<br />and have only begun to analyze more than 50,500
<br />individual records. Before 1991 only one blue cat-
<br />fish had been collected. However, in 1991, 15
<br />young-of-the-year blue catfish were captured in
<br />total from three locations along the Missouri River
<br />in Nebraska south of Omaha. In Missouri's sec-
<br />tion, 63,191 catfish were sampled between 1980
<br />and 1992; 1,350 (201&) were blue catfish. However,
<br />Missouri commercial fishers reported taking
<br />37,983 kg of blue catfish, which is 27% of all
<br />catfish harvested during 1991 from the Missouri
<br />River in Missouri. We recommend that blue cat-
<br />fish be listed as endangered in Nebraska.
<br />
<br />Other Species of Special Concern
<br />
<br />Other species of special concern in Nebraska
<br />include lake sturgeon, which has probably been
<br />extirpated from Nebraska as a wild population;
<br />pallid sturgeon, which has been listed as a nation-
<br />ally endangered species and is very rare in Ne-
<br />braska; shovelnose sturgeon (Srophirhynchus
<br />platorynchus), which is declining throughout Ne-
<br />braska's portion of the Missouri River; paddlefish,
<br />which is stable to declining in Nebraska (Hesse
<br />and Mestl 1992); longnose gar (Lepisosteus
<br />osseus), which is declining and becoming uncom-
<br />mon in Nebraska; shortnose gar (L. platostomus),
<br />which seems stable, but whose primary habitats
<br />have been eliminated; blue sucker, which seems
<br />to be stable in Nebraska, but is reduced through-
<br />out its range nationwide and is a candidate for
<br />national listing; and flathead catfish (Pylodictis
<br />olivaris), which has been reduced to fewer than
<br />1,000 individuals in the unchannelized Missouri
<br />River upstream from Lewis and Clark Lake
<br />(Hesse and MestI1991).
<br />In the following discussion we outline the rea-
<br />sons for the decline of these native fish species, and
<br />recommend remedial actions.
<br />
<br />Discussion of Cause and Effect
<br />Factors
<br />
<br />STUJ,g Removal
<br />
<br />Bilby and Ward (1991) reviewed available lit-
<br />erature on the role played by large woody debris
<br />in stream ecology. Snags were reported to alter
<br />channel morphology by influencing sediment
<br />routing, thus creating pools, gravel bars, and de-
<br />positional sites. These, in turn, reduced the rate
<br />
<br />LARRY W. HEsSE gr AI.. 335
<br />
<br />of downstream transport of particulate material.
<br />Bilby and Likens (1980) suggested that a large
<br />part of stream organic matter is associated with
<br />woody debris.
<br />Benke et al. (1985)-.determined that inverte-
<br />brate diversity, standing stock biomass, and pro-
<br />duction per unit of surface area were much higher
<br />on snag habitat in the Satilla River, Georgia, than
<br />in the other two main habitats (shifting sandbars
<br />of the main channel and muddy depositional areas
<br />of backwaters). They reported that snag habitat
<br />contained 60% of total invertebrate biomass per
<br />unit length of river, even though snags composed
<br />only 4% of available habitat. The Satilla was heav-
<br />ily snagged in the 1940's.
<br />Steam-powered snag boats began removal of
<br />snags from the Missouri River in 1838, when 2,245
<br />large trees were removed from the river channel
<br />and 1,700 overhanging trees were cut from the
<br />bank in the first 620 km of river upstream from St.
<br />Louis, Missouri (Chittenden 1962). Before 1885,
<br />however, snag removal was somewhat random. and
<br />extended only a few hundred kilometers up the
<br />Missouri River, although the number and tonnage
<br />of snags removed were immense (Suter 1877). After
<br />1885, snagging intensified and became systematic.
<br />In 1901, snag boats removed 17,676 snags, 69 drift
<br />piles, and 6,073 overhanging trees in 866 km of
<br />river (Funk and Robinson 1974). Today, even un-
<br />channelized sections have few remAining snags.
<br />Leaf abscission in fall contributed a pulse of
<br />organic matter to the river system, but leaves are
<br />90% decomposed within 1 year (Risser et al. 1981).
<br />Conversely, large woody debris provided long-term.
<br />supplies of orgaDic matter, requiring 75 years for
<br />95% decomposition in some instances (Melillo
<br />et al. 1983).
<br />Trees of all types and sizes were essential as
<br />aquatic insect substrate, and they provided local-
<br />ized zones -of reduced velocity for fish. Snags re-
<br />duced mean stream velocity, increased the stream
<br />top width, provided long-term. organic matter sup-
<br />plies, and aided in fine organic matter retention
<br />(Benke et al. 1985; Hesse et al. 1988).
<br />Sn.ag removal from the Missouri River was
<br />completed nearly 40 years ago, but dam construc-
<br />tion eliminated large floods, and human encroach-
<br />ment on the floodplain stabilized the banks even
<br />along the unchannelized remnants. Few new
<br />snags have been introduced since 1954, when
<br />Gavins Point Dam was closed. In 1963, 68.90/0 of
<br />secondary production in the unchannelized reach
<br />in Nebraska was from ~ag habitat, while mud
<br />
|