Evaluation of Freshwater Mussel (Unionidae) Populations in Southeastern Kansas Streams Final Report Kansas Department of Wildl

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Evaluation of Freshwater Mussel (Unionidae) Populations in Southeastern Kansas Streams Final Report Kansas Department of Wildl Evaluation of Freshwater Mussel (Unionidae) Populations in Southeastern Kansas Streams Final Report Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Mike Hayden Secretary Prepared by: Thomas D. Mosher Fisheries Research Coordinator Joe D. Kramer, Director Doug D. Nygren, Chief Fisheries & Wildlife Division Fisheries Section March 2006 A Contribution of U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grant Program T-2 2 Evaluation of Freshwater Mussel (Unionidae) Populations in Southeastern Kansas Streams Thomas D. Mosher Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks P.O. Box 1525 Emporia, KS 66801 Abstract-Surveys of freshwater mussels were conducted in ten streams of Southeastern Kansas during the summers 2003-2005 to document composition and density of mussel populations, and to establish a data baseline to evaluate a ten-year mussel harvest moratorium on four of the streams that were open to commercial mussel harvest until January 2003. A minimum of 40 1-m2 quadrat samples were collected at each of eight sample sites in all streams, and timed searches were conducted on nine streams. Nearly 22,000 live mussels of 31 species were reported, but only five species were found in all sampled streams. Populations of Amblema plicata appeared to be repressed in streams formerly open to harvest. Recommendations are given to manage recovery of mussels in Kansas. Introduction Freshwater mussels are a highly imperiled group of animals in Kansas and the United States. In Kansas, 23 of approximately 40 species are listed as endangered, threatened, or species-in-need-of-conservation by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and 3 Parks. Yet, during the 1990’s, this group of fauna supported a profitable cottage industry in Southeastern Kansas for commercial shellers who harvested mussels for the cultured pearl trade. Because of declining mussel harvest and decreasing mussel populations a ten-year harvest moratorium was enacted for these animals by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks beginning in 2003. The goals of this study were to document the composition and density of mussel populations in major Southeastern Kansas streams to facilitate management plans, and to develop a data baseline from which to evaluate the effects of the harvest moratorium. Methods Ten rivers were sampled quantitatively for native Unionid mussels in the summer of 1993, 1994, and 1995. The rivers sampled include: Marais des Cygnes River from Melvern Dam to Trading Post, KS; Pottawatomie Creek in Anderson, Franklin and Miami counties, KS; Marmaton River, Bourbon County, KS; Neosho River from John Redmond Dam to the Oklahoma Border; Cottonwood River, Chase and Lyon counties, KS; Verdigris River from Toronto Dam to Oklahoma Border; Fall River from Fall River Dam to Verdigris River; Elk River, Elk, Chautauqua, and Montgomery counties, KS; Grouse Creek, Butler and Cowley County, KS; and Walnut River, Butler and Cowley counties, KS from El Dorado Dam to the confluence with the Arkansas River. The Elk, Fall, Neosho, and Verdigris rivers were chosen because they were open to commercial- mussel harvest until January 2003 and data were needed to establish a baseline to judge the effects of a ten-year moratorium. Commercial harvesters had expressed interest in the other rivers surveyed, so these other six rivers were surveyed to determine the status of 4 native mussel populations. The Walnut River was also surveyed to determine how native mussels will be affected by zebra mussels Dreissena polymorpha which became established in that river in 2003. A minimum of eight sample sites were selected for each river. On the Verdigris, eight sites coincided with sites sampled by Miller (1992, 1999). Another eight sites were sampled upstream and seven sites downstream of these sites. Sites on Elk River, Fall River and the Neosho River coincided as closely as possible to sites sampled by Cope (1983) and Obermeyer et al. (1997). Except for one site on the Verdigris River and one site on the Marais des Cygnes River, sampling at each site consisted of 40 randomly chosen one-meter quadrats along a 100-meter stretch of river as described by Miller (1993). Additionally, timed searches were conducted at sites on the Marais des Cygnes River, Marmaton River, Pottawatomie Creek, Cottonwood River, Fall River, Elk River, upper Verdigris River, Grouse Creek and Walnut River. At most sites, live mussels within the quadrat were collected by hand, identified, measured, and returned to the water. In the Neosho River, live mussels were collected by shovel and screens. Populations in sample sites coinciding with those sampled by Miller (1993, 1999) were compared statistically with one-way ANOVA (Analytical Software 2000). The level of significance was chosen as 0.10 to rule out Type II error. Results A total of 21,971 mussels representing 31 species were sampled in 3,840 1-m2 quadrats and during 107 hours of searching at 97 sample sites in Southeastern Kansas. 5 The mean density per site ranged from 0.15/m2 in the Cottonwood River to 56.38/m2 in the Verdigris River, with the absolute low ranging from 0/m2 in every stream to 149/ m2 in the Verdigris River. The number of species per river ranged from 8 in the Walnut River to 24 in the Verdigris River. Marais des Cygnes River. A total of 2749 mussels representing 19 species were collected at 10 quadrat sites (Table 1) and 8 timed-search sites (Table 2). The mean density ranged from 1.80 to 13.90 mussels/m2 and the number of mussels collected per man-hour ranged from 9.7 to 94.0. The top five most numerous species sampled (Fusconaia flava, Amblema plicata, Quadrula pustulosa, Q. quadrula, and Obliquaria reflexa) comprised 84% of the mussels sampled within quadrats, and 80% of those in timed searches. Arcidens confragosus, Ellipsaria lineolata, Lampsilis teres, Pleurobema sintoxia, and Strophitus undulatus totaled less than 1% of the mussels sampled. Marmaton River. Amblema plicata comprised 58% of the 829 mussels representing 19 species that were collected at 8 quadrat sites (Table 3) and in 8 timed search sites (Table 4). The mean density per sample site ranged from 0.32/m2 to 2.18/m2 in quadrat samples, and 20.0 to 91.0 per man-hour of search time. Pottawatomie Creek. A total of 1039 mussels representing 20 species were sampled at 8 quadrat sites (Table 5) and 8 timed search sites (Table 6). The mean density of mussels per sample site ranged from 0.95/m2 to 4.35/m2, and from10.0 to 92.0 per man-hour of search time. Amblema plicata comprised 51% of the quadrat samples and 75% of those sampled at timed-search sites. Quadrula quadrula, the second most numerous species, comprised 13% of the sampled mussels, whereas Q. pustulosa the third most numerous, comprised 7%. 6 Neosho River. Quadrat samples yielded 861 mussels representing 17 species (Table 7). No timed searches were conducted in the Neosho River. The mean density per site ranged from 0.28/m2 to 6.42/m2. Quadrula metanevra dominated the sample with 47% of the sampled mussels followed by Truncilla doniciformis with 17% of the sample. A. plicata, the dominant species in commercial harvest, comprised only 2% of the sample. Cottonwood River. Only 534 mussels representing 15 species were sampled at 8 quadrat sites (Table 8) and 8 timed search sites (Table 9). The mean density per quadrat site ranged from 0.15/m2 to 2.25/m2, and the number per man-hour of search time ranged from 6.0 to 94.0. Tritogonia verrucosa, Q. quadrula, Leptodea fragilis, Q. pustulosa, and F. flava comprised 87% of the sample. Verdigris River. Three separate collection efforts were conducted on the Verdigris, one by contract with the University of Kansas and two by KDWP personnel. The University of Kansas personnel collected 1890 mussels of 24 species in 8 quadrat (Table 10) and 8 timed searches (Table 11) in samples between Toronto Dam and Neodesha, KS. The mean number of mussels sampled in quadrats by site ranged from 0.78/m2 to 12.78/m2, and the number sampled per man-hour of search time ranged from 14.0 to 64.0. These samples were dominated by Q. pustulosa (29%), Q. metanevra (23%), T. verrucosa (15%), F. flava (6%) and Obliquaria reflexa (6%). KDWP personnel sampled 5160 mussels representing 22 species (Table 12) between Neodesha and Sycamore, KS. The mean density per quadrat ranged from 4.62/m2 to 56.38/m2. These samples were dominated by Q. metanevra (29%), F. flava (20%), Q. pustulosa (14%), O. reflexa (5%) and T. verrucosa (5%). In the next 7 quadrat 7 sites between Sycamore and Coffeyville, KS, KDWP personnel sampled 3057 mussels representing 21 species (Table 13). The mean density per sample in this stretch ranged from 2.80/m2 to 30.28/m2. Again these samples were dominated by Q. metanevra (29%), and Q. pustulosa (17%), F. flava (9%), O. reflexa (9%), and T. verrucosa (8%). Fall River. A total of 2657 mussels representing 19 species were collected in 8 quadrat samples (Table 14) and 8 timed searches (Table 15). The mean density per quadrat ranged from 2.62/m2 to 11.62/m2, and timed searches yielded 23.00-79.67 per man-hour of search time. Five species, Q. pustulosa (22%), Q. metanevra (13%), F. flava (12%), O. reflexa (11%), and T. verrucosa (9%) comprised 67% of the mussels collected. Elk River. Collectors sampled 868 mussels from 17 species at 8 quadrat sites (Table 16) and 8 timed searches (Table 17). The mean density ranged from 0.30/m2 to 3.12/m2 per site in quadrat samples, and 19.00-90.00 per man-hour in timed-search sites.
Recommended publications
  • Kansas Fishing Regulations Summary
    2 Kansas Fishing 0 Regulations 0 5 Summary The new Community Fisheries Assistance Program (CFAP) promises to increase opportunities for anglers to fish close to home. For detailed information, see Page 16. PURCHASE FISHING LICENSES AND VIEW WEEKLY FISHING REPORTS ONLINE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS' WEBSITE, WWW.KDWP.STATE.KS.US TABLE OF CONTENTS Wildlife and Parks Offices, e-mail . Zebra Mussel, White Perch Alerts . State Record Fish . Lawful Fishing . Reservoirs, Lakes, and River Access . Are Fish Safe To Eat? . Definitions . Fish Identification . Urban Fishing, Trout, Fishing Clinics . License Information and Fees . Special Event Permits, Boats . FISH Access . Length and Creel Limits . Community Fisheries Assistance . Becoming An Outdoors-Woman (BOW) . Common Concerns, Missouri River Rules . Master Angler Award . State Park Fees . WILDLIFE & PARKS OFFICES KANSAS WILDLIFE & Maps and area brochures are available through offices listed on this page and from the PARKS COMMISSION department website, www.kdwp.state.ks.us. As a cabinet-level agency, the Kansas Office of the Secretary AREA & STATE PARK OFFICES Department of Wildlife and Parks is adminis- 1020 S Kansas Ave., Rm 200 tered by a secretary of Wildlife and Parks Topeka, KS 66612-1327.....(785) 296-2281 Cedar Bluff SP....................(785) 726-3212 and is advised by a seven-member Wildlife Cheney SP .........................(316) 542-3664 and Parks Commission. All positions are Pratt Operations Office Cheyenne Bottoms WA ......(620) 793-7730 appointed by the governor with the commis- 512 SE 25th Ave. Clinton SP ..........................(785) 842-8562 sioners serving staggered four-year terms. Pratt, KS 67124-8174 ........(620) 672-5911 Council Grove WA..............(620) 767-5900 Serving as a regulatory body for the depart- Crawford SP .......................(620) 362-3671 ment, the commission is a non-partisan Region 1 Office Cross Timbers SP ..............(620) 637-2213 board, made up of no more than four mem- 1426 Hwy 183 Alt., P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Missouri Water Quality Improvement Project (Wqip) Elk River Basin Water Quality Gap
    SOUTHWEST MISSOURI WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (WQIP) ELK RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY GAP November 2008 PREPARED FOR: Environmental Resources Coalition 3118 Emerald Lane Jefferson City, Missouri 65109 PREPARED BY: MEC Water Resources, Inc. 1123 Wilkes Boulevard, Suite 400 Columbia, Missouri 65201 Ozarks Environmental Water Resources Institute, Missouri State University Temple Hall 328 901 South National Avenue Springfield, Missouri 65897 (page intentionally left blank) Southwest Missouri Water Quality Improvement Project Missouri State University Elk River Basin Water Quality Gap Analysis MEC Water Resources, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................vii I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................................1 II. STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................................................3 2.1. Basin Characteristics..................................................................................................3 2.2. Population and Land Use............................................................................................3 2.3. Permitted Point Source Discharges ..........................................................................7 2.4. Geology and Soils .....................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012) United States Department of the Interior National Register Listed National Park Service 1-20-2012 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a). 1. Name of Property historic name Winfield National Bank Building other names/site number KHRI #035-5970-00010 2. Location street & number 901 Main Street not for publication city or town Winfield vicinity state Kansas code KS county Cowley code 035 zip code 67156 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this x nomination _ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property x _ meets _ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: national statewide x local SEE FILE ____________________________________ Signature of certifying official Date _____________________________________ Title State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Restoration of Tanyard Creek in the Little Sugar Creek Watershed B
    1. Cover Page: 2012 State Wildlife Grant Pre-Proposal a. Title of Project: Stream Restoration of Tanyard Creek in the Little Sugar Creek Watershed b. Project Summary: A 2,500 foot section of Tanyard Creek will be enhanced and restored. Unstable streambanks and excessive woody debris are compromising the aquatic and terrestrial habitat of this Karst area, and accelerated streambank erosion is contributing approximately 1,600,000 lbs/yr of sediment and 200 lbs/yr of total phosphorus to the Little Sugar Creek basin. Aquatic habit is limited from severe sedimentation which has diminished riffle/pool features and from stream instability resulting in degradation of the riparian area. A natural channel design approach will be used to restore and enhance the channel in a manner that reduces streambank erosion, transports sediment efficiently, and improves the riparian area and aquatic habitat for 13 SGCNs. c. Project Leader: Sandi Formica, Executive Director Watershed Conservation Resource Center 380 West Rock, Fayetteville, AR 72701 [email protected], 501-352-5252 d. Project Partners: Darrell Bowman, Lake Ecology/Fisheries Manager, Bella Vista Village Property Owners Association (Bella Vista POA); [email protected], (479) 855-5068 Drew Holts, Executive Director, Elk River Watershed Improvement Association (Elk River WIA), [email protected], (417) 223-3414 Steve Filipek, Assistant Chief Special Programs, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AG&FC), [email protected], 501- 223-6369 David Casaletto, President, Ozark Water Watch and Multi-Basin Regional Water Council, [email protected], (417) 739-4100 e. Project Budget: Amount of SWG Funds Requested: $70,000 (37%) Total Matching Funds Provided: $121,000 (63%) Total Project Cost: $191,000 1 2.
    [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]
  • Toxic Water Pollution in Kansas Table 9
    E NVIRONMENTAL Dishonorable W G TM ORKING ROUP Table 9 Discharge Toxic water pollution in Kansas Companies reporting toxic discharges to water (1990-1994) City: Arkansas City, Kansas Facility: Total Petroleum Inc. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 24,281 27,083 18,100 19,280 17,509 106,253 AmmoniaWalnut River 24,000 27,000 18,000 19,200 17,361 105,561 PhenolWalnut River 250 6 30 71 357 Chromium Walnut River 60 70 80 210 Chromium compounds Walnut River 45 45 Nickel Walnut River 32 32 CyclohexaneWalnut River 10 4 14 Xylene (mixed isomers)Walnut River 5 5 10 1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneWalnut River 5 3 8 TolueneWalnut River 5 3 8 EthylbenzeneWalnut River 5 1 6 BenzeneWalnut River 1 1 2 City: Atchison, Kansas Facility: Midwest Grain Products Inc. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 250 255 255 255 5 1,020 Propylene oxideWhite Clay Creek 250 250 250 750 Propylene oxide White Clay Creek 250 250 Chlorine White Clay Creek 5 5 5 5 20 City: Augusta, Kansas Facility: Coastal Refining & Marketing Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 25 40 40 105 1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneWhite Water River 5 5 10 Ethylbenzene White Water River 5 5 10 Toluene White Water River 5 5 10 Cyclohexane White Water River 5 5 10 Xylene (mixed isomers)White Water River 5 5 10 Carbon tetrachloride White Water River 5 5 Carbon tetrachloride White River 5 5 Benzene White Water River 5 5 Benzene White Water 5 5 Cumene White Water River 5 5 Cumene White Water 5 5 Carbon tetrachlorideWhitewater River 5 5 Xylene (mixed isomers)Whitewater River 5 5 EthylbenzeneWhitewater River 5 5 BenzeneWhitewater River 5 5 TolueneWhitewater River 5 5 Source: Environmental Working Group.
    [Show full text]
  • A Council Circle at Etzanoa? Multi-Sensor Drone Survey at an Ancestral Wichita Settlement in Southeastern Kansas
    REPORTS A Council Circle at Etzanoa? Multi-sensor Drone Survey at an Ancestral Wichita Settlement in Southeastern Kansas Jesse Casana , Elise Jakoby Laugier, Austin Chad Hill, and Donald Blakeslee This article presents results of a multi-sensor drone survey at an ancestral Wichita archaeological site in southeastern Kansas, originally recorded in the 1930s and believed by some scholars to be the location of historical “Etzanoa,” a major settlement reportedly encountered by Spanish conquistador Juan de Oñate in 1601. We used high-resolution, drone-acquired thermal and multispectral (color and near-infrared) imagery, alongside publicly available lidar data and satellite imagery, to prospect for archaeological features across a relatively undisturbed 18 ha area of the site. Results reveal a feature that is best interpreted as the remains of a large, circular earthwork, similar to so-called council circles documented at five other contemporary sites of the Great Bend aspect cultural assemblage. We also located several features that may be remains of house basins, the size and configuration of which conform with historical evidence. These findings point to major investment in the construction of large- scale ritual, elite, or defensive structures, lending support to the interpretation of the cluster of Great Bend aspect sites in the lower Walnut River as a single, sprawling population center, as well as demonstrating the potential for thermal and multispec- tral surveys to reveal archaeological landscape features in the Great Plains and beyond. Keywords: remote sensing, thermography, UAV, Great Bend aspect, earthwork, ancestral Wichita Este artículo presenta los resultados de una encuesta de drones con sensores múltiples en un sitio arqueológico ancestral de Wichita en el sureste de Kansas, originalmente registrado en la década de 1930 y que muchos estudiosos creen que es la ubica- ción del histórico “Etzanoa”, un asentamiento importante que según los informes encontró el conquistador español Juan de Oñate en 1601.
    [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]
  • Toxic Water Pollution in Oklahoma Table 9
    E NVIRONMENTAL Dishonorable W G TM ORKING ROUP Table 9 Discharge Toxic water pollution in Oklahoma Companies reporting toxic discharges to water (1990-1994) City: Ardmore, Oklahoma Facility: Total Petroleum Inc. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 1,688 21,131 152,058 36,626 33,794 245,297 Diethanolamine Sand Creek 130,000 8,200 138,200 AmmoniaSand Creek 1,494 21,000 22,000 28,000 33,726 106,220 PhenolSand Creek 194 120 12 19 25 370 Cobalt compounds Sand Creek 360 360 Chlorine Sand Creek 11 46 57 Antimony compounds Sand Creek 47 47 Nickel Sand Creek 43 43 City: Ardmore, Oklahoma Facility: Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 250 250 250 750 Zinc compounds Hickory Creek 250 250 250 750 City: Broken Bow, Oklahoma Facility: Weyerhaeuser Co. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 250 250 FormaldehydeMt. Fork River 250 250 City: Catoosa, Oklahoma Facility: Terra Nitrogen Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 259,820 236,598 226,386 223,151 95,342 1,041,297 Ammonium nitrate (solution)Verdigris River 213,000 190,000 193,000 165,000 88,000 849,000 AmmoniaVerdigris River 45,000 45,000 32,000 57,000 6,200 185,200 MethanolVerdigris River 750 750 750 750 750 3,750 Copper compoundsVerdigris River 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 Zinc compoundsVerdigris River 320 98 136 151 142 847 Chromium compoundsVerdigris River 250 250 500 Nickel compoundsVerdigris River 250 250 500 Mixtures and other tradeVerdigris River 250 250 Source: Environmental Working Group.
    [Show full text]
  • General Fishing Atlas Information
    ATLAS COVER Pages FISH 2021.qxp_ATLAS COVER Pages FISH 2/17/21 10:42 AM Page 1 Kansas Fishing Atlas 2021 Public Fishing Access Includes Walk-in Fishing Access (WIFA) Get our mobile app HuntFish KS ATLAS COVER Pages FISH 2021.qxp_ATLAS COVER Pages FISH 2/17/21 10:42 AM Page 2 WIFA Area Rules Walk-in Fishing Access (WIFA), formerly F.I.S.H., sites 6. Avoid stretching fences when crossing them, and use are leased from private landowners and are typically open to fence stiles where available. public fishing from March 1 – Oct. 31, though some proper- ties are open year-round. The WIFA program provides 7. Do not attempt to contact cooperating landowners to ask anglers increased opportunities to enjoy fishing on the state’s about fishing other portions of their land. streams and small impoundments, all that is required is a state fishing license. Funding for the program is provided Regulations governing WIFA area use: through fishing license revenues and Sport Fish Restoration Funds. Please observe all rules and regulations, and remem- • Impounded WIFA waters have a creel limit of two channel ber that common sense and ethical behavior will influence catfish, a creel limit of two largemouth bass, and an 18-inch the future of the program. minimum length limit on largemouth bass. Otherwise, all Kansas fishing regulations and statewide creel limits apply. It’s The following guidelines help maintain a good relation- especially important for anglers using the sites to respect and fol- ship between landowners and anglers: low the rules that apply on WIFA properties.
    [Show full text]