DOCSLIB.ORG

Quapaw Agency Records Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Indian Archives Microfilm Guide Series 11: Quapaw National Records Compiled by Katie Bush Series 11: Quapaw Agency Records Table of Contents Census and Enrollment p. 3 Vital Statistics and Related Material p. 3 Agents and Agency p. 4 Quapaw Agency Letterpress Books p. 4 Letters Received, Copies of Letters Sent, and other Documents – Miscellaneous Tribes p. 5 Letters Received, Copies of Letters Sent, and Other Documents Pertaining to the Modoc p. 7 Letters Received, Copies of Letters Sent, and Other Documents Pertaining to the Ottawa p. 7 Letters Received, Copies of Letters Sent, and Other Documents Pertaining to the Peoria and Miami p. 7 Letters Received, Copies of Letters Sent, and Other Documents Pertaining to the Ponca p. 7 Letters Received, Copies of Letters Sent, and Other Documents Pertaining to the Quapaw p. 7 Letters Received, Copies of Letters Sent, and Other Documents Pertaining to the Seneca p. 8 Letters Received, Copies of Letters Sent, and Other Documents Pertaining to the Shawnee p. 8 Letters Received, Copies of Letters Sent, and Other Documents Pertaining to the Tonkawa p. 8 Letters Received, Copies of Letters Sent, and Other Documents Pertaining to the Wyandotte p. 9 Quapaw Agency Records: Miscellaneous p. 9 Indian History, Culture, and Acculturation p. 10 Land Ownership and Use p. 11 Schools and Churches p. 11 Series 11: Quapaw Agency Records Introduction In 1865 a special agent was stationed on the Spring River in northeastern Oklahoma, then Indian Territory, to care for the affairs of the Indian tribes living on their reservations east of the Neosho River and north of the Cherokee Nation. Some tribes had been residents since 1832. The Neosho Agency was the main agency and was located in Montgomery County, Kansas. In 1871, the Neosho Agency and the subagency were separated jurisdictionally with the latter being named the Quapaw Agency. The tribes, bands, and fragments of tribes, who were assigned reservations or lived temporarily at the agency, are listed below: Cayuga Chippewa Citizen Potawatomi (not assigned to the agency) Delaware (not assigned to the agency) Kaskaskia Miami (Eastern and some Western branch members) Modoc Munsee Nez Perce (temporary residence before moving to their own reservation at Oakland Agency) Oneida Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork, Ottawa of Rock de Boeuf Peoria Piankashaw Ponca (temporary residence before moving to their own reservation at Ponca Agency) Quapaw Seneca of Sandusky and Seneca of Lewiston Shawnee, including Eastern, some Western and temporarily, Black Bob Shawnee Band members Wea Wyandotte Fragments of the Six Nations, not always identified as to the tribe, and called New York Indians Below is a summary of the dates and congressional acts concerning the establishment of the different reservations, or the changes that occurred as land was ceded for settlement of other tribes. According to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs’ Annual Report, 1872, the combined original acreage assigned to all reserves was 289,920 acres. The figure cited in 1876 was 212,298 acres. The figure in brackets below each tribal name is the numbers of acres held in 1876. Reservation Establishment Quapaw Reservation May 13, 1833 (vii, 424), Feb. 23, 1867 (xv, 513) (1876, 56,685 acres) 56,245.21 acres allotted to tribal members Shawnee, Eastern Reservation July 20, 1831 (vii, 351), Feb. 23, 1867 (xv, 513) (1876, 13,088 acres) 10,484.81 acres allotted to tribal members 1 Seneca Reservation Feb. 23, 1831 (vii, 348), Dec. 29, 1832 (vii, 411), Feb. 23, 1867 (xv, 513) (1876, 51.958 acres) 25,821.55 acres allotted to tribal members Wyandotte Reservation Feb. 23, 1867 (xv, 513) (1876, 21,406 acres) 20,695.54 acres allotted to tribal members Peoria and Confederate Tribes (Kaskaskia, Miami, Piankashaw, Wea) Reservation Feb. 23, 1867 (xv, 513) (1876, 50,301 acres) 43,450 acres allotted to tribal members Ottawa of Blanchard’s Fork and of Roche de Boeuf Reservation Feb. 23, 1867 (xv, 513) (1876, 14,860 acres) 3,976 acres allotted to tribal members Modoc Reservation June 23, 1874 agreement with Eastern Shawnee, Mar. 3, 1875 (xviii, 447) (1876, 4,000 acres) 3,976 acres allotted to tribal members History of the Records The Quapaw Agency records, composed of papers and a few bound volumes, were brought to the Historical Society following the passage of the Congressional Act of Mar. 27, 1934 (. R. 5631 Public No. 133), which placed these and other noncurrent tribal records in the custody of the Oklahoma Historical Society. The records are composed of 26,073 pages including files for the different tribes and the agency schools’ records. They date from 1864-1909 with the majority falling in the 1870- 1880s period. When brought to the Historical Society, the records were in various states of order, and it was decided by Dr. Grant Foreman of the Society’s Board of Directors and Mrs. Rella Looney, Archivist (1929- 1974), to place them in usable research categories according to subject. This order in many files varied from their original agency filing order which could not be ascertained. Within each category, documents were filed chronologically and the subject categories were placed in file cases or shelved in alphabetical order under each agency. The records have proved to have had extensive research value and use to students of Indian culture and history in the past 42 years. Use of the records has been facilitated by an unpublished inventory of the categories within each agency’s holdings. This includes the name of the agency, the subject category, the inclusive dates, numbers of pages contained within each group, and location within the archives. In addition, indexing of the records has continued, but is as yet incomplete. In microfilming these documents, an attempt has been made to combine related categories, i.e. land allotment, leases and sales. This will not follow the present organization within the Archives, but it is thought that it will be the most convenient arrangement for research use. Individual tribal files in this agency may contain census, per capita, vital statistics and other data in addition to that contained in the general categories. 2 QA 1 Quapaw Agency Records: Letters and Documents Received – Correspondence Relating to Census, 1877-1897 Quapaw-Census: Dec. 10, 1877-June 11, 1897 Quapaw-Census: July 18, 1880-Feb. 3, 1893 Nez Perce-Census: Feb. 10, 1879 Ottawa-Census and Issues: 1878-1883 New York Indian Lists: Undated and Jan. 20, 1874 Confederated Peoria, Wea, Piankashaw, Kaskaskia, Peoria, and Miami-Census and Payment Rolls: Sep. 20, 1874-Apr. 16, 1899 Quapaw-Census-Eastern Shawnee - Census, Per Capita Payment Rolls, and List of Guardians and Administrators: Jan. 1872-Oct. 3, 1902 QA 2 Quapaw Agency Records: Vital Statistics and Related Material – Letters Received and other Documents: June 20, 1864-Dec. 28, 1901 Contains agency letters received and other documents pertaining to vital statistics, including births, deaths, divorce, marriages, per capita payment rolls, and other records listed below in their order of filming. Some cross references to other documents containing similar types of information are given. The files listed under tribal names, i.e. Quapaw Agency-Seneca, which are filmed on another roll, also contain information pertaining to vital statistics. Quapaw-Allotments: Aug. 13, 1878-July 10, 1896 Quapaw-Births: Mar. 21, 1884-Jan. 3, 1899 Quapaw-Citizenship: June 20, 1864-Jan. 17, 1885 Quapaw-Deaths: Sep. 25, 1878-Oct. 12, 1898 o See also, Police Book filmed on this roll Quapaw-Divorce: Jan. 13, 1884-Nov. 18, 1889 Quapaw-Estates: Jan. 28, 1876-Apr. 12, 1900 Quapaw-Guardianship: Apr. 11, 1876-Oct. 19, 1897 o See also Roll QA 1, census of Eastern Shawnee and Seneca for lists of guardians. Quapaw-Indian Children, Adoption of: Apr. 18, 1881 Quapaw-Indigent: Feb. 9, 1875 Quapaw-Insane: July 19, 1884-Aug. 4, 1884 Quapaw-Issues: Dec. 11, 1873-July 10, 1901 3 o Letters received, forms, circulars, supply reports; a volume, Miscellaneous Supplies, 1879-1880, listing Modoc, Quapaw, and Seneca School issues, Police list, etc. Quapaw-Marriages: Dec. 29, 1876-Aug. 26, 1890 o See also, Police Book filmed on this roll Quapaw-Pensions: May 20, 1876-Feb. 1, 1888 Quapaw-Per Capita: May 24, 1873-Dec. 28, 1901 o Pertaining to per capita payments to individuals of different tribes residing at the agency. Quapaw-Police Book: July 1, 1878-1881 o This volume contains certain vital statistics and has been filmed here as well as in its file category (Police) with other correspondence there. The volume has an index which includes pages of births, deaths, and marriages. Quapaw-Relations, Family: Apr. 28, 1886-Mar. 16, 1887 Quapaw-Vital Statistics : Oct. 4, 1875-July 24, 1888 Quapaw-Civil War: Sep. 16, 1864-Aug. 18, 1887 QA 3 Quapaw Agency Records: A Register of Letters Received from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and Secretary of the Interior Quapaw-Agents and Agency: June 15, 1880-July 18, 1884 o This volume lists the date received, the writer’s name and briefly describes the contents of each letter. Quapaw-Agents and Agency: Jan. 20, 1871-Nov. 22, 1898 QA 4 Quapaw Agency Records: Letterpress Books Volume 1 – Letters Sent: Dec. 10, 1879-Aug. 14, 1880 o This volume contains letterpress copies of letters and other documents sent by U. S. Indian Agents T. S. Kist and D. B. Dyer to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Secretary of the Interior, merchants, banks and others concerning agency and Indian affairs. o There is a partial index. Pages 96, 116, and 342 are missing. Volume 2 – Letters Sent: Apr. 11, 1881-Mar. 29, 1884 o This volume contains letterpress copies of letters and other documents sent by Daniel B. Dyer, U.
Recommended publications
  • Allotment and Fractionation Within the Citizen Potawatomi Nation

    Allotment and Fractionation Within the Citizen Potawatomi Nation

    CP 87 and CP100: Allotment and Fractionation Within the Citizen Potawatomi Nation Mark Welliver1 INTRODUCTION The letter came to my father’s house sometime in the early 1990s. His cousin wrote seeking to obtain his consent to sell CP 87 and 100, the Citizen Potawatomi tracts originally allotted to their grandparents, Ellen Yott and Joseph Haas, following the Dawes Act of 1887. By now, ownership of tracts 87 and 100 had become fractionated into eighteen undivided interests through multiple successive heirship divisions. The only way his cousin could alienate his interest was to convince all the heirs to relinquish, by unanimous consent, the trust status of the land. My father discarded the letter, only to pull it out of the wastebasket later and file it away. Yet, the letter had awakened repressed memories and bitter emotions of growing up as an orphan in the Concho and Chilocco BIA schools in Oklahoma, of the death of his parents, of the severe conditions of the BIA boarding schools, and of the abandonment at age nine by his uncle, his legal guardian. CP tracts 87 and 100, he decided, would remain in trust. Besides, he still had not given up the idea of growing pecans on his family’s land. The legacy of CP 87 and 100 dates back, through written narratives, to well over 100 years prior to the General Allotment Act of 1887.2 In the mid-1700s Mahteenose, the daughter of Menominee chief Ahkenepoweh, married a French and Indian fur trader named Joseph LeRoy at what is now Green Bay, Wisconsin.
  • Restoration and Maintenance of the Access to the Neosho River at Jacobs Creek-John Redmond Reservoir)

    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
  • Tribal and House District Boundaries

    Tribal and House District Boundaries

    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribal Boundaries and Oklahoma House Boundaries ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 22 ! 18 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 13 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 20 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Cimarron ! ! ! ! 14 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11 ! ! Texas ! ! Harper ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! n ! ! Beaver ! ! ! ! Ottawa ! ! ! ! Kay 9 o ! Woods ! ! ! ! Grant t ! 61 ! ! ! ! ! Nowata ! ! ! ! ! 37 ! ! ! g ! ! ! ! 7 ! 2 ! ! ! ! Alfalfa ! n ! ! ! ! ! 10 ! ! 27 i ! ! ! ! ! Craig ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! h ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 26 s ! ! Osage 25 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! a ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribes ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 16 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 21 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 58 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 38 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tribes by House District ! 11 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 Absentee Shawnee* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Woodward ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! 36 ! Apache* ! ! ! 40 ! 17 ! ! ! 5 8 ! ! ! Rogers ! ! ! ! ! Garfield ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 40 ! ! ! ! ! 3 Noble ! ! ! Caddo* ! ! Major ! ! Delaware ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! Mayes ! ! Pawnee ! ! ! 19 ! ! 2 41 ! ! ! ! ! 9 ! 4 ! 74 ! ! ! Cherokee ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ellis ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 41 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 72 ! ! ! ! ! 35 4 8 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5 3 42 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 77
  • CHECK out OTHER FISHING INFORMATION at OUR WEBSITE: Kansas Fishing: We’Ve Come a Long Way, Baby!

    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.
  • Quapaw Tribe for the Period 1871 to 1946

    Quapaw Tribe for the Period 1871 to 1946

    • ," • REPORT OF MEETING OF QUAPAW dENERAL COUNCIL HELD AT NORTF!­ EI\5TERN OKLAHOMA Aid,! COLLEGE, MIAMI, ~KLAHOMA, JULY 21, 1962. The meeting was called to Orrh'.T by Chairman .Robert Whitebird at Z: 15 p. ill • • Approxirnately 150 pC!"tJon,·? were in attendance. Minutes of this meeting will be sent to all thoce whC';Je nalnes and addresses appear on the attendance roster. Not aU in attendance ;:;ignc-o this roster. Mrs. Horner Gillnore l(~d the Invocation, which was the Lords Prayer in unlson. Chairman WhitehirrJ read the following agenda: Claim No. l, Dock,,! 14, which was lost. Election of Business Committee members Funds of Q:lapa\V l'ninors 1\1enlbcr.3hip or6ina.nc~ Chairman Whltebird explained that in addition to the agenda, other business hrought before the Coun.cil "\viLl also illclude a report on the possibility of reopening the Claim No. I, under Docket 14, Chairman Whitebird stated tha t Louis Ballard had mailed out 2-pproximately SOD letters to Quapav...'.s concerning this Ina-tter and that 1\1r. Ballard will give a report later on in the nlccting about this nl<ltter. Chairman Whitebird introduced Mr. Graham Holmes, Area Director of the Muskogee Area Office 1 and 1\11". Loyd Roberts, Quapa"\v Clainls Attorney, of • Joplin, lv1i33011ri. Alfred Sky" spoke: "Good af~crnoon. It is nice to be here this afternoon even though we did pave to tarn off th(~ air conditioners. Last year I gave you a financi.J.l report as of JU:le 30, 1961. I will now give you the annnal financial report for UF:: pa.st yC-.Ctr cndlIlg June 3D, 1962.
  • The 1951 Kansas - Missouri Floods

    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.
  • Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis Rafinesqueana)

    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.
  • HUNGRY GHOSTS: PONCA GIRLS in TWO WORLDS by ANN

    HUNGRY GHOSTS: PONCA GIRLS in TWO WORLDS by ANN

    HUNGRY GHOSTS: PONCA GIRLS IN TWO WORLDS By ANN MARIE WASILEWSKI Bachelor of Arts Augusta College Augusta, Georgia 1969 Master of Education University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 1976 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION July, 2004 COPYRIGHT By Ann Marie Wasilewski July, 2004 ii HUNGRY GHOSTS: PONCA GIRLS IN TWO WORLDS Thesis Approved: Pamela U. Brown Thesis Advisor Pamela Fry Gary J. Conti Katye M. Perry Dr. Al Carlozzi Dean of the Graduate College ii Dedicated to my mother and father. Catherine Howard Wasilewski Walter John Wasilewski iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I want to express my deep gratitude to my dissertation advisor, Dr. Pam Brown, for her extreme patience, constructive guidance, and gentle encouragement. Your kind words were a balm to my soul as I struggled through this process. Second, I want to thank my committee members, Dr. Gary Conti, Dr. Pamela Fry, and Dr. Katye Perry. I am so appreciative of the time you spent reading my dissertation and for the suggestions you made to improve it. Third, I want to acknowledge two former members of my committee, Dr. Natalie Adams and Dr. Pamela Bettis, who moved on to different universities. Without your interest, guidance, and assistance I would not have made it this far. Fourth, I thank the Ponca girls and the members of the Ponca community who shared their thoughts and culture with me. It was a tremendous education. I also want to thank my Bahá’i friends, Nancy and Jim Schear, for their encouragement and the hours they spent with me at their dining room table going over my drafts.
  • Influence of Water Flow on Neosho Madtom

    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).
  • Neosho River (Chanute) Water Quality Impairment: Copper

    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.
  • Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Support of Petitioner ______

    Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Support of Petitioner ______

    No. 18-9526 IN THE JIMCY MCGIRT, Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA, Respondent. _____________ On Writ of Certiorari to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals _____________ BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER _____________ ROGER WILEY RIYAZ A. KANJI ATTORNEY GENERAL Counsel of Record KYLE HASKINS DAVID A. GIAMPETRONI FIRST ASSISTANT KANJI & KATZEN, PLLC ATTORNEY GENERAL 303 Detroit St., Ste 400 MUSCOGEE (CREEK) Ann Arbor, MI 48104 NATION (734) 769-5400 Post Office Box 580 [email protected] Okmulgee, OK 74447 (918) 295-9720 CORY J. ALBRIGHT PHILIP H. TINKER LYNSEY R. GAUDIOSO KANJI & KATZEN, PLLC 401 Second Ave. S., Ste 700 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 344-8100 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Muscogee (Creek) Nation i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................1 ARGUMENT ...............................................................5 I. The United States and the Creek Nation Established a Reservation by Treaty. .............5 A. Text ........................................................5 B. Surrounding History .............................8 II. The Creek Allotment Act Preserved the Nation’s Reservation. ..................................... 11 A. Text ......................................................12 B. Surrounding History ........................... 16 C. Hitchcock and Buster ........................... 17 III.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 145/Tuesday, July 29, 2003/Rules And

    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 ..