Jones et al.
(11) assigned ages to the following groups:
<50 mm, age=0;
51 to 71 mm, age=I;
72 to 87 mm, age=II; and
> 88 mm, age=III.
The only available data on fecundity are those of Robison (04)
who examined 7 specimens. Number of mature ova ranged from 260 to
418, with immature ova from 510 to 2302.
Very few young leopard darters have been collected and
essentially nothing is known of early life history.
PARENTAL CARE:
Unknown.
POPULATION BIOLOGY:
Although density of leopard darters was low, it was apparent that
the species is successfully maintaining populations throughout most of
the main drainage system of Glover Creek. Cedar Creek was the only
tributary sampled where the species was not collected. Robison (04)
concluded that leopard darters do not typically inhabit smaller
headwater tributaries but prefer larger more riverine situations. The
failure to collect the species in Cedar Creek and the small numbers
collected in Pine and Carter Creeks support Robison's conclusion. On
the other hand, higher numbers and densities in the East and West
Forks than in the main stream of Glover Creek suggest that
intermediate-size streams, rather than the larger riverine type areas,
represent the major area of abundance.
Leopard darter densities were low compared with most density
estimates published for other darter species. Total population
estimates indicate that a maximum of 500 individuals exist (05). Low
densities appear characteristic for all darter species in Glover Creek
(13). Density of the orangebelly darter, the most abundant species,
averaged only about 1 per square meter. Low density of darters in
Glover Creek may be related to extreme variation in seasonal discharge
(04). Spring flooding may affect reproductive success by interrupting
spawning, disturbing completed spawns or decreasing larval survival.
Low flows in summer and fall may also cause periods of stress by
reducing habitat availability.
Previous workers described the leopard darter as a riffle
dweller (02,01,06). Data, and similar work on the Cossatot River
in AR by Robison (10), demonstrate that adult leopard darters occur
predominately in pools during all seasons. Nothing is known about the
reproductive behavior or habitat of the species and no observations of
spawning were made in Glover Creek during this study (10). However,
the occurrence of leopard darters in riffle areas during spring
suggests that this habitat may be used for spawning.
SPECIES INTERRELATIONSHIPS:
There is no data on the diseases or parasites of the leopard
darter (04). The species has been collected with a wide variety of
fishes. Darter species with which the leopard darter is most commonly
associated are; Percina caprodes, P. copelandi, and Etheostoma
Life History - 3 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
radiosum. Other darters occasionally collected with the leopard
darter include; P. sciera, P. phoxocephala, E. spectabile, E. nigrum,
E. asprigene and E. gracile (04,10).
No definitive data is available on predators of the leopard
darter. However, potential predators include; Esox americanus,
Lepomis cyanellus, L. macrochirus, L. megalotis, Micropterus
salmoides, M. punctulatus, M. dolomieui and Ictalurus punctatus (04).
OTHER LIFE HISTORY DESCRIPTORS:
No additional information can be added at this time.
Life History - 4 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
RESULT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Beneficial Developing fishways
Beneficial Maintaining/Controlling Water Flow
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Mining
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Road Maintainance Actions
Beneficial Maintaining undisturbed/undeveloped areas
Beneficial Restricting/regulating human use of habitats
Beneficial Land Acquisition
Beneficial Controlling pollution [thermal, chemical, physical]
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Pesticide Use
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Herbicide Use
Adverse Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Existing Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Adverse Highway/Railroads
Existing Highway/Railroads
Adverse Soil compaction by heavy equipment in mine areas
Existing Soil compaction by heavy equipment in mine areas
Adverse Siltation
Existing Siltation
Adverse Water Temperature Alteration
Existing Water Temperature Alteration
Adverse Surface Mines
Existing Surface Mines
Adverse Dissolved Oxygen Reduction
Existing Dissolved Oxygen Reduction
Adverse Water Level Fluctuation
Existing Water Level Fluctuation
Adverse Flooding
Existing Flooding
Adverse Reservoirs
Existing Reservoirs
Adverse Migration barriers
Existing Migration barriers
Adverse Dredging
Existing Dredging
Adverse Developing/maintaining stream bank vegetation
Existing Developing/maintaining stream bank vegetation
Adverse Environmental Contamination/Pollution
Existing Environmental Contamination/Pollution
Adverse Erosion
Existing Erosion
Adverse
Existing
Adverse Forest Alteration
Existing Forest Alteration
Adverse Harvesting
Existing Harvesting
Management Practices - 1 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
COMMENTS ON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -
Little is known of the reasons for the present status. The
species may have always been rare and restricted in distribution.
Reservoir construction and forest practices would seem to be the most
important limiting factors.
The endemic distribution and naturally low abundance of this
species dictate that any major impact on the Little River system
potentially threatens the continued survival of leopard darters.
Several such threats presently occur in the Little River. As the area
develops economically, pressures on the species and its habitat are
expected to increase.
Impoundments: Presently, impoundments pose the greatest threat
to the leopard darter through inundation of habitat and alterations in
the quantity and quality of downstream flows (06,07). Downstream from
impoundments, dissolved oxygen content, water flow alteration,
temperature alteration, untimely or excessive discharge releases, in
addition to other water quality parameters are altered and would not
be adequate for propagation of the leopard darter (04). Many
reservoirs impound the Little River system; Pine Creek Reservoir on
the upper Little River; Broken Bow Lake on the Mountain Fork River;
DeQueen Reservoir on the Rolling Fork River; Gillham Reservoir on the
Cossatot River; Dierks Reservoir on the Saline River; and Millwood
Reservoir in Howard and Little River counties (AR) (which is too far
downstream to affect leopard darter habitat). All these impoundments
are considered threats to the species (04). Only 3 leopard darters
are known to have been collected below reservoirs: 2 below Gillham
Reservoir and 1 below Pine Creek Reservoir (04,08). During 1986, no
leopard darters were found within historic localities below
Gillham Reservoir (14).
Very little can be done about the impact of present impoundments.
Increased demands for water for agricultural/municipal uses and
planned flood control structures may force further reservoir
construction (08). Of all the proposed reservoirs, Lukfata Lake,
which is authorized but not funded, on Glover Creek would have the
greatest impact on leopard darters by threatening the largest known
populations of the species.
Spring flooding may affect reproductive success by interrupting
spawning, disturbing completed spawns or decreasing larval survival.
Low flows in summer and fall may also cause periods of stress by
reducing habitat availability.
Silviculture: Silviculture, a major economic activity in the
Little River basin, and associated road construction, currently cause
many alterations within the watershed. Potential impacts from road
construction, heavy equipment and removal of stream side vegetation
include increased turbidity, erosion and sedimentation in streams.
These activities threaten the leopard darter through habitat
degradation and altered water quality.
Agriculture and Industry: As a result of agriculture and
industry, the incidence of fish kills in the Little River is
increasing (04). For example, one fish kill involved the flushing of
Management Practices - 2 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
creosote from a lumber treatment waste pond into the Cossatot River
(AR) and affected 10 miles of stream. As agriculture and industry
continue to develop, the potential threat to the species increases
concerning water quality degradation. The use of herbicides,
pesticides and fertilizers also have the potential of severe habitat
alteration and a direct effect on the species itself.
Gravel Removal Operations: Several gravel removal operations in
the Little River drainage threaten local leopard darter populations
through habitat destruction and water quality degradation (04).
Gravel removal from the stream bed or bank produce unsuitable habitat
conditions for leopard darter survival.
APPROVED PLAN:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Leopard Darter Recovery Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 70 pp.
One of the principal tasks of the Recovery Plan is the
identification of important leopard darter habitat. Although leopard
darters have been documented on the Little River and various
tributaries, including designated Critical Habitat, numerous
tributaries with potential habitat still need to be surveyed.
Twenty-one areas deserving further evaluation are listed in the
Recovery Plan, along with a summary of sampling procedures and
schedules. Known leopard darter populations and any new populations
found during this survey should be monitored at least biannually.
Several aspects of the leopard darter's life history need to be
studied including:
1) Reproductive ecology.
2) Early life history.
3) Seasonal variation in preferred habitat.
Protection and management of leopard darter habitat could be
enhanced by obtaining cooperative management agreements with private
landowners, since most of the land in the Little River system is
privately owned. State and Federal agencies managing lands adjacent
to leopard darter streams should incorporate consideration for the
species into their land management plans to the greatest extent
possible. Monitoring of streams within the range of the leopard
darter for activities that may prove detrimental to the species should
be done, including aerial surveys and the activation of local watch
committees. Leopard darters and their habitat should be protected
to the full extent provided by Federal and State laws. Finally,
information on the leopard darter should be compiled into a
comprehensive education package and made available to interested
parties.
Although not specifically mentioned in the Recovery Plan, options
concerning habitat management and protection may consist of
controlling the use of herbicides and pesticides in the surrounding
agricultural areas or during road maintenance activities. Land use
zoning to control development (agricultural or gravel mining
operations with possible erosion and siltation) and associated
pollutants may also be a desirable option to benefit recovery.
Management Practices - 3 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
Providing fish passage devices may be a future recovery action as more
impoundments are funded. Controlling or maintaining water flows to
provide sufficient habitat seasonlly for reporduction and growth as
well as the movement of this species, may also be beneficial to
enhancing population numbers.
Surveys were conducted in 1986 and 1987 by the Oklahoma
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit to evaluate areas within
the Little River system not previously surveyed.
Management Practices - 4 (DRAFT) - References
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
References
***** REFERENCES FOR ALL NARRATIVES EXCEPT N-OCCURRENCE *****
01 Miller, R.J. and H.W. Robison. 1973. The fishes of Oklahoma. OK
State Univ. Press, Stillwater.
02 Moore, G.A. and J.D. Reeves. 1955. Hadropterus pantherinus, a new
percid fish from Oklahoma and Arkansas. Copeia 1955:89-92.
03 Bailey, R.M., H.E. Winn and C.L. Smith. 1954. Fishes from the
Escambia River, Alabama and Florida, with ecologic and taxonomic
notes. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phil. 106:109-164.
04 Robison, H.W. 1978. The leopard darter (a status report).
Endangered Species Report 3, USFWS, Albuquerque, NM.
05 Hubbs, C.L. and A.I. Ortenburger. 1969. Fishes collected in
Oklahoma and Arkansas in 1927. Univ. of OK Bull. 434, Pub. Univ.
OK Biol. Surv. 1:45-112.
06 Eley, R.L., J.C. Randolf and R.J. Miller. 1975. Current status of
the leopard darter, Percina pantherina. Southwest Nat. 20:343-354.
07 Hubbs, C.L. and J. Pigg. 1976. The effects of impoundments on
Threatened fishes of Oklahoma. Ann. OK Acad. Sci. 5:113-117.
08 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan. 1980. Oklahoma Water Resources
Board, Publ. No. 94. Oklahoma City, OK. 248 pp.
09 Jones, R.N., D.J. Orth and O.E. Maughan. 1984. Abundance and
preferred habitat of the leopard darter, Percina pantherina in
Glover Creek, Oklahoma. Copeia 1984, 2:376-382.
10 Jones, R.N., O.E. Maughan, H.W. Robison and R.J. Miller. 1983.
Status of the leopard darter in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Endangered
Species Report 12, USFWS, Albuquerque, NM.
11 Oklahoma Biological Survey. 1972. Pre- and post-impoundment
analysis of fish populations in the Mountain Fork River, McCurtain
County, Oklahoma. Report prepared under contract DAC 256-73-C-0023
with the COE, Tulsa District. Tulsa, OK. 76 pp.
12 Cloutman, D.G. and L.L. Olmsted. 1974. A survey of the fishes of
the Cossatot River in southwestern Arkansas. Southwest Nat. 19:
257-266.
13 Jones, R.N. 1981. The community structure and interrelationships
among darters (Percidae) in Glover Creek, Oklahoma, USA. Unpubl.
MS Thesis. OK State Univ., Stillwater.
14 Leon, S.C., M.T. Ferguson, E.O. Maughn, and A.V. Zale. 1987.
Distribution and abundances of the leopard darter,
Percina pantherina (Moore and Reeves). Rpt. prepared under
contract 1-5-28256 with the COE, Tulsa District, Tulsa, OK.
34 pp.
***** REFERENCES FOR N-OCCURRENCE NARRATIVE ONLY *****
01 Miller, R.J. and H.W. Robison. 1973. The fishes of Oklahoma. OK
State Univ. Press, Stillwater.
02 Taylor, J. and F. Wade. 1972. Biological inventory of the Glover
Basin, Oklahoma. Report prepared by Southeastern State College
under contract no. DAWC 56-7-2-C-0086 with the COE, Tulsa District.
23 pp.
References - 1 (DRAFT) - References
Species DARTER, LEOPARD
Species Id ESIS252007
Date 14 MAR 96
03 Eley, R.L., J.C. Randolf and R.J. Miller. 1975. Current status of
the leopard darter, Percina pantherina. Southwest Nat. 20:343-354.
04 Robison, H.W. 1978. The leopard darter (a status report).
Endangered Species Report 3, USFWS, Albuquerque, NM.
05 Jones, R.N., O.E. Maughan, H.W. Robison, and R.J. Miller. 1983.
Status of the leopard darter in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Endangered
Species Report 12, USFWS, Albuquerque, NM.
06 Jones, R.N. 1983. Recovery Plan for the Leopard Darter (Percina
pantherina Moore and Reeves). Agency review draft. Prepared for
the USFWS under contract no. 20181-0189-83. Albuquerque, NM.
07 Jones, R.N., D.J. Orth and O.E. Maughan. 1984. Abundance and
preferred habitat of the leopard darter, Percina pantherina in
Glover Creek, Oklahoma. Copeia 1984, 2:376-382.
08 Jones, R.N. 1981. The community structure and interrelationships
among darters (Percidae) in Glover Creek, Oklahoma, USA. Unpubl.
MS Thesis. OK State Univ., Stillwater.
09 Maughan, O.E. 1986. Personal communication. Oklahoma Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oklahoma State University,
LSW 433, Stillwater, OK 74078.
10 Leon, S.C., M.T. Ferguson, E.O. Maughn, and A.V. Zale. 1987.
Distribution and abundances of the leopard darter
Percina pantherina (Moore and Reeves). Rpt. prepared under
contract 1-5-28256 with the COE, Tulsa District, Tulsa, OK.
34 pp.
11 Leon, S.C. 1987. Pers. comm. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv.,
Fisheries, Albuquerque, NM.
References - 2