DOCSLIB.ORG

Neosho Madtom Determined to Be Threatened

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Neosho Madtom Determined to Be Threatened University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln US Fish & Wildlife Publications US Fish & Wildlife Service 1990 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Neosho Madtom Determined To Be Threatened Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usfwspubs Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Neosho Madtom Determined To Be Threatened" (1990). US Fish & Wildlife Publications. 201. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usfwspubs/201 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Fish & Wildlife Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in US Fish & Wildlife Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 21148 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 1990 I Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The Cottonwood and Spring Rivers are With the exception of mainstream part of the Neosho River drainage. Federal reservoirs, and Flint Hills Fish and Wildlife Service Specimens misidentified as furious National Wildlife Refuge at the upper Ladtom (Schilbeodes eleutherus) and end of John Redmond Reservoir, all 50 CFR Part 17 rindled madtom (Schilbeodes miurus) stream reaches in the range of the PIN 1O18-AB31 3lso were collected from the Illinois Neosho madtom are in private Ri ‘er in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma, in ownership. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 1946 (Moore and Paden 1950). The Neosho madtom is small, with and Plants; Neosho Madtom Subsequent collections in 1948 and 1950 adults averaging less than 7.5 cm (3 Determined To Be Threatened confirmed the presence of Neosho inches) long. It is characterized by madtom in the lower Illinois River having a midcaudal brownish stripe of AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service. (Wagner et al. 1984). ‘I’hese are the only pigment and a relatively deep body. The Interior. recorded occurrences of this species humeral process is moderately long, ACTION: Final rule. outside of the Neosho River drainage. with somewhat reduced serrations of Moss (1981) made later collections at the pectoral spine. The adipose fin is SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service three historical sites on the Illinois well connected with the caudal fin. The (Service) determines a fish, the Neosho River, but found no Neosho madtoms. madtom (Noturusplocidus), to be a mottled skin pigment readily He concluded that hypolimnetic distinguishes this speciesfrom other threatened species under the authority discharges from Tenkiller Ferry Dam species belonging to the same genus of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 may have produced temperatures that (Act), as amended. The madlom is found within its range (Taylor 1969, were too low for successful reproduction Wagner et al. 1984). currently known from the Neosho River and growth of the species. It is believed The species is almost exclusively (Grand Riverin Oklahoma) drainage: in the species is extirpated from the lower the Neosho, Cottonwood, and Spring found in riffles (Cross and Collins 1975, Illinois River (Wagner et al. 1984). Deacon 1961), but exceptions to this Rivers in southeastern Kansas, Sixty-eight percent of the known southwestern Missouri, and generalization may be observed during collections of this species are from 21 early life stages and during spawning northeastern Oklahoma. Habitat locations in the Neosho River (Wagner destruction and modification, principally periods. Moss (1981) found that the et al. 1984). The most upstream location Neosho madtom demonstrates a strong due to impoundments, dredging is in Lyon County, Kansas, and themost activities, and increased water downstream is near Miami, in extreme selection for small gravel substrates, demands, have decreased the usually less than 25 mm (1 inch) in northern Ottawa County, Oklahoma, diameter, and is only abundant on riffles distribution and abundance of the indicating the species is occupying at species and isolated it into three with 8—16 mm [% to %-inch) gravel least the northern portion of its historic prevalent. The substrate must be loosely populations. This rule identifies the range. Although its original range taxon as one in need of conservation, packed so the Neosho madtom can included the entire Neosho (Grand) “wriggle” down into the gravel. implements protective measures, and River drainage mainstreams, Moss makes available recovery measures (1981) was unable to locate specimens in Adults utilize moderate to swift provided by the Act. suitable habitat between the reservoirs currents, while juveniles aremost often found in areas of low current. Juveniles EFFECTIVE DATE: June 21, 1990. along this river in Oklahoma, indicating are found in depths from 0.1—1.0 m (4 to ADDRESSES: The complete file for this that reservoir construction has had an adverse impact on Neosho madtom 39 inches), while adults tend to use rule is available for inspection, by depths less than 0.3 m (12 inches) (Moss appointment, during normal business populations. Records ofNeosho madtom from the 1981). Wagner et al. (1984) found that hours at the Service’s Kansas State habitat use appeared to be very specific Office, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, Cottonwood River, which is a tributary of the Neosho River, are from 8 localities and suitable habitat was easy to 315 Houston Street, Suite E, Manhattan, Identify. Moss (1981) speculated that Kansas 66502. and 22 collections, with the confluence with Middle Creek near Elmdale, Chase spawning occurs in late June and July, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: County, Kansas, the most upstream and that madtoma feed primarily on Daniel Muihern, at the above address, locality. Collections made in 1983 along aquatic insects. telephone (913) 539—3474. the Cottonwood River indicate that the On two occasions in the recent past, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: species is relatively stable in this river Neosho madtom populations have suffered severe reductions. A drought in Background (Wagner et al. 1984). The distribution of this species in the 1952—56 depleted Kansas population Gilbert’s (1886) collection of aNuturus Spring River is limited to only seven levels, but the species has subsequently specimen from the Neosho River near collections from three localities (Wagner returned to earlier levels of abundance Emporia, Kansas, apparently is the first et al. 1984, Moss 1981, Pflieger 1971, (Deacon 1961). A second reduction was known record of the Neosho madtom. Branson et al. 1969). Collections from documented in 1967 when Cross and Two more specimens were taken from both Kansas and Missouri were taken Braasch (1968) found the species absent the Neosho River in Coffey County by very near the State line. from all their sample stations in the the University of Kansas Biological The current distribution of the Neosho Neosho River and at the confluence of Survey in 1912 (Wagner et al. 1984). niadtom is restricted to the Neosho the Cottonwood Riverand the South Additional collections were made in River drainage: the Neosho River in Fork of the Cottonwood River. The 1951 and 1952 in the Neosho River in Kansas (Lyon, Coffey, Woodson. Allen. species had been locally abundant at Kansas and Oklahoma, and also the Neosho, Labette, and Cherokee these same stations in 1951 and 1952. Cottonwood River in Kansas (Taylor Counties) and Oklahoma (Ottawa and Cross and Braasch (1968) attributed the 1969, Wagner et al. 1984). Specimens of Craig Counties); the Cottonwood River decline to numerous fish kills in 1966 Neosho madtom were collected in the in Kansas (Lyon and Chase Counties); and 1067 caused by runoff from cattle Spring River in Kansas in 1963 and in and the Spring River in Missouri (Jasper feedlots. Pollution laws regulating Missouri in 1964 (Wagner et al. 1984). County) and Kansas (Cherokee County). feedlot runoff were passed in 1967, and Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 99 / Tuesday,_May 22, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 21149 collections made by Moss (1981) in these Comments received during the public provide benefits above and beyond areas indicate that the species’ comment period are covered in the species listing. The species is population had returned to earlier levels following summary. Comments of a widespread (though not abundant) and of abundance. similar nature or point were grouped mobile throughout linear stream Removal of sand and gravel may have into three general issues. These issues, drainages. Though gravel riffle areas are drastic short-term effects, but overa and the Service’s response to each, are clearly important, they may not be the longer time period the species may be discussed below. only important habitat areas for the able to recover due to the natural Issue 1: Threats to t~~eSpecies Neosho madtom. And, though it appears depositional process that takes place possible to delineate specificgravel after the disturbance ceases (Wagner et Response. One commentor questioned riffle areas that the species is presently a!. 1984). Reservoir construction is a whether or not small tributary using, some Neosho madtom may shift major threat to the species (Moss 1981, watershed structures would prove a usage to new gravel riffle areas arising Wagner at al. 1984). No specimens have threat to Neosho madtom habitat. The from changes in streamdynamics. The been collected from five reservoirs Service believes that these structures only way to legitimately identify all constructed within the species’ range, could result in either beneficial or important riffle habitats would be to end habitat inundation is assumed to ad~erseeffects, depending on designate all gravel riffles within the have caused local extirpation. The lower circumstances. For example, stabilized three rivers in question. This, in effect. section ofthe Neosho River in flows could benefit the species if they would state that any impact at or Oklahoma is a series of reservoirs that reduce the threat allow-flow drought upstream of any riffle could constitute has eliminated as much as one-third of conditions, while elimination of peak an effect. This could be viewed as an the original range of the species flood flows could adversely affect the overly protective approach for (Wagner et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Restoration and Maintenance of the Access to the Neosho River at Jacobs Creek-John Redmond Reservoir)
    FEASIBILITY STUDY (RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ACCESS TO THE NEOSHO RIVER AT JACOBS CREEK-JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR) 2008 Prepared for Kansas Water Office 901 South Kansas Topeka, KS 66612 Prepared by Watershed Institute, Inc. 1200 SW Executive Dr. Topeka, KS 66615 www.watershedinstitute.biz Cover Page Photo: Neosho River Logjam from Jacobs Landing FEASIBILITY STUDY — NEOSHO RIVER LOGJAM ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION...........................................................................................................2 PROJECT SETTING ...............................................................................................................................2 Neosho River Logjam..........................................................................................................................4 NEOSHO RIVER RESEARCH...............................................................................................................4 Natural and Regulated Flows/Historical Droughts ............................................................................4 High-Flow Frequency/Channel Geometry..........................................................................................5 Geomorphic Effects/Overflow Dams...................................................................................................5 Channel Stability Downstream from John Redmond Dam
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Bryan Et Al. 2004
    Environmental Biology of Fishes 70: 80, 2004. © 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Threatened fishes of the world: Noturus placidus Taylor, 1969 (Ictaluridae) Janice L. Bryana, Mark L. Wildhaberb & Douglas B. Noltiea aDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, 302 ABNR, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, U.S.A (e-mail: [email protected]) bU.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, 4200 New Haven Road, Columbia, MO 65201, U.S.A Common names: Neosho madtom (T). Conservation status: Listed federally as threatened 22 May 1990 (USFWS 1991). Identification: One of 25 madtom species, distinguished from four madtoms in its range by two distinct crescent-shaped bands of pig- ment on caudal fin and lack of dark pigment extending to edge of adipose fin (Taylor 1969). Pectoral spines have poorly developed saw-like teeth on front margin. Fin ray counts: anal rays 13–16 (14.72); pelvic rays 8–12 (9.06), soft pelvic rays 7–9 (7.99); caudal rays 49–59 (54.32); vertebrae: 32–36 (33.62). Adults typically greater than 50 mm TL (Bulger & Edds 2001). Males in spawning condition exhibit swollen cephalic epaxial muscles and elongated genital papil- lae; both sexes exhibit reddened tooth patches during spawning season. Photograph by Janice L. Bryan. Distribution: Endemic to Neosho River basin in Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma (Taylor 1969). Species’ range historically extended south to Illinois River in Oklahoma; currently restricted by reservoirs to approximately two-thirds of original range (Moss 1981). Abundance: Large population fluctuations occur seasonally and annually (Moss 1981). In 1 year, Wilkinson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • CHECK out OTHER FISHING INFORMATION at OUR WEBSITE: Kansas Fishing: We’Ve Come a Long Way, Baby!
    Details Back Cover CHECK OUT OTHER FISHING INFORMATION AT OUR WEBSITE: www.kdwp.state.ks.us Kansas fishing: We’ve come a long way, baby! hat's right. Kansas fishing isn't what it used to be. It's much more. Oh, we still have some of the best channel, Tflathead, and blue catfishing to be found, but today Kansas anglers have great variety. If you're an old-school angler and still want to catch the whiskered fish native to our streams and rivers, you have more opportunities today than ever. Channel catfish are found in nearly every stream, river, pond, lake, and reservoir in the state. They remain one of the most popular angling species. To keep up with demand, state fish hatcheries produce mil- lions of channel cats each year. Some are stocked into lakes as fry, but more are fed and grown to catchable size, then stocked into one of many state and community lakes around the state. Our reservoirs hold amazing numbers of channel catfish, and for the most part, the reservoir cats are overlooked by anglers fishing for other species. Fisheries biologists consider channel cats an underutilized resource in most large reservoirs. For sheer excitement, the flathead catfish is still king. Monster flatheads weighing 60, 70 and even 80 pounds are caught each owned, but some reaches are leased by the department through summer. Most of the truly large flatheads come from the larger the Fishing Impoundments and Stream Habitats (F.I.S.H) rivers in the eastern half of the state, where setting limb and trot Program, while other reaches are in public ownership.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Stream Fishes
    A POCKET GUIDE TO Kansas Stream Fishes ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ By Jessica Mounts Illustrations © Joseph Tomelleri Sponsored by Chickadee Checkoff, Westar Energy Green Team, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, Kansas Alliance for Wetlands & Streams, and Kansas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents • Introduction • 2 • Fish Anatomy • 3 • Species Accounts: Sturgeons (Family Acipenseridae) • 4 ■ Shovelnose Sturgeon • 5 ■ Pallid Sturgeon • 6 Minnows (Family Cyprinidae) • 7 ■ Southern Redbelly Dace • 8 ■ Western Blacknose Dace • 9 ©Ryan Waters ■ Bluntface Shiner • 10 ■ Red Shiner • 10 ■ Spotfin Shiner • 11 ■ Central Stoneroller • 12 ■ Creek Chub • 12 ■ Peppered Chub / Shoal Chub • 13 Plains Minnow ■ Silver Chub • 14 ■ Hornyhead Chub / Redspot Chub • 15 ■ Gravel Chub • 16 ■ Brassy Minnow • 17 ■ Plains Minnow / Western Silvery Minnow • 18 ■ Cardinal Shiner • 19 ■ Common Shiner • 20 ■ Bigmouth Shiner • 21 ■ • 21 Redfin Shiner Cover Photo: Photo by Ryan ■ Carmine Shiner • 22 Waters. KDWPT Stream ■ Golden Shiner • 22 Survey and Assessment ■ Program collected these Topeka Shiner • 23 male Orangespotted Sunfish ■ Bluntnose Minnow • 24 from Buckner Creek in Hodgeman County, Kansas. ■ Bigeye Shiner • 25 The fish were catalogued ■ Emerald Shiner • 26 and returned to the stream ■ Sand Shiner • 26 after the photograph. ■ Bullhead Minnow • 27 ■ Fathead Minnow • 27 ■ Slim Minnow • 28 ■ Suckermouth Minnow • 28 Suckers (Family Catostomidae) • 29 ■ River Carpsucker •
    [Show full text]
  • The 1951 Kansas - Missouri Floods
    The 1951 Kansas - Missouri Floods ... Have We Forgotten? Introduction - This report was originally written as NWS Technical Attachment 81-11 in 1981, the thirtieth anniversary of this devastating flood. The co-authors of the original report were Robert Cox, Ernest Kary, Lee Larson, Billy Olsen, and Craig Warren, all hydrologists at the Missouri Basin River Forecast Center at that time. Although most of the original report remains accurate today, Robert Cox has updated portions of the report in light of occurrences over the past twenty years. Comparisons of the 1951 flood to the events of 1993 as well as many other parenthetic remarks are examples of these revisions. The Storms of 1951 - Fifty years ago, the stage was being set for one of the greatest natural disasters ever to hit the Midwest. May, June and July of 1951 saw record rainfalls over most of Kansas and Missouri, resulting in record flooding on the Kansas, Osage, Neosho, Verdigris and Missouri Rivers. Twenty-eight lives were lost and damage totaled nearly 1 billion dollars. (Please note that monetary damages mentioned in this report are in 1951 dollars, unless otherwise stated. 1951 dollars can be equated to 2001 dollars using a factor of 6.83. The total damage would be $6.4 billion today.) More than 150 communities were devastated by the floods including two state capitals, Topeka and Jefferson City, as well as both Kansas Cities. Most of Kansas and Missouri as well as large portions of Nebraska and Oklahoma had monthly precipitation totaling 200 percent of normal in May, 300 percent in June, and 400 percent in July of 1951.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis Rafinesqueana)
    Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) Cover photo: Dr. Chris Barnhart (Missouri State University) Prepared by: The Neosho Mucket Recovery Team This species biological report informs the Draft Recovery Plan for the Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017). The Species Biological Report is a comprehensive biological status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the Neosho Mucket and provides an account of species overall viability. A Recovery Implementation Strategy, which provides the expanded narrative for the recovery activities and the implementation schedule, is available at https://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es/. The Recovery Implementation Strategy and Species Biological Report are finalized separately from the Recovery Plan and will be updated on a routine basis. Executive Summary The Neosho Mucket is a freshwater mussel endemic to the Illinois, Neosho, and Verdigris River basins in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. It is associated with shallow riffles and runs comprising gravel substrate and moderate to swift currents, but prefers near-shore areas or areas out of the main current in Shoal Creek and Illinois River. It does not occur in reservoirs lacking riverine characteristics. The life-history traits and habitat requirements of the Neosho Mucket make it extremely susceptible to environmental change (e.g., droughts, sedimentation, chemical contaminants). Mechanisms leading to the decline of Neosho Mucket range from local (e.g., riparian clearing, chemical contaminants, etc.), to regional influences (e.g., altered flow regimes, channelization, etc.), to global climate change. The synergistic (interaction of two or more components) effects of threats are often complex in aquatic environments, making it difficult to predict changes in mussel and fish host(s) distribution, abundance, and habitat availability that may result from these effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Water Flow on Neosho Madtom
    Am. Midl. Nat. 156:305–318 Influence of Water Flow on Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus) Reproductive Behavior JANICE L. BRYAN1 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211 MARK L. WILDHABER U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, Missouri 65201 AND DOUGLAS B. NOLTIE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211 ABSTRACT.—The Neosho madtom is a small, short-lived catfish species endemic to gravel bars of the Neosho River in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, U.S.A. It spawns during summer in nesting cavities excavated in gravel. Although the species has survived dam construction within the Neosho River basin, its declining numbers resulted in it being added to the federal threatened species list in 1991. To test how water flow affects the reproductive behavior of Neosho madtoms, we compared activities of male-female pairs in static versus flowing-water aquaria. Using a behavioral catalog, we recorded their behavior sequences during randomly selected 5-min nighttime periods. For males and females, Jostle and Embrace were the most performed reproductive behaviors and the Jostle-Embrace-Carousel was the most performed reproductive behavior sequence. Water flow decreased the mean frequency of occurrence, percentage of time spent and mean event duration of male Nest Building. Because Neosho madtom courtship, reproduction and parental care is a complex and extended process, disturbances such as heightened river flows during the species’ spawning season may negatively affect nest quality and reproductive success. INTRODUCTION Many environmental cues trigger spawning in temperate fish species, including food abundance, photoperiod, temperature, flooding, lunar cycles and social interaction (Bye, 1984; Munro et al., 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Neosho River (Chanute) Water Quality Impairment: Copper
    NEOSHO BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD Water Body/Assessment Unit: Neosho River (Chanute) Water Quality Impairment: Copper 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Subbasin: Upper Neosho Counties: Coffey, Anderson, Woodson, Allen, and Neosho HUC 8: 11070204 HUC 11 (HUC 14s): 050 (010, 020, 050) Drainage Area: 448 square miles (Station 560 only) Main Stem Segments: 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 starting near confluence with Crooked Creek in southeastern Coffey County and traveling downstream through Woodson and Allen Counties to northwest Neosho County at monitoring station #560 and confluence with Sutton Creek (Figure 1). Tributary Segments: Sutton Creek (35), Slack Creek (30), Charles Branch Creek (27), Onion Creek (24), Elm Creek (1050), Rock Creek (7), Spring Creek (46), Indian Creek (924), Little Indian Creek (939), Martin Creek (49), Crooked Creek (44) Designated Uses: Special Aquatic Life Support, Primary Contact Recreation; Domestic Water Supply; Food Procurement; Ground Water Recharge; Industrial Water Supply Use; Irrigation Use; Livestock Watering Use for Main Stem Segments in HUC 11070204. Impaired Use: Expected Aquatic Life Support Water Quality Standard: Acute Criterion = WER[EXP[(0.9422*(LN(hardness)))-1.700]] Hardness-dependent criteria (KAR 28-16-28e(c)(2)(F)(ii)). Aquatic Life (AL) Support formulae are: (where Water Effects Ratio (WER) is 1.0 and hardness is in mg/L). 2. CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONDITION AND DESIRED ENDPOINT Level of Support for Designated Use under 2002 303(d): Not Supporting Aquatic Life Monitoring Site: Station 560 near Chanute Period of Record Used for Monitoring and Modeling: 1985 - 2001 for Station 560. Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) modeling period for soil data is 1998 – 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 145/Tuesday, July 29, 2003/Rules And
    44466 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 29, 2003 / Rules and Regulations areas in accordance with 44 CFR part #Depth in Dated: July 21, 2003. 60. feet above Anthony S. Lowe, ground. Interested lessees and owners of real *Elevation Mitigation Division Director, Emergency property are encouraged to review the Source of flooding and location in feet Preparedness and Response Directorate. (NGVD) proof Flood Insurance Study and Flood •Elevation [FR Doc. 03–19245 Filed 7–28–03; 8:45 am] Insurance Rate Map available at the in feet BILLING CODE 6718–04–P address cited below for each (NAVD) community. ALABAMA The base flood elevations and DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND modified base flood elevations are made Pike Road (Town), Mont- SECURITY final in the communities listed below. gomery County (FEMA Elevations at selected locations in each Docket No. D–7558) Federal Emergency Management community are shown. Little Catoma Creek: Agency National Environmental Policy Act. Approximately 1.5 miles up- stream of the confluence of 44 CFR Part 67 This rule is categorically excluded from Little Catoma Creek Tribu- the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, tary 1 ................................. *226 Final Flood Elevation Determinations Environmental Consideration. No Approximately 2.7 miles up- environmental impact assessment has stream of the confluence of AGENCY: Federal Emergency Little Catoma Creek Tribu- been prepared. tary 1 ................................. *232 Management Agency, Emergency Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Little Catoma Creek Tributary Preparedness and Response Directorate, Mitigation Division Director of the 1: Department of Homeland Security. Approximately 4,400 feet up- Emergency Preparedness and Response ACTION: Final rule. Directorate certifies that this rule is stream of the confluence with Little Catoma Creek ..
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from The
    Distribution Changes of Small Fishes in Streams of Missouri from the 1940s to the 1990s by MATTHEW R. WINSTON Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO 65201 February 2003 CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 10 Methods……………………………………………………………………………….. 17 The Data Used………………………………………………………………… 17 General Patterns in Species Change…………………………………………... 23 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 26 Results………………………………………………………………………………… 34 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 30 Conservation Status of Species……………………………………………….. 46 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 63 General Patterns in Species Change………………………………………….. 53 Conservation Status of Species………………………………………………. 63 Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………. 66 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………………….. 66 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………… 72 FIGURES 1. Distribution of samples by principal investigator…………………………. 20 2. Areas of greatest average decline…………………………………………. 33 3. Areas of greatest average expansion………………………………………. 34 4. The relationship between number of basins and ……………………….. 39 5. The distribution of for each reproductive group………………………... 40 2 6. The distribution of for each family……………………………………… 41 7. The distribution of for each trophic group……………...………………. 42 8. The distribution of for each faunal region………………………………. 43 9. The distribution of for each stream type………………………………… 44 10. The distribution of for each range edge…………………………………. 45 11. Modified
    [Show full text]
  • GRDA), an Agency of the State of Oklahoma
    PENSACOLA PROJECT FERC No. 1494 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN As Approved by the Board of Directors on June 11, 2008 GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY VINITA, OKLAHOMA PENSACOLA PROJECT FERC No. 1494 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN June 11, 2008 GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY VINITA, OKLAHOMA PENSACOLA PROJECT FERC NO. 1494 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN Executive Summary The Pensacola Project (FERC No. 1494) (Project) is an existing, federally licensed hydroelectric project located in northeastern Oklahoma that is owned and operated by the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA), an agency of the State of Oklahoma. Completed in 1940, the Project’s Pensacola Dam is the longest multi-arched dam in the world. The Pensacola Dam impounds the waters of the Grand River to form the Grand Lake O’ The Cherokees (Grand Lake). Grand Lake encompasses approximately 46,500 surface acres of water and 1,300 miles of shoreline. The Project boundary is located in close proximity to the shoreline and privately owned land is generally found mere feet from the water’s edge. Since its creation, Grand Lake has been a popular recreational and residential destination. During its history, Grand Lake has hosted the National Governor’s Conference and several nationally recognized fishing tournaments. It is the home of the nation’s oldest long distance regatta on an inland lake and the oldest yacht club in Oklahoma. Current uses of the shoreline include residential and commercial development, agriculture, and wildlife management areas. Grand Lake also has considerable value as an environmental resource. It contains significant aquatic and terrestrial habitat for a host of species. Additionally, the shoreline serves an important function in the local ecology.
    [Show full text]