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.