Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />