905975001
WATER QUALITY
BASELINE ASSESSMENT
FOR CLEVELAND AREA -
LAKE ERIE
VOLUME II - FISHES
-------
Document is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22151.
-------
EPA-905/9-75-001
February 1975
WATER QUALITY BASELINE ASSESSMENT
FOR THE CLEVELAND AREA - LAKE ERIE
VOLUME II
The Fishes of the Cleveland Metropolitan Area
Including the Lake Erie Shoreline
By
Dr. Andrew M. White
Associate Professor of Biology
John Carroll University
University Heights
Ohio
and
Dr. Milton B. Trautman Mr. Michael P. Kelty
Mr. Eric J. Foell Dr. Ronald Gaby
EPA Project G005107
Section 108a Program
Project Officer
Max Hanok
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Prepared for
City of Cleveland
and
OFFICE OF THE GREAT LAKES COORDINATOR
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
-------
U. S. E. P. A. Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does the mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
This work was part of a first phase of an environmental assessment
for planning and evaluation in urban pollution abatement for the
Cleveland metropolitan area. Other areas of baseline assessment for
the City of Cleveland were summarized in 'Volume I - Synthesis' of
this project report series.
This report, Volume II, presents the results of the first phase of
the baseline study of the Cleveland metropolitan area fisheries. The
study investigated the past and present distributions and abundances
of 107 species and subspecies of fishes known to have inhabited the
Cleveland area streams and Lake Erie shoreline. Preliminary
investigations concerning the age and growth rates of the Yellow Perch
in Lake Erie were undertaken.
The study was conducted at John Carroll University by a team of
faculty and graduate students. Field investigations were conducted
from July 1, 1971 through December 31, 1972. Additional data were
collected throughout 1973 and 1974, portions of which are included
in this publication. The study area included the Lake Erie
shoreline from the mouth of the Chagrin River to the mouth of the
Rocky River, a distance of 35.5 kilometers. Samples were also
collected in the drainages of the three major rivers in the Cleveland
area, the Chagrin, Rocky and Cuyahoga.
The study established a firm baseline of information concerning the
presence or absence of fish species in the study area. Relative
abundances and distributional patterns of each species were determined.
These were compared to past information in order to determine and
present an accurate evaluation of the series of events which affected
the local fish populations. Areas of habitat degradation are discussed
as cause and effect relationships are presented. Changes in fish
population diversity, distribution and abundance are discussed.
The study demonstrated that the fish fauna is markedly different than
in former times. The presence of at least small, isolated populations
of 86 species and subspecies was documented, and the recovery of most
species to at least a portion of their former abundance was considered
possible with the implementation of pollution abatement programs and
habitat restoration. The study also documented significant adverse
affects of environmental degradation on fish populations prior to 1850.
The causes of the change in species composition in the Cleveland area
is attributed to several factors, among which are stream obstruction,
pollution, siltation, and the loss of aquatic vegetation. It was
iii
-------
determined that point sources of pollutants were only one of several
detrimental factors which must be considered before restoration of
the fish species can be accomplished.
This report is submitted in partial fulfillment of project number
G005107.
iv
-------
Sportsmen "snagging"
Coho Salmon in the Chagrin River, Willoughby, Ohio, November, 1972.
-------
Young-of-the-year Eastern Gizzard Shad which winter-killed in the
Cleveland Harbor. This photo is a portion of a kill in 1975 which
was estimated to have contained over 150,000 individuals. Such
winter-kills are not associated with toxins or organic pollutants
but are the result of the inability of small shad to survive the
cold winter temperatures of Lake Erie.
vi
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract
Sportsmen "snagging" Coho Salmon in the Chagrin River,
Willoughby, Ohio, November, 1972
Young-of-the-year E. Gizzard Shad which winter-killed in the
Cleveland Harbor.
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acknowledgements
Fish collecting Stations in Lake Erie and the Lower Rivers
Three Rivers Watershed and Vicinity Map
A 24 Hour Collection made with a 125 ft. Experimental Gill
Net in a Cleveland Harbor Marina
A Sample of Fish Specimens Prepared for Permanent Storage
Section I Conclusions
Section II Recommendations
Introduction
Historical Review
Methods
Study Results and Discussion
Species Accounts
Lampreys and Sturgeons
Gars and Bowfin
Eel, Herrings and Shad
Salmon and Trout
Page
iii
Section III
Section IV
Section V
Section VI
VI
ix
xii
xiii
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
1
7
11
23
35
45
48
50
52
55
vii
-------
Page
Whitefishes and Ciscoes 58
Smelt and Mudminnow 59
Pikes 61
Carp and Goldfish 63
Chubs and Dace 68
Minnows and Shiners 74
Carpsuckers, Redhorses and Suckers 86
Catfishes 91
Trout-perch "'
Burbot 97
Stickleback and Silverside 98
White Bass 10°
Crappies, Sunfishes and Blackbasses 100
Walleye, Blue Pike, Sauger and Yellow Perch 112
Darters 116
Drum 122
Sculpins 124
Nursery and Spawning Areas 127
Studies on Yellow Perch in Lake Erie i3i
Commercial and Sport Fisheries I35
I OQ
Population Fluctuations J-~>:7
14"}
Species Diversity
Summary of the General Decline of the Fishery 145
VII Bibliography 169
viii
-------
FIGURES
Number
1. Stream Obstruction at Willoughby, Ohio 14
2. Litter Present on Beaches near Cleveland, Ohio 19
3. Undisturbed Wild Area Similar to that Described by Early 22
Surveyors Along the Lower Cuyahoga and the Lake Erie
Shoreline
4. Effluent into a Stream Tributary of Lake Erie 34
5. Gill Net Sample being Collected in the Cleveland Harbor
During January 37
6. Fyke Net Sample Being Taken in a Tributary Stream 39
7. Seining in the Cleveland Harbor Shallows 41
8. Gill Netting in Streams 44
9. Distribution of Lampreys, Gar and Bowfin 51
10. Distribution of Alewife and Eastern Gizzard Shad 54
11. Distribution of Salmon and Trout 57
12. Distribution of Smelt and Mudminnow 60
13. Distribution of Pikes 62
14. Distribution of Carp 64
15. Distribution of Goldfish 66
16. Distribution of Golden Shiner 67
17. Distribution of River Chub, Bigeye Chub and
Blacknose Dace 70
18. Distribution of Longnose Dace and Creek Chub 72
19. Distribution of Redbelly and Redside Dace, Pugnose
Minnow and Common Emerald Shiner 75
IX
-------
Number Page
20. Distribution of Rosyface, Redfin, Striped and Common
Shiners 78
21. Distribution of Spottail and Spotfin Shiners 80
22. Distribution of Sand, Mimic and Bigmouth Shiners 82
23. Distribution of Minnows 85
24. Distribution of Quillbacks, Golden and Black Redhorse 88
25. Distribution of Shorthead Redhorse and White, Spotted
and Hog Suckers 92
26. Distribution of Catfish, Bullheads and Madtoms 96
27. Distribution of Trout-perch, Burbot, Stickleback
and Silverside 99
28. Distribution of White Bass 101
29. Distribution of Crappies 103
30. Discribution of Roc.kbass, Blackbasses and Wannouth 106
31. Distribution of Bluegill, Green and Orangespotted
Sunfisiies 109
32. Distribution of Pumpkinseed Sunfish
33. Distribution of Walleye 113
34. A Large Walleye Collected in the Cleveland Harbor
in 1971 11*
35. Distribution of Yellow Perch and Logperch Darters 118
36. Distribution of Darters 123
37. Distribution of Freshwater Drum and Sculpins 126
38. Length Frequency Distribution of 539 Aged Yellow Perch 133
39. Length Frequency Distribution of 1,671 Yellow Perch 134
40. Length to Weight Relationship for Yellow Perch Population 136
-------
Number Page
41. Fluctuations in the Population Size of Four Lake Erie
Species in the Vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio 140
42. Fish Population Data on Ten Intensive Stations in
Lake Erie 144
43. Headwater Habitat for Many of the Less Common Species
of Cleveland Area Fishes 149
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1. Chloride Levels in Lake Erie Tributaries in 1904 31
2. Chemical Input to Lake Erie in the Cleveland Area
from Harbor and River Dredgings 32
3. Fish Fry Collected in the Cleveland Harbor, 1971
to 1974 128
4. Fish Fry Collected in the Rocky River, 1971-1972 129
5. Fish Fry Collected in the Chagrin River, 1971-1972 130
6. Estimated Economic Losses Due to the Decline of the
Cleveland Area Commercial Fisheries 138
7. Fluctuations in Fish Species Composition and
Abundance in the Lower Rocky River 142
8. List of Fish Species Which Are Considered Rare, Probably
Extirpated or Extirpated Within the Study Area 147
9. Distribution of Fish Species in Various Sections of
Study Area Rivers 150
10. Relative Abundance of all Species Collected in the
Entire Study Area 156
11. Relative Abundance of Fishes Collected in the Lower
Rivers and Along the Lake Erie Shoreline 161
12. Relative Abundance of Fishes Collected in the Cleveland
Harbor and Adjacent Marinas During the Period
1971 - 1974 165
xn
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
JUNIOR AUTHORS ON PROJECT G005107, VOLUME II, THE FISHERIES STUDY.
Dr. Milton B. Trautman, Professor Emeritus, Museum of Zoology,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Mr. Eric J. Foell, John Carroll University.
Mr. Michael P. Kelty, John Carroll University.
Dr. Ronald Gaby, Biology Department, John Carroll University.
AUTHOR'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This volume represents the combined effort of five individuals. The
project director wishes to acknowledge the fine work and excellent
cooperation of each of these individuals.
The work of Dr. Milton B. Trautman was invaluable in the compilation
of much of the historical information which is presented throughout
this volume. He contributed much to the collection of literature
sources, thus enabling myself and the others to concentrate on
the field and laboratory investigations. His years of experience
with the Ohio ichthyofauna proved to be of great significance,
especially in our search for rare species and in the identification
of hybrid fishes. We collaborated fully in the final preparation
of this volume.
I should also like to thank Dr. Ronald Gaby, who worked on the initial
phases of the field collections, leaving the University in order to
accept employment elsewhere.
Throughout the entire project, Messers. Michael P. Kelty and Eric J.
Foell assisted in a major portion of the field collections, often in
extremely hazardous weather conditions. They sorted these collections
after which they were checked by either myself or Dr. Trautman. They
were also extremely helpful in maintaining data files and in the
preparation of the final draft of the report.
I should also like to thank the following persons for their assistance
during the project. Mrs. Virginia R. Howley, of the Western Reserve
Historical Society aided in the research into the early history of
Cleveland. Mrs. Janet Friedlander, of the Sears Library, Case-Western
Reserve University, obtained many of the literature references which
we required and the staff of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History
who supplied Jared P. Kirtland's original letter books.
Xlll
-------
Several commercial fishermen allowed us to examine their catches and
supplied information concerning the distribution and abundance of
commercial species in the Cleveland area. We are especially indebted
to Captains Fred Wittal and Robert Jaycox who gave us information
concerning the changes in fish populations and environmental
conditions during the past fourty years.
The other investigators working on the various portions of this
baseline assessment were also extremely helpful, often making us
aware of specific conditions or the occurance of situations concerning
the local fish fauna. For this help we are grateful; as the final
report is far more complete than it would have been without their
aid.
I would also like to thank the residents of the local river drainages,
especially those of the Chagrin River and the East Branch, who
graciously allowed us access to the stream through their private
property.
This project could not have been undertaken without the support of
Messers. Denis Case, James P. Schafer (formerly of the City of
Cleveland), and the present project coordinator Mr. Al B. Garlauskas.
Without federal support through the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V., this project would not have been implemented.
A special recognition is due Dr. Norbert Jaworski, Director, Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, for assistance in the original planning
phases of this project; to Mr. Curtis Ross, Director of the Indiana
District Office for technical assistance and support; to Mr. Max
Hanok and Mr. Ralph Christensen who provided coordination and
guidance throughout the project and completion of this document.
xiv
-------
Sportsmen "snagging" Coho Salmon in the Chagrin River, Willoughby, Ohio, November, 1972.
-------
Young-of-the-year Eastern Gizzard Shad which winter-killed in the
Cleveland Harbor. This photo is a portion of a kill in 1975 which
was estimated to have contained over 150,000 individuals. Such
winter-kills are not associated with toxins or organic pollutants
but are the result of the inability of small shad to survive the
cold winter temperatures of Lake Erie.
vi
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract
Sportsmen "snagging" Coho Salmon in the Chagrin River,
Willoughby, Ohio, November, 1972
Young-of-the-year E. Gizzard Shad which winter-killed in the
Cleveland Harbor.
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acknowledgements
Fish collecting Stations in Lake Erie and the Lower Rivers
Three Rivers Watershed and Vicinity Map
A 24 Hour Collection made with a 125 ft. Experimental Gill
Net in a Cleveland Harbor Marina
A Sample of Fish Specimens Prepared for Permanent Storage
Section I Conclusions
Section II Recommendations
Introduction
Historical Review
Methods
Study Results and Discussion
Species Accounts
Lampreys and Sturgeons
Gars and Bowfin
Eel, Herrings and Shad
Salmon and Trout
Page
iii
Section III
Section IV
Section V
Section VI
vx
ix
xii
xiii
XV
xvi
xvii
xviii
1
7
11
23
35
45
48
50
52
55
VII
-------
Page
Whitefishes and Ciscoes 58
Smelt and Mudminnow 59
Pikes 61
Carp and Goldfish 63
Chubs and Dace 68
Minnows and Shiners 74
Carpsuckers, Redhorses and Suckers 86
Catfishes 9^
Trout-perch 9'
Burbot 97
Stickleback and Silverside 98
White Bass 10°
Crappies, Sunfishes and Blackbasses 100
Walleye, Blue Pike, Sauger and Yellow Perch 112
Darters 116
Drum 122
Sculpins 124
Nursery and Spawning Areas 127
Studies on Yellow Perch in Lake Erie 131
Commercial and Sport Fisheries 135
•I OQ
Population Fluctuations J-J:7
~\ I *3
Species Diversity
Summary of the General Decline of the Fishery 145
VII Bibliography 169
viii
-------
FIGURES
Numb er Page
1. Stream Obstruction at Willoughby, Ohio 14
2. Litter Present on Beaches near Cleveland, Ohio 19
3. Undisturbed Wild Area Similar to that Described by Early 22
Surveyors Along the Lower Cuyahoga and the Lake Erie
Shoreline
4. Effluent into a Stream Tributary of Lake Erie 34
5. Gill Net Sample being Collected in the Cleveland Harbor
During January 37
6. Fyke Net Sample Being Taken in a Tributary Stream 39
7. Seining in the Cleveland Harbor Shallows 41
8. Gill Netting in Streams 44
9. Distribution of Lampreys, Gar and Bowfin 51
10. Distribution of Alewife and Eastern Gizzard Shad 54
11. Distribution of Salmon and Trout 57
12. Distribution of Smelt and Mudminnow 60
13. Distribution of Pikes 62
14. Distribution of Carp 64
15. Distribution of Goldfish 66
16. Distribution of Golden Shiner 67
17. Distribution of River Chub, Bigeye Chub and
Blacknose Dace 70
18. Distribution of Longnose Dace and Creek Chub 72
19. Distribution of Redbelly and Redside Dace, Pugnose
Minnow and Common Emerald Shiner 75
IX
-------
Number Page
20. Distribution of Rosyface, Redfin, Striped and Common
Shiners 78
21. Distribution of Spottail and Spotfin Shiners 80
22. Distribution of Sand, Mimic and Bigmouth Shiners 82
23. Distribution of Minnows 85
24. Distribution of Quillbacks, Golden and Black Redhorse 88
25. Distribution of Shorthead Redhorse and White, Spotted
and Hog Suckers 92
26. Distribution of Catfish, Bullheads and Madtoms 96
27. Distribution of Trout-perch, Burbot, Stickleback
and Silverside 99
28. Distribution of White Bass 101
29. Distribution of Crappies 103
30. Distribution of Rockbass, Blackbasses and Warmouth 106
31. Distribution of Bluegill, Green and Orangespotted
Sunfishes 109
32. Distribution of Pumpkinseed Sunfish 111
33. Distribution of Walleye 113
34. A Large Walleye Collected in the Cleveland Harbor
in 1971 I14
35. Distribution of Yellow Perch and Logperch Darters 118
36. Distribution of Darters 123
37. Distribution of Freshwater Drum and Sculpins 126
38. Length Frequency Distribution of 539 Aged Yellow Perch 133
39. Length Frequency Distribution of 1,671 Yellow Perch 134
40. Length to Weight Relationship for Yellow Perch Population 136
x
-------
Number Page
41. Fluctuations in the Population Size of Four Lake Erie
Species in the Vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio 140
42. Fish Population Data on Ten Intensive Stations in
Lake Erie 144
43. Headwater Habitat for Many of the Less Common Species
of Cleveland Area Fishes 149
XI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1. Chloride Levels in Lake Erie Tributaries in 1904 31
2. Chemical Input to Lake Erie in the Cleveland Area
from Harbor and River Dredgings 32
3. Fish Fry Collected in the Cleveland Harbor, 1971
to 1974 128
4. Fish Fry Collected in the Rocky River, 1971-1972 129
5. Fish Fry Collected in the Chagrin River, 1971-1972 130
6. Estimated Economic Losses Due to the Decline of the
Cleveland Area Commercial Fisheries 138
7. Fluctuations in Fish Species Composition and
Abundance in the Lower Rocky River 142
8. List of Fish Species Which Are Considered Rare, Probably
Extirpated or Extirpated Within the Study Area 147
9. Distribution of Fish Species in Various Sections of
Study Area Rivers 150
10. Relative Abundance of all Species Collected in the
Entire Study Area 156
11. Relative Abundance of Fishes Collected in the Lower
Rivers and Along the Lake Erie Shoreline 161
12. Relative Abundance of Fishes Collected in the Cleveland
Harbor and Adjacent Marinas During the Period
1971 - 1974 165
xix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
JUNIOR AUTHORS ON PROJECT G005107, VOLUME II, THE FISHERIES STUDY.
Dr. Milton B. Trautman, Professor Emeritus, Museum of Zoology,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Mr. Eric J. Foell, John Carroll University.
Mr. Michael P. Kelty, John Carroll University.
Dr. Ronald Gaby, Biology Department, John Carroll University.
AUTHOR'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This volume represents the combined effort of five individuals. The
project director wishes to acknowledge the fine work and excellent
cooperation of each of these individuals.
The work of Dr. Milton B. Trautman was invaluable in the compilation
of much of the historical information which is presented throughout
this volume. He contributed much to the collection of literature
sources, thus enabling myself and the others to concentrate on
the field and laboratory investigations. His years of experience
with the Ohio ichthyofauna proved to be of great significance,
especially in our search for rare species and in the identification
of hybrid fishes. We collaborated fully in the final preparation
of this volume.
I should also like to thank Dr. Ronald Gaby, who worked on the initial
phases of the field collections, leaving the University in order to
accept employment elsewhere.
Throughout the entire project, Messers. Michael P. Kelty and Eric J.
Foell assisted in a major portion of the field collections, often in
extremely hazardous weather conditions. They sorted these collections
after which they were checked by either myself or Dr. Trautman. They
were also extremely helpful in maintaining data files and in the
preparation of the final draft of the report.
I should also like to thank the following persons for their assistance
during the project. Mrs. Virginia R. Howley, of the Western Reserve
Historical Society aided in the research into the early history of
Cleveland. Mrs. Janet Friedlander, of the Sears Library, Case-Western
Reserve University, obtained many of the literature references which
we required and the staff of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History
who supplied Jared P. Kirtland's original letter books.
xiii
-------
Several commercial fishermen allowed us to examine their catches and
supplied information concerning the distribution and abundance of
commercial species in the Cleveland area. We are especially indebted
to Captains Fred Wittal and Robert Jaycox who gave us information
concerning the changes in fish populations and environmental
conditions during the past fourty years.
The other investigators working on the various portions of this
baseline assessment were also extremely helpful, often making us
aware of specific conditions or the occurance of situations concerning
the local fish fauna. For this help we are grateful; as the final
report is far more complete than it would have been without their
aid.
I would also like to thank the residents of the local river drainages,
especially those of the Chagrin River and the East Branch, who
graciously allowed us access to the stream through their private
property.
This project could not have been undertaken without the support of
Messers. Denis Case, James P. Schafer (formerly of the City of
Cleveland), and the present project coordinator Mr. Al B. Garlauskas.
Without federal support through the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V., this project would not have been implemented.
A special recognition is due Dr. Norbert Jaworski, Director, Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, for assistance in the original planning
phases of this project; to Mr. Curtis Ross, Director of the Indiana
District Office for technical assistance and support; to Mr. Max
Hanok and Mr. Ralph Christensen who provided coordination and
guidance throughout the project and completion of this document.
xiv
-------
Chagrin^ River
LAKE ERIE
Lake Erie Intensive
Sample Stations
Supplemental Samples
Composite of All
Upstream Samples
Fish Collecting Stations in Lake Erie and the Lower Rivers
-------
VICINITY MAP
SCALE OF MILES
CUYAHOGA RIVER BASIN
Three Rivers Watershed and Vicinity Map
xvi
-------
A 24 hour collection made with a 125 ft. experimental gill net placed in a protected portion
of a marina within the Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, Ohio; April, 1974.
(A) 7 Eastern Gizzard Shad; (B) 22 Golden Shiner; (C) 2 Spottail Shiner; (D) 1 Rainbow Trout;
(E) 1 Coho Salmon; (F) 1 Northern Pike; (G) 2 Goldfish; (H) 2 Carp: (1) 1 Black Bullhead;
(J) 2 Brown X Black Bullhead; (K) 9 Crappies (Black,White and Hybrids).
-------
H-
H-
H-
A sample of fish specimens prepared for permanent storage in the John Carroll University Museum.
Such specimens will be maintained for documentation and future research.
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
After a complete review of all pertinent data concerning the past
and present fish populations in the Cleveland Metropolitan Area,
several conclusions can be made. Other, more specific conclusions
are based primarily on the information collected during this phase
of the study and are of significance especially to the future
documentation of the restoration of the Cleveland rivers and shoreline.
Many of these, however, should be applicable to other areas both of
distressed and recovering ecosystems and as such these data and
conclusions become more important. We should hope that the conclusions
of this report would be applied in other regions for research and
monitoring efforts in addition to those in Cleveland, Ohio.
1. It is concluded that the fish populations of the Cleveland
Metropolitan Area are under stress from the degradation
of the ecosystem and that the stress varies significantly
within the study area. The most highly distressed area
is the lower 7 miles of the Cuyahoga River and the least
distressed area is the middle and upper portions of the
Chagrin River system. Other areas display various
degrees of degradation.
2. In the entire study area, including the lower Cuyahoga
River, there were no areas found where a fish fauna was
completely absent. While the fauna of the most distressed
reaches of the Cuyahoga River is meager, consisting of
only occasional individuals of a few species, it is
concluded that fishes routinely enter the lower reaches
of this stream from the Cleveland Harbor. The most
commonly collected species were the Goldfish, the Emerald
Shiner and the Eastern Gizzard Shad.
3. The fish fauna of the Cleveland-Lake Erie shoreline is,
at present markedly different than in former times. The
species composition has changed from one of highly valuable
food species and clean water forms (ie. Muskellunge, Walleye,
Lake Trout, Silver Chub, Burbot), to one of a predominance
of rough fish and low value food species such as the Goldfish,
Carp, Gizzard Shad, Yellow Perch and Drum. The species have
changed from large piscivorous species to primarily plankton
and bottom feeding fishes.
4. The decline and change in the fishery in Lake Erie and in
the rivers did not primarily occur in the past few years.
The first major decline in the fishery occurred prior to
1840 and included the nearly complete collapse of the local
-------
populations of Muskellunge, Northern Pike and other stream
spawning species. These species have not recovered since.
This first decline was caused by the blockage of streams by
dams, thus restricting access by many species to their
upstream spawning grounds.
5. The second major decline in the fishery occurred during the
period from 1860 - 1890 and appears to be rather well
correlated with the deterioration of the Cuyahoga River
during the rapid growth of the City of Cleveland. Although
the decline is not as well documented as the most recent
one, it appears that the Cuyahoga became grossly polluted
during this period, perhaps more polluted than at present.
The principal species affected during this period were the
Walleye, Smallmouth Blackbass and shoreline species such
as the darters and shiners. Several species became
extirpated from the area during this period.
6. A third period of major decline occurred during the 1950-1960
period. The Blue Pike, Walleye, Burbot and many others
suffered a sudden and drastic reduction in numbers. While
the Walleye appears to have made a partial recovery in the
Eastern and Western Basins of Lake Erie, its numbers in the
Cleveland Area remain critically low. The Blue Pike is
considered by many to be extinct at the time of this writing,
and the Burbot has been placed on the list of Ohio endangered
species.
7. The primary cause of the decline in the Cleveland Area fish
populations is the destruction of spawning grounds and the
elimination of access to such localities by the activities
of man in the study area. We feel that the sport
or commercial removal of fishes played a minimal part in the
reduction of the fish fauna.
8. The species of fishes which have most severely declined are
those which spawned in the upper sections of the river
drainages, entering in spring from Lake Erie. The former
spawning grounds of these fishes have either been drained,
silted or blocked by construction of dams.
9. Those species which formerly spawned in the lower river
mouths or on gravel bars and beaches along the shoreline
have also declined sharply since 1850, because of siltation,
dredging and industrial or municipal pollution.
10. Species which spawn in offshore, deeper portions of Lake Erie
have shown the least reductions in numbers, and many of
-------
these (Drum, Smelt) have increased greatly in number.
11. Literature, museum and present survey records indicate
that a total of 101 species and 6 additional subspecies
of fishes have at some time inhabited the study area.
Presently, our survey indicates that 47 (45%) of these
are either rare or probably extirpated within the study
area. Of the 107 forms, we have documented the presence
of 87 within the area. It is probable that several more
exist in very small numbers.
12. Major fish concentrations are correlated with (1) a nearby
municipal pollution source, or (2) a warm water effluent
or (3) protected waters such as marinas, harbors or river
mouths. These concentrations are to be expected and have
been documented in other studies.
13. The principal concentrations of sport fishing activities
are associated with the preceding localities.
14. The principal sport and commercial species along the Lake
Erie Shoreline are Yellow Perch, Drum (Sheepshead), Carp
and White Bass. The Yellow Perch contributes the greater
portion of the catch.
15. Successful reproduction of 24 species of fishes has been
documented within the Cleveland Harbor and adjacent marinas.
Two species, the Goldfish and Green Sunfish are reproducing
in the lower 5 miles of the Cuyahoga River.
16. The major nurseries along the Lake Erie shoreline are (in
order of decreasing production), the Cleveland Breakwall
and adjacent marinas, the lower Chagrin River, the lower
Rocky River, the Lake Erie Shoreline and the lower Cuyahoga
River. The Chagrin has a greater variety of species.
17. In general, the species diversity index (Shannon-Weaver)
and the species composition along the Cleveland-Lake Erie
shoreline is low at a depth of 20-30 feet. Collections
show that there is a trend toward a more diverse and
abundant fish fauna to the east and west of Cleveland. The
fauna near the mouth of the Chagrin River is most diverse.
18. The species diversity index increases as collections are
taken nearer to shore, and excluding river mouths, the most
diverse and abundant fish fauna along the Lake Erie shoreline
occurs in the shoreline marinas, especially within the
Cleveland Harbor System.
-------
19. In the entire study area, the most diverse fauna occurs
in the lower 5 miles of the Chagrin River. In this area,
the diversity index is often in excess of 3.0. More than
sixty species have been collected.
20. The species diversity and relative abundance of fishes
changes seasonally along the Cleveland shoreline because
of the seasonal use of the area by various species (Drum,
Gizzard Shad, Trout-perch, etc.). The diversity is highest
in the early spring (March-April) and is lowest in the late
summer (July-August). Summer samples are not the most
representative of the fish fauna along the Lake Erie
shoreline.
21. This diversity and abundance of fishes along the shoreline
does not vary considerably during a season, indicating little
or no avoidance of selected areas by pelagic species.
Further, the species composition of the fishes in the
shoreline marinas (including within the Cleveland Harbor)
does not vary significantly during the entire year. This
indicates that local, resident populations inhabit the
marinas and that they are not transients. Species such as
Largemouth Blackbass, White Crappie and Northern Pike are
collected in these areas during all seasons of the year.
22. Species diversity and relative abundance of fishes changes
on a regular basis in the lower rivers and may change
greatly from week to week, day to day, or day to night.
Any evaluation of the fish fauna of a lower river should
involve several collections and these collections should
be taken during spring and late fall, and if possible should
involve night collections.
23. The formerly valuable commercial and sport fishery for Blue
Pike and Walleye in the Cleveland area has at present
diminished to zero. Although the Walleye appears to be
recovering in certain areas of the Eastern and Western Basins
of Lake Erie, neither have recovered in the Cleveland area.
According to our collections and observations between 1971
and 1974, it appears that the populations of the Yellow
Perch in the Cleveland Area are currently suffering a precipitous
decline. The population presently consists of very few
adults (III+ or older) and the numbers of 11+ individuals has
seriously declined. The commercial and sport fishery is
supported by this species in the Cleveland Area, and both
are meeting with poor success in 1974.
24. It is estimated that the loss to the Cleveland Area because
-------
of the collapse of the commercial fisheries is more than
$8,000,000.00 annually. This does not include the
estimated loss resulting from the near collapse of the
sport fishery and its revenues (tackle, boats, bait, gasoline,
lodging, etc.). Many investigators have calculated (for
other areas), that sport fisheries revenues often exceed
those derived from commercial fisheries.
25. Forty-six species and subspecies of fishes have been
documented as present within the Cleveland Harbor and
adjacent marinas. Many of these exist in limited areas,
consist of small populations, and exhibit minimal reproductive
success.
26. The number of species and subspecies which were documented
as present in other sections of the study area are summarized
below. (Lists may include same species in two stream sections),
78 species and subspecies in the Chagrin River system,
67 in the lower section and
56 in the middle and upper reaches.
58 species and subspecies in the Rocky River system,
40 in the lower section and
46 in the middle and upper reaches.
47 species and subspecies in the Cuyahoga River system,
8 in the lower section
14 in the middle section and
39 in the upper reaches.
50 species and subspecies along the Lake Erie shoreline
from the Rocky to the Chagrin rivers.
27. According to the composite list of Ohio endangered fish
species, compiled from "Rare and Endangered Vertebrates
of Ohio" (Smith, H. G., R. K. Burnard, E. E. Good, and
Keener; Ohio Journal of Science 73 (5):257-271) and a more
recent list prepared by the Ohio Division of Wildlife;
(August 1974) endangered species exist within the study
area. These are as follows:
1. Silver Lamprey, Ichthyomyzon unicuspis
2. American Brook Lamprey, Lampetra lamottei
3. Lake Muskellunge, Esox m. masquinongy
4. River Chub, Nocomis micropogon
5. Bigmouth Shiner, Notropis dorsalis
6. Pugnose Minnow, Notropis (=0psopoeodus) emiliae
7. Lake Chubsucker, Erimyzon sucetta
8. Burbot, Lota lota maculosa
-------
28. The Cleveland Area can be restored to its former position
as a viable fishery, although certain species will be
difficult if not impossible to restore. Should the
conditions along the shoreline and in the rivers improve,
most species would recover quickly.
29. The reports of Simpson, et al., of Havens and Emerson Ltd.
(135, 136) are misleading and unacceptable to us, insofar
as the fisheries are concerned. These reports indicate a
poorer quality of fish life than is actually present.
They reported less than 20% of the present fish fauna of
the Chagrin River drainage. Their reports of Carp and
bullheads and little else at their lower Chagrin River
stations is inaccurate because we have routinely collected
more than 25 species per hour at the same locations. At
some of the stations which they had sampled, we have
collected over 45 species in a single day.
The explanation that the environment has significantly
improved since 1970 does not explain these dissimilarities
in results. Disjunct populations are present in the Rocky
River (Bigmouth Shiner, Notropis dorsalis) and in the Chagrin
River (Pugnose Minnow, Notropis emiliae);these are considered
to be endangered Ohio species. These species are very
unlikely to have repopulated these streams since 1970,
for they are the only local sources for restoration.
If we assume that these species were present, but were not
collected because of their low numbers; it is difficult to
understand why so many associated species of shiners,
minnows, chubs and suckers were not collected. Our collections
indicate that some of the most abundant species in the area
are not represented in the findings of these authors. We
conclude that their collections are inadequate and misleading.
To utilize their data for the determination of water quality
would yield incorrect conclusions.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Concerning the protection of existing fish stocks, we feel that
certain areas should be discussed as important sources for the future,
natural repopulation of the Cleveland metropolitan area. These
areas should be considered as potential sources for the population
of distressed areas, and as such should be protected. The most
important of these areas are as follows:
(1) The Entire Chagrin River Drainage
The Chagrin River drainage is the most important
reserve of fish species in the study area. Nearly
80 of the original 107 species and subspecies of
fishes probably still inhabit the drainage, and
74 of these have been observed during this study.
This stream is the only one within the study area
capable of supporting the Rainbow, Brown and
Brook Trouts and contains reproductive populations
of Rainbow Trout in the headwaters of the East Branch.
Portions of this stream system harbor several
species which are considered rare or endangered
within the State of Ohio : Brook Trout, Great Lakes
Muskellunge, River Chub, Pugnose Minnow, Silver
Lamprey and American Brook Lamprey. The stream may
also contain populations of the Sand Darter, Iowa
Darter and Northern Shorthead Redhorse.
The Chagrin River system seems to contain the only
remaining spawning and nursery areas for several
species within the study area (Northern Pike,
Great Lakes Muskellunge etc,) and as such is extremely
important to the restoration program in this region.
Should the Chagrin River system, especially the lower
and extreme headwater areas, become degraded within
the next few years, the restoration of many species
in the Cleveland area would become more difficult,
if not impossible.
-------
(2) The Rocky River, the Middle Portions
The middle portions of the Rocky River is an
important source of fish stocks for repopulation
of the drainage. The fauna is not as diverse as in
the Chagrin, but stream species necessary for the
restoration of the lower sections are present in this
middle portion. It is also important since it contains
one of the remaining two populations of the Central
Bigmouth Shiner, an Ohio Endangered Species.
This stream, as with the Chagrin, is an important
feeding ground for some Lake Erie game species and
is a stock source for Smallmouth and Largemouth
Blackbasses.
(3) The Cuyahoga River, the Upper Portions
If the Cuyahoga River is to be restored, we must rely
on the fish stocks now present in the upper third
of the drainage. In these areas, nearly all of the
former Cuyahoga fish species persist, and populations
of two Ohio endangered species, The Hornyhead Chub and
Lake Chubsucker, are present.
Local, State and Federal agencies should begin to investigate the
possibilities of fish meal production from the Central Basin of
Lake Erie. Rough fish removal by commercial fisheries would tend
to improve a declining industry while at the same time removing
unwanted species and large quantities of organic material from the
Lake.
Investigations should begin immediately by all agencies, concerning
the removal of all unnecessary stream obstructions or the creation
of alternative migration routes around these structures for the
passage of Lake Erie and stream species of migratory fishes.
Obstruction removal should begin with those structures located
nearest to Lake Erie and proceed in an upstream direction. The
first structure to be considered is the Willoughby Dam, on the
Chagrin River. This would allow passage of Lake Erie and Lower
Chagrin species into the entire East Branch drainage and a large
portion of the middle Chagrin River.
Areas of remaining marshlands should be protected, especially those
near the Lake Erie shoreline. The shallows near the mouth of the
Chagrin and Rocky Rivers should be considered for State Wildlife
Areas, and should be managed as fish spawning grounds. Such areas
could also be utilized for other non-consumptive recreation such
as birdwatching, nature photography,etc.
-------
Land use programs should be developed for areas in the headwaters
of stream drainages. Erosion control measures should be developed
and strictly enforced.
Where possible, programs should be implimented to restore the
forest canopy over the smaller streams in the area. This would
help to prevent bank erosion, thus reducing siltation, and would
provide cover for fishes in streams. Such a canopy would tend
to shade the smaller tributaries and cool the waters in summer.
Municipal and industrial point sources of pollutant input should be
strictly controlled. Effluents should be treated as effectively
as technology will provide and efforts should be made to improve
such treatment as time progresses.
Studies should be initiated to investigate the feasibility of
artificial habitat restoration in highly polluted areas* Evidence
from this study indicates that the fishery within the Cleveland
Harbor could be greatly improved by the addition of artificial
substrates in selected areas which would serve as spawning and
nursery areas. Many species are already utilizing artificial
substrates in lieu of natural materials, indicating the feasibility
of such a program, (see Species Accounts; Yellow Perch, Largemouth
Blackbass).
Studies should be initiated concerning the food chain relationships
between fishes, benthos and plankton. Such investigations would
reveal the value of certain food species to fish production and
would provide information documenting the value of specific habitats
in polluted ecosystems.
A more thorough documentation of the distribution of rare and
endangered Ohio fish species is imperative. It is evident that two
of these may occur only in the Cleveland area, and as such should
be protected by the State of Ohio. Documentation of their
distribution would enable the Ohio Division of Natural Resources
to protect certain selected portions of habitat from adverse factors
affecting these species.
Sport fishing for Largemouth Blackbass in the Cleveland Harbor
should be prohibited during the spawning season. Our observations
indicate that production of this valuable game species is greatly
hampered by sportsmen removing Blackbasses from their nests in
marinas and along the Cleveland breakwall.
-------
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL COMMENTS
Originally this research project was undertaken to establish a baseline
of information concerning the past and present species composition,
relative abundance and seasonal fluctuations of the fishes of the
Greater Cleveland Metropolitan Shoreline. Preliminary investigations
were to be initiated concerning the age and growth structure, feeding
behavior and migrations of Lake Erie fish populations within the
study area. In addition, heavy metal analysis of food fish species
were to be undertaken.
As a result of initial findings, we were instructed by officials of
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to concentrate on the
ecology of fish populations rather than pursue the heavy metal analysis.
It became apparent early in our investigations that it would be
difficult, if not impossible, to separate the near-shore areas of the
lake from the river drainages in regard to fishes.
Therefore, it was decided not only to investigate the shoreline area
in Cuyahoga County from Lakewood Park east to Moss Point, but to
include the Rocky, Cuyahoga and Chagrin river drainages. It also became
necessary to conduct a literature survey for the period from 1790
to present because it was important to have information concerning the
chronological changes of the area in regard to the fish populations
and water quality.
Since the Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens) was the most important food
fish, a study of growth rate, coefficient of condition (K), age
composition and seasonal fluctuation was considered necessary. Those
species of fishes which were collected as either fry or young-of-the-year
were considered to be either reproducing in the study area or utilizing
the area as a nursery ground.
Fishes as Indices
The presence or absence of particular species of fishes has often
been used as an indicator of water quality. Certain species have a
limited "home range" and therefore may serve well as indices of the
local effects of water quality degradation. These species, especially
those that are intolerant of pollutants (Ammocrypta, Percina), may
also serve as excellent indices of short term pollutants that may
go undetected, especially by bi-weekly or monthly chemical monitoring
programs. Conversely, since some fishes are highly mobile, they may
temporarily enter a grossly polluted zone (such as the Lower Cuyahoga
11
-------
River). It is important that their presence should not be improper-
ly evaluated or overstressed. The fact that a species is occassionally
present or even commonly present at such a site indicates only that the
species is capable of surviving and not that the population is re-
producing, feeding, growing, etc.
In order to obtain an accurate evaluation of the impact of man on the
population of fishes, an evaluation of all factors must be considered.
Such an evaluation must include not only the presence of species,
but also their diversity, relative abundance, reproductive success,
growth rate as well as other factors.
This information must be correlated with the chemical environment,
benthos and planktonic community structure, physical characteristics
of the area and other biological parameters in order to achieve a
more complete picture of the cause and effect relationships which
have resulted in the present status of fishes in any given body of
water.
FACTORS AFFECTING FISH POPULATIONS
It is erroneously believed by some that all of a fish species' re-
quirements are met if there is sufficient oxygenated water present,
and many regulations have been passed which pertain to Q£ levels
for fishes. In addition to sufficient oxygen levels, however, many
other factors constitute a fish's life cycle, such as adequate
spawning areas, access to the proper habitat, favorable conditions
for the growth and development of fry, available food for young and
adults, proper temperature , presence or absence of aquatic vege-
tation (often of the proper plant species), presence of sheltered
waters and many other factors. If one or more of these factors
are absent, even for a short period of time, the abundance of a
species may become greatly reduced, or the species may become extir-
pated; even though oxygen or temperature values may remain within
an acceptable limit of tolerance.
Unless a species of fish has all of the requirements of its life
history, its future survival is in serious doubt. If any of these
requirements is absent, the species will be absent. For example,
it is obvious that the tributary streams play a very important, if
not an essential role, as a nursery for some Lake Erie species. Even
though the water quality of such a stream might remain satisfactory
for a given species, a decrease in abundance could be caused by a
single factor, such as a dam, which would effectively block all up-
stream migrations to the spawning grounds. It is conceivable, there-
fore, that a species may be brought to near extinction without the
addition of any industrial or municipal pollutants. While we recognize
that such a physical blockage of streams might be a cause of the
decrease in a certain population, we also recognize that additional
12
-------
factors are at work at the present time. To assume that the removal
of such structures, or any other single detrimental factor, may
bring about a recovery of the species is an invalid assumption,
since the effects of other factors play an equivalent or perhaps
greater role in the disruption of the life history of the fish. A
full comprehension of the interrelationships between each of these
factors and the total life history requirements of each species
of fish is essential in understanding the current status or methods
of restoring Lake Erie fishes.
Some of the most important factors affecting the Cleveland area fish
populations are discussed as follows:
FACTORS AFFECTING LOCAL FISH POPULATIONS
Stream Obstructions
Arriving in Ohio, the early settlers needed power and the most readily
available source was water. In response to this need, hundreds of
small dams were built and placed in use during the first quarter of
the 19th Century. These structures were among the first causes of a
major decline in the populations of some Ohio fish species (147),(Fig. 1)
As a general rule, most species of Ohio fishes are migratory, at
least when ready to spawn. These migrations may take several forms.
The Burbot (Lota lota maculosa) migrates from the deeper portions of
Lake Erie toward the shoreline, where it spawns in the shallows or
in the mouths of rivers during February. The Whitefishes and Ciscoes
remained in the deeper waters of the Central and Eastern basins
during the summer, migrating westward to the Western basins in fall,
where they spawned primarily among the reefs. Other species, such as
the Sturgeon (Ancipenser fulvescens), suckers of the genus (Moxostoma,
Smallmouth Blackbass (Micropterus dolomieui) and Walleye (Stizostedion
v_. vitreum), migrated from the lake or lower portions of the rivers,
upstream to spawn in higher gradients.
The Lake Muskellunge (Esox m. masquinongy) and the Northern Pike
(Esox lucius) sometimes made extensive migrations from the Lake, going
upstream many miles where they spawned among the flooded terrestrial
and aquatic vegetation. Even small species such as the darters
(Etheostomatidae) and shiners (Notropis) apparently migrated short
distances of a few miles and there is evidence that the Longnose Dace
(Rhinichthys cataractae) migrated from Lake Erie to the upper portions
of river drainages to spawn.
It is obvious that any structure such as a dam which prevents or hinders
upstream migrations would be detrimental to the sustained productivity
of many species. Without access to their spawning ground, they may be
rendered nearly unreproductive except possibly during periods of high
13
-------
Figure 1: Stream Obstruction at Willoughby, Ohio.
Dams such as these block the spawning runs and upstream migrations of many species
of fishes. The wire fencing placed on the top of this dam is to prevent salmon from
jumping the structure during their migration.
-------
water when migrating adults might bypass the obstructions. Even
the bypassing of these dams was probably inconsequential, because
although some spawners might succeed in bypassing the obstruction,
ditching, draining, and increased siltation may have destroyed their
former spawning grounds. In more recent years stream obstruction
has taken the form of what we might term "chemical dams". The lower
portions of many streams are now impassable for most species of
fishes because of industrial and municipal pollutants. Such a
situation is surely as effective an obstruction as a physical structure.
Ditching and Draining
It was necessary for the early pioneers to ditch and drain the marshlands
and swamps near rivers so that they might be utilized for agriculture.
Ditching and draining adversly affected a great variety of fish
species. Permanent residents of the swamplands such as the Mudminnow
(Umbra limi), Brook Stickleback (Culaea inconstans ) and Iowa Darter
(Etheostoma exile) were reduced due to the destruction of habitat.
Such species are the Lake Muskellunge and Northern Pike, which
utilized these undrained areas as spawning grounds, were denied the
necessary habitat for reproduction.
As a secondary effect, draining often lowered the water table, thereby
reducing the annual sustained flow of tributary streams. These streams
became intermittent and no longer served as nurseries for other species
not normally associated with marshes (ie Smallmouth Blackbass).
Frequently, these streams trapped all fishes present in the drying
pools during late summer.
The loss of marshlands and the resultant increased speed of draining
caused a more rapid run-off of water during storms. This resulted
in more frequent and more violent flooding. Unfortunately, ditching,
draining and channelization continues.
Siltation
Another effect of ditching, draining and channelization was the
increased erosion of soils adjacent to the stream. This resulted in
higher turbidities and the deposition of large quantities of silt on
the formerly clean stream bottoms. The removal of the forest canopy
resulted in an increased erosion since raindrops directly striking
the light humus soil eroded rapidly and deposited additional loose
material in streams. The plowing of the lighter soils further resulted
in greatly increased deposition of silt in streams. In many cases,
it took only a very small deposition of silt over the formerly clean
gravel, boulders and sand to partially or entirely eliminate spawning.
Especially affected were the Bigeye Chub (Hybopsis amblops), the River
Chub (Nocomis micropogon) and the Hornyhead Chub (Nocomis bigutattus)»
all of which spawned on silt-free gravel riffles. Such pool species as
15
-------
the Mimic Shiner (Notropjs v_. volucellus) which spawned over silt-free
sands also declined in numbers. The Sand Darter (Ammocrypta pellucida)
demonstrated a great decline in numbers in this area and throughout
Ohio during the early years. It appears logical to assume that this
was the direct result of the siltation of clean sandy substrates in
the streams. The recent decline of the Silver Chub (Hybopsis storeriana)
a lake species, may possibly be attributed to the siltation of the
gravel substrates in Lake Erie.
Siltation also affected a large segment of the invertebrate fauna, by
smothering the substrates and eliminating their habitat. Molluscs
were especially affected, and in Ohio, many species were extirpated as
early as 1850.
The deposition of silts has long been a major factor in the decline of
fish populations both in tributary streams and in Lake Erie. Spawning
and nursery grounds have been covered, the insect species utilized as
food have been greatly reduced or extirpated and aquatic vegetation has
been destroyed. Siltation continues to be a major problem in the
Cleveland area.
Organic Pollutants
Organic material, as with silts, is a pollutant which has been an
adverse factor since the early 1800's. As Cleveland grew, the demand
for lumber increased tremendously, resulting in the rapid deforestation
of the area. Sawdust from lumber mills was usually dumped into the
streams or along the banks. During warm water periods oxygen was
depleted, sometimes resulting in massive fish kills. Organic refuse
from slaughter houses and breweries contributed to oxygen depletion.
As Ohio continued to grow, domestic sewage became an ever increasing
problem. Professor Orton (Howe 1900, 1:89) stated that prior to 1858
the amount of contamination was becoming both relatively and absolutely
larger and not a single town had met this urgent demand of sanitary
science, and that many streams had become open sewers.
As the population of Cleveland has increased, the problems of organic
pollutants has shifted from sawdust and mash to domestic sewage. The
effects of this organic material on oxygen depletion in the rivers
and lakes is well known today and continues to be a major problem in
the study area, as well as elsewhere.
Inorganic Pollutants
Throughout the early years, prior to 1825 there were only a few
inorganic wastes which contributed adversely to fish populations in
Ohio. Tannic acid resulting from both the lumbering industry and from
tanning factories was probably the major contributor.
16
-------
After 1825, the development of heavy industry resulted in increasing
number of inorganic pollutants. This increase in types and amounts
of inorganics continued until some streams became uninhabitable by
fishes. In some areas, these deplorable conditions remain. Inorganic
pollutants also eliminated essential factors in the life histories
of some fish species. The loss or reduction of feeding and spawning
grounds have eliminated or greatly reduced many fish species. The
Walleye and White Bass (Morone chrysops) were particularly affected
because these species were regularly entering the lower portions of
streams to feed.
Aquatic Vegetation
Many species of fishes rely upon various types of submerged or emergent
aquatic vegetation for shelter, food, spawning and/or the development
of young. In pursuing The Fishes of Ohio (147), it becomes obvious
that a goodly proportion of the species of fishes which have drastically
decreased in numerical abundance or appear to have been extirpated
from most or all of Ohio, are those requiring aquatic vegetation in
some phase of their life history.
Siltation and turbidity were the primary cause of the loss of aquatic
vegetation through lessening of light penetration and the covering of
plants with a layer of silt. The loss of aquatic vegetation beds
resulted in an increased turbidity and even greater rate of erosion,
as evidenced by present day Lake Erie Shoreline.
The loss of aquatic vegetation resulted in the reduction of many fish
species, through the loss of feeding and spawning areas and protection
for young and adults. The Grass Pickerel (Esox americanus) Pugnose
Minnow (Notropis emiliae),Blackchin Shiner (Notropis heterodon), Golden
Shiner (Notropis crysoleucas), Pumpkinseed Sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus),
Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) and Tadpole Madtom (Noturus gyrinus)
have declined proportionally to the reduction in the amount of aquatic
vegetation.
In many cases, rooted aquatic vegetation has been almost or entirely
eliminated through the adverse effects of dredging, siltation, organic
and inorganic pollutants and the results of higher turbidities.
Nutrient Enrichment
During the past 100 years, the substrates and waters of Lake Erie and
its tributaries have become increasingly enriched (37) . Originally,
the water contained less nutrient material, was less turbid and
presumably was cooler. Recently, the higher temperature of the waters
combined with an increased concentration of nutrients has resulted in
greater frequency and duration of algal blooms.
17
-------
At first the primary source of enrichment was organic matter entering
streams from the forest, fields and marshlands. Later, the refuse
from lumber mills (sawdust), breweries (mash), graineries (chaff, flour)
and slaughter houses (carcasses, offal) added greatly to the nutrient
input in the lower Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie. More recently,
enrichment has been greatly accelerated by the leaching of commercial
fertilizers from agricultural and suburban lands, detergents, domestic
sewage and other industrial and municipal sources.
It is probable that this over-enrichment has led to an accumulation of
organic material in all portions of Lake Erie. The decay of this
material has seriously lowered the dissolved oxygen in many portions
of the Lake, and according to Hartman (37);
"...low oxygen stress on the benthos and
fish communities is becoming of consequence."
Litter
Litter has been a part of Ohio streams since the days of the early
pioneers. Discarded saw-logs, bark, metal, ceramics and other materials
were piled along stream banks. This practice was convenient since
flooding streams would periodically carry away all the refuse. This
practice has continued, but more recently the litter has taken the form of
slowly deteriorating aluminum cans, glass, automobile tires, and large
quantities of household and industrial items of plastics (Fig. 2).
After floods, the trees along the banks of streams are often festooned
with sheets of plastic. Gill net samples taken along near-shore areas
of the lake often contained few fish and large amounts of trash and
junk. Seining often produced many cans and bottles. Besides being
unsightly, this debris is hazardous to recreational activities. Many
swimmers and stream fisherman are injured each year and thousands of
dollars in damages to recreational boats occur each season.
Many species of fishes, such as the Bluntnose Minnow (Pimephales notatus).
Fathead Minnow (Pimephales _p_. promelas) and several species of catfishes
use these objects as substrates to deposit their eggs. At times, the
litter may be the only available spawning substrate or cover. It is
possible that in certain areas the litter is responsible for the
productivity of certain species.
During the floods, however, much of this debris is moved downstream,
carrying the spawn into the lake or lower river. Often the eggs are
destroyed or the larvae hatch into unfavorable environments. We have
observed that the Yellow Perch deposits strings of eggs on mops, rugs,
pieces of plastic, paper, wire and discarded Christmas trees. As
this debris moves throughout the lake, the eggs become dislodged and
fall to the silted bottom where they fail to hatch. Often the debris
18
-------
Figure 2: Litter Present on Beaches Near Cleveland, Ohio.
-------
carrying the eggs drifts far from shore where the larvae, upon hatching,
may be unable to find suitable food and subsequently perish.
Exploitation c)f_ Fish Populations
It is patently obvious that exploitation of fishery resources,
through commercial and/or sport fishing, must have an effect on certain
fish populations to a greater or lesser degree. The literature is
replete with instances of over-fishing, especially during that period
when a fish population is concentrated in a small area, such as on its
spawning ground. It appears to us that over-fishing, commercially or
otherwise, has been greatly over-rated in many instances and that most
species can be over-fished only through maximum and continued effort.
It is our belief that had not a single muskellunge or sturgeon been
removed directly by man, the present populations of these species would
not be noticeably greater in Lake Erie. It was the destruction of one
or more factors in their life history, such as of their spawning areas,
that resulted in marked decreases in the size of a given fish population
or has actually endangered many species in Lake Erie. It long has been
the custom for the gill netter to blame the trap netter for the
decrease of a fish population, or for the sport fisherman to blame both.
The destruction of one or more environmental factors necessary to the
completion of a fish's life history adversely affects the production of
young or adults and is the more significant contributor to its decline.
An excellent example is the Smallmouth Blackbass. In 1830, the species
was heavily fished around the Bass Islands of Lake Erie by both sport
and commercial fishermen. The normal catch of several hundred bass per
day were reported by sportsmen, and as late as 1877, several tons of
Blackbass were taken daily in the vicinity of the islands by hook and
line. During this period, Sterling (142) bitterly complained that the
sport fishermen were rapidly depleting the Blackbass population and
that catches of 750 per day by single individuals was not uncommon.
The population began declining rapidly after 1885. In 1902, the
commercial catch and sale of all species of Blackbasses was prohibited.
It was public opinion that removal of commercial exploitation would
result in the immediate restoration of the population to its former
abundance.
The population continued to decline, and several years later restrictions
were placed on the sport catching of Blackbasses. Despite increased
restrictions, Lake Erie populations of Blackbass continues to dwindle.
After more than 70 years of protection from both commercial and sport
exploitation the Smallmouth populations have continued to decline.
Sport catching near the Bass Islands is presently limited to only a
few specimens daily and the species has been extripated from much of
the remainder of the South Shore of Lake Erie.
20
-------
Introduction of Exotic Species
Exotic or non-native species of fishes may become established in a
body of water by several methods. Often efforts are made by man
to introduce fish species to augment the existing fishery. Trautman
(147) states that more than 17 species of non-native fishes have
been introduced into Ohio waters for this purpose. Normally, the
introduction of such species is unsuccessful. Unfortunately, some
species which have become firmly established have in time also become
largely unwanted, as have the Carp and Goldfish.
Occasionally, species are inadvertently introduced by sportsmen
through their use of minnows as fishing bait. Often these minnows
are imported, and their release into Ohio waters may establish a
reproductive population. This may have been the case with the Fathead
Minnow in many Ohio streams.
Species have also invaded Ohio waters through man-made waterways, such
as the Welland Canal. These species (e.g. Sea Lamprey, Petromyzon
marinus) have been largely undesirable.
Exotic species compete in the ecosystem for space and food, and may
adversely affect native species ability to survive. Often the exotics
are major predators, feeding heavily on the native fauna, while having
less sport or commercial value than the native predators which they
displace.
The introduction of exotic species is often hailed as the ultimate
answer to a problem of environmental degredation. It is believed
that exotics will survive in an eroding environment where native fishes
have drastically declined. Some species, (Coho Salmon, Oncorhynchus
kisutch) are of outstanding food value in their native habitat, whereas,
when introduced into Lake Erie they become far less desirable than the
species they apparently were intended to replace (Blue Pike,
Stizostedion ;v. glaucum) .
Environmental restoration would be a more reasonable, less costly
and a more permanent method of establishing high populations of food
species. It seems more logical to attempt to restore the former
abundance of Smallmouth Blackbass, Walleye or Northern Pike than to
continue the expense of random introductions or "replacements" for the
native fauna, hoping for success.
21
-------
f! 1
Figure 3: Undisturbed Wild Area Similar to Ihat Described by Early Surveyors Along the Lower
Cuyahoga and the Lake Erie Shoreline. This area is in the Upper Cuyahoga.
(Photo by Mark Caroots)
-------
SECTION IV
HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE CLEVELAND AREA FISHERY
A survey of the literature concerning the study area indicated that
a total of 107 species and subspecies of fishes had been reported
by previous investigations to have at one time inhabited the Cleveland
Metropolitan Area. These comprised a total species list regarding
the fishes of the Cleveland shoreline and the three river drainages.
(See p. 48-132). The only available literature pertaining to the fish
fauna of this area within the past twenty years are the reports of
Orr (1968), Havers and Emerson (1969, 1971) and the annual reports
of the Ohio Division of Wildlife. Orr's work is concerned only with
the upper one-third of the Cuyahoga River drainage. The Ohio
Division of Wildlife gill net surveys include only one Cleveland
sampling station (comparable to our station 3); and the reports of
Havens and Emerson comprised what we deemed to be an inadequate and
inaccurate investigation of the abundance and distribution of fishes
of the three river drainages. These latter investigators collected
only thirteen species of fishes from the Chagrin River while our
cursory investigations yielded 78 species. In addition, it has been
stated that the Lake Erie and especially the Cleveland area is
virtually fishless. For example, a college level biology laboratory
manual (1971) stated:
"Nobody was paying close enough attention to tell
when it happened, but a few years ago most of Lake
Erie died; solid wastes along with acid and other
poisons have left much of its water void of life
except for sludge worms and a few mutant carp that
have adjusted to conditions."
Such inferences and statements have been refuted by the findings of
this investigation.
It is apparent that a detailed, accurate baseline of data for the
fishes of the shoreline and the three river systems in the Cleveland
area is unavailable. Such a baseline, when achieved, would be
meaningless unless compared with distribution and abundance of fishes
in the past. An exhaustive literature survey covering the period
from 1790 to 1972 was undertaken, to define the chronological changes
of the Cleveland Metropolitan Shoreline and adjacent tributaries
regarding fish populations and water quality.
Original Water Quality and Fishery
The first surveyors and settlers who reached the Cleveland area
did not leave verbose accounts of its fauna, although we have a
rather complete account of the forests. From the few existing reports
and scattered information from journals and diaries of the pioneers,
it is possible to obtain some concept of Cleveland during this early
23
-------
period.
Published references indicate that the Cuyahoga, Chagrin and to a
lesser extent, the Rocky rivers, originally were composed of a
continuing series of riffles and deep pools. The substrates consisted
primarily of clean sands and gravels with areas of scoured bedrock
and boulders. All streams were largely covered by a forest canopy;
the waters cool, clear and free of turbidity. The statements of many
early writers testify to the clarity and purity of the waters of the
Cuyahoga. Early surveyors drank directly from the river, and the City
of Cleveland utilized it as a source of drinking water until the 1850's
Kirtland stated that in 1844, the Brook Trout was present in area
streams, this attesting to their clarity and coolness.
The upper and lower sections of all three river drainages contained
profuse quantities of aquatic vegetation, in the streams and adjacent
swamps. Near the mouth of the Cuyahoga (presently the industrial "flats"
of Cleveland), there was an immense marsh. The upper section of the
Cuyahoga was also largely wetland. Concering this section, Seth Pease,
a member of Moses Cleaveland's survey party (1797) wrote in his journal
tnat they were, ...much troubled with ponds and swamps." (127), (Fig. 3),
The shoreline of Lake Erie in the Cleveland area was quite different
than it is today. Holley (48) another member of Cleaveland's survey
party, wrote in his journal that:
"East of the Cuyahoga River a rock shore begins
and continues nearly a mile, then a good beach
commences and continues to the Chagrin River."
Apparently this beach was of considerable size because a survey party
of nearly 40 men maintained a base camp on it.
Originally, the Cleveland area was densely forested and contained a
sizable population of game animals. Zarly surveyors and settlers
routinely captured such mammals as elk, deer, bear and smaller animals
as passenger pigeons, turkeys and squirrels. According to Whittlesey
(160), Hamilton stated in his 1797 journal that:
"...we discovered a bear swimming across the
river [Chagrin]. Porter and myself jumped
into a canoe and paddled after him, while
another man went with a gun up to the shore."
Rattlesnakes were apparently numerous, and were sometimes eaten as
a delicacy (160).
The rivers and streams were heavily populated with wildlife. Although
no exact records exist concerning the abundance of fishes in the
24
-------
Cleveland area, it is the opinion of Mrs. Virginia Howley, of the
Western Reserve Historical Society, that the reason for this was that
fish were so commonplace and ubiquitous that they were largely deemed
unworthy of mention in the journals (51). The occasional records of
soldiers and woodsmen elsewhere in Ohio, indicate that there was
an immense population of fishes (147). This condition can be assumed
to be representative of the Cleveland area also.
Hildreth (39), for example, stated that the Indians could travel long
distances by canoe because the waters
"...afforded them a constant magazine of food."
because of the vast multitude of fishes. Trautman (147, p. 17),
in discussing the great abundance of fishes in Ohio before 1800 quoted
that Bradly constructed a brush fish trap across the Miami River near
Hamilton, Ohio. This trap, in one night, caught 2500 pounds of fish,
and about the same number on the next night. Also that Brown, in
discussing fishes in the Maumee River near Toledo, Ohio, stated that
their numbers were "almost incredible". He further stated that,
"...[fish were] so numerous...at this place, that
a spear may be thrown into the water at random
and will rarely miss killing one!"
Kirtland, several times indicated similar abundances of fishes in the
Cuyahoga River between 1840 and 1855.
It should be noted that in these early days, the species composition
differed markedly from the present. Carp and Goldfish had not yet
been introduced into Lake Erie and the Gizzard Shad was not abundant.
It was the large, fine food species that were abundant. These species,
such as Lake Sturgeon, Lake Muskellunge, Northern Pike, Smallmouth
Blackbass, Walleye and numerous species of redhorses (Moxostoma spp.)
flourished in the clean unpolluted lake, streams and marshlands.
The Cleveland area fauna of 1797 persisted until at least 1820
although a slight decline was evident. Charles Whittlesey (160)
wrote that a member of Cleaveland's survey party of 1797 had revisited
the Cleveland area in 1820, and found that the Cuyahoga River was
virtually unchanged from what he had originally observed.
Changes Between 1820 and 1855
By 1820 nearly every stream and river in the Cleveland Metropolitan
Area was blocked by mill dams. These dams affected many species
of fishes in various ways, as indicated by the early decline of several
species. The first result was the drastic decline of the Lake Muskellunge
and Northern Pike populations. Unable to reach the upstream marshlands
25
-------
because of dams, they were unable to spawn. Likewise, the stream
spawning populations of Lake Sturgeon also declined although
populations of adults persisted for years because this fish is particularly
long-lived (probably over 100 years), and because during this period, it
had little commercial value.
The Cleveland area was fortunate in having during the 1820-1850
period one of Ohio's outstanding naturalists, Jared Potter Kirtland.
This man left for posterity a highly accurate account of fish populations
in Ohio and especially in the Cleveland area, in his writings published
primarily in the Boston Society of Natural History and in the Family
Visitor (for bibliography of Kirtland, see Trautman (147), pp. 628-630).
Kirtland, in 1850, pointed out the drastic modifications in the fish
fauna during this period. He stated,
"still greater changes if possible have
occurred with the finny tribes^. The sturgeon
has nearly forsaken this [south] shore of
the Lake..."
He further stated:
"all the migratory species have been excluded...
by the construction of dams..."
While Kirtland (91) deplored the decrease of Muskellunge and Pikes,
he pointed out that in the same year one could capture near the
present Cleveland harbor as many as 100 bass and Walleye in a morning
by hook and line and that,
"Between 1849-51 the waters of Lake Erie near
the mouth of the Cuyahoga River was literally
black with fishing boats."
Other species, such as the Smallmouth Blackbass and Walleye did not
undergo a drastic reduction during this period because of the spawning
and nursery areas available along the shoreline. Unfortunately,
however, the Cleveland region does not contain the abundance of reefs
and shallow water spawning sites that occurred to the west in the
vicinity of the Bass Islands, and as shall be seen, these populations
of shoreline species were to be severely affected after 1850.
In addition to the early effect of mill dams, the water quality in
the Cleveland area also changed notably after 1820. The deterioration
of water quality increased with the increase in human population and
industrialization. In 1820, the population of Cleveland was approximately
150 persons, and as has been previously stated, the river was relatively
unpolluted. Soon after the opening of the Ohio Canal, industrial
activity was accelerated and by 1855 the population of Cleveland was
26
-------
26,000 (145). Municipal and industrial pollutant input was greatly
accelerated, leading to the total degradation of the Cuyahoga River.
By 1840, industrial pollutants, such as coal dust, iron ore, sawdust
and others had greatly deteriorated the quality of the lower
Cuyahoga. In 1851, a report on the water quality of the Cuyahoga was
submitted to the Ohio State Medical Convention. It stated that,
"...contaminated drinking water taken from
the Cuyahoga is responsible for the wide
prevalence of Typhoid Fever."
Obviously, this was the result of increased domestic sewage in the
lower river.
Kirtland was appointed to a commission to relocate the Cleveland
water intake. He was insistent that the intake tunnel be located in
the Lake, at a point where prevailing winds would not carry sewage
contaminants to the water intake. In 1854 a new intake was constructed
400 feet offshore in Lake Erie. By the end of this period, it was
apparent that the lakeshore was relatively clean, with high populations
of many species of fishes; while the lower Cuyahoga had become an
open sewer, full of industrial and municipal wastes.
Changes Between 1855 and 1900
Industrial pollution increased so that by 1868, the Cleveland Daily
Plain Dealer reported that:
"...from the filthy looking conditions of the
river, we imagine that but a short time will
be required to remove all evidences of beauty
and cleanliness from there. We should think
there might be some way discovered by which
the filthy refuse of the oil refineries could
be disposed of in some other way, than by
emptying it into the river."
(Vol. XXIV #110, May 6, 1868, p. 3)
During the winter of 1869 petroleum wastes were reported to have
contaminated the waters of Lake Erie from bottom to surface for a
distance of one mile from shore. This total deterioration of water
quality in the Cuyahoga River was now having an adverse effect on the
near-shore waters of Lake Erie. Numerous reports in newspapers of the
1860's told of "rescuing" fishes from near the mouth of the Cuyahoga
River. About this time, open Lake species began to avoid the polluted
near-shore areas of Cleveland.
27
-------
In 1859, Garlick (35) had reported that:
"Owing to the scarcity of fish on our coast
last fall [Whitefish] eggs will be ready for
planting in Lake Erie."
Apparently, the reason for the decline of Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis)
along the near-shore areas was their avoidance of Cleveland pollution,
since good catches of the species were still being made elsewhere in
Lake Erie.
Soon after 1870, local newspapers carried increasing numbers of
advertisements for Smallmouth Blackbass fishing excursions to the Lake
Erie Islands. Since Kirtland had reported large populations of Blackbasses
in Cleveland during the 1850's, it is apparent that the populations
along the shoreline had declined drastically within 20 years.
Obviously, other shoreline species (eg shiners, minnows, darters) were
also adversely affected by the industrial and municipal pollutants.
Further documentation of the increased effect of the river pollution
on Lake Erie is evidenced by the construction, in 1875, of a new water
intake for the City of Cleveland. This time it was located 6,200 feet
offshore, where uncontaminated waters were still available. This
new source of water was not to be uncontaminated for long, however,
for in 1882 the City experienced its first problem with algal blooms
which contaminated the water collected from the new source. A report
on the problem stated that prior to this year (1882), the City had
been exempt from this problem.
In 1890, the construction of the Cleveland Sewer System effectively
collected municipal wastes from the City, and emptied them, untreated,
into the Cuyahoga River. This final act of the 1800's must have had
an adverse effect on the already decimated Smallmouth Blackbass and
Walleye populations along the near-shore areas of Cleveland.
The Lake Sturgeon population continued to decline after 1855, because
of a lack of reproduction. This decliae was then accelerated by
commercial exploitation. By 1917, the Sturgeon had declined to such
a low level that only 128 Ibs. (probably one or two fish) were landed
by the combined effort of 63 commercial vessels fishing from Cuyahoga
County (40).
From the above discussion, it is apparent that the deterioration of
fish populations and water quality were occurring simultaneously.
By 1900, the combined effects of physical obstructions, draining,
siltation, and the municipal and industrial wastes had nearly
extirpated most fish species along the near-shore areas of Lake Erie in
the vicinity of the Cuyahoga River. Apparently, the lower Cuyahoga
itself was devoid of fish life.
The popular opinion of the general public is that the decline of fish
28
-------
populations in the Cleveland area of Lake Erie is of recent origin.
This is simply not so. The actual decline in population size of
some species of fishes began before 1820. By 1850 many local populations
had become drastically reduced. By 1900 the populations of many
species were on the verge of extirpation. Certain species such as
the Muskellunge, Channel Darter (Percina copelandi), Sand Darter,
Pugnose Minnow and Smallmouth Blackbass had almost disappeared from
the area near Cleveland.
The production of fishes from the river drainages and the near-shore
areas of Lake Erie had become critically low.
By 1900, two species of fishes had been extirpated from all of Lake
Erie, the Popeye Shiner (Notropis ariommus) and the Gilt Darter
Percina evides). In the Cleveland area, many species were already
extirpated, such as the Spotted Gar (Lepisosteus oculatus), Bigmouth
Buffalofish (Ictobius cyprinellus), Flathead Catfish (Pylodictus olivaris),
Tadpole Madtom (Noturus gyrinus) and Longear Sunfish (Lepomis megalotis
peltastes).
Changes Between 1900 and 1970
Between 1900 and 1970, there was a continued decline in abundance of
several of the remaining species. Others, such as Carp (Cyprinus carpio)
and Goldfish (Carassius auratus) had been introduced and were becoming
increasingly abundant. Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax) had gained access
to Lake Erie by 1936 and was increasing in abundance. The Eastern
Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) was rapidly replacing the waning
populations of the Mooneye (Hiodon tergisus).
Hartman (37) adequately describes the trends of valuable food species
during this period. He states:
"...since 1925, the fisheries for lake herring,
lake whitefish, sauger and blue pike have also
disappeared. Today the important walleye
population is exhibiting highly variable year-
class success from year to year.
In place of those lost resources, other
species have thrived or even had explosive
abundance. Sizable population of medium-value
yellow perch, white bass, and channel catfish
still exist in the lake. But the fish business
is becoming more strongly dominated by such
lower-valued species as carp, smelt, and fresh-
water drum."
A similar decline of non-food species has also occurred, and in many
29
-------
instances the number of species involved is much greater.
At present, the Cleveland area may be seen to exhibit almost
every possible situation which would adversely affect fish populations.
Dams are present in every river drainage, often near the river mouth;
chemical pollution is at such a critical level that the Cuyahoga
River occasionally catches fire. Municipal pollutants have caused
most area beaches to be closed (except for those which are enclosed
and chlorinated), and in some areas the organic material makes low
dissolved oxygen levels commonplace. Siltation is a major problem,
and dredging is essential for the passage of ships, yet land use
practices enhance erosion and channelization proposals continue to
be considered. Forest canopy, which formerly shaded the streams
is almost non-existent and most streams are warm and turbid. The
formerly abundant aquatic vegetation has nearly disappeared and swamps
have been replaced by homes and factories. Shoreline marshes are
either being drained, filled or contaminated with industrial wastes
(eg salt, oil, etc.). Chemical and thermal discharges of the Cuyahoga
River and lakeshore at times results in fish kills. (Tables 1,2).
Spawning grounds for nearly all species of fishes have either been
covered by silts, been made inaccessible by both physical or "chemical
obstructions, or been drained. At this point in time, nearly 50%
of the former fish fauna of the Cleveland Metropolitan Area are
extirpated, endangered or rare.
It is important to note that the destruction of the Greater Cleveland
fisheries was a gradual process, beginning after 1830. We have already
indicated that many of our native species were nearly extirpated by
1850 (Muskellunge), others by 1900 (Sturgeon) and still others (Blue
Pike, Burbot) by 1960.
It is more important to realize that almost all of the species of
fishes, formerly inhabiting the Cleveland Metropolitan Area, are still
present, even though in limited numbers. The generally accepted
attitude that only Carp, Drum (Sheepshead, Aplodinotus grunniens) and
Yellow Perch are present in the Cleveland Lake Erie area is erroneous.
It is our opinion that should the water quality and the environmental
requirements of fishes be restored, the populations and diversity of
fishes would recover in a few years. We believe that many species
are in a very precarious position at this time, and that it is
essential that the Cleveland area water quality and habitat be restored
quickly. Otherwise, we predict that the several additional species
will become extirpated from the area within the next few years.
Since the results of this report indicate that the fish fauna of
the Cleveland Metropolitan area can be restored, it is imperative
that attempts to accomplish this task be undertaken. In an area such
as the Cuyahoga River or Cleveland Harbor, where current attitude is
30
,,1— ,.,„.
-------
Table 1 : Chloride Levels of some Lake Erie Tributaries in 1904
( mg/1)
(from Volume I )
Location
Date
Chloride
Detroit River, South of
Grosse lie
Maumee River, near the mouth
Portage River, Woodville, Ohio
Sandusky River, near Tiffin,
Ohio
July 12, 1904
August 27, 1904
September 11, 1904
September 11, 1904
3.00
24.60
23,240.00
410.00
31
-------
Table 2: Loadings to Lake Erie via the Cleveland Harbor and
Cuyahoga River Dredgings from July 1, 1966 to
July 1, 1967.
(from Volume I)
(Quantities expressed in tons)
Constituent
COD
BOD
5
Chlorine Demand
(15 minutes)
Volatile Solids
Oils and Greases
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Iron
Silica
Total Dry Solids
From
River
110,000
7,100
14,000
58,000
16,000
1,860
2,300
51,000
270,000
460,000
From
Harbor
19,000
1,000
2,400
13,000
1,600
300
320
9,000
140,000
200,000
Total
Amounts
129,000
8,100
16,400
71,400
17,600
2,160
2.620
60,000
410,000
660,000
32
-------
that no fishes are present, the restoration of fish populations
would be a striking example of pollution abatement and restoration
within the City. Such an accomplishment would be of significance
to the area, the State and the Nation.
33
-------
OJ
Figure 4: Effluent into a Stream Tributary of Lake Erie
Hot water effluents in upper sections of Lake Erie tributary streams often contain
chemical pollutants in addition to heat. Tributary waters are warmed and many species
are killed during winter and spring in large numbers.
-------
SECTION V
METHODOLOGY OF DATA ACQUISITION
LITERATURE SEARCH
To determine the historical changes in both the distribution and
abundance of each species of fish inhabiting the Cleveland Metropolitan
area, an intensive literature search was undertaken. The past conditions
of the Cleveland fish fauna was documented in several ways. Many
historical documents were utilized, these from the collections of the
Western Reserve Historical Society, the Cleveland Museum of Natural
History Library and others. These included the field notes of several
members of the Moses Cleaveland Survey Party(1797-1798), local
newspapers of the 1800's, publications of scientists of the early era
such as Rafinesque and J. P. Kirtland, and the field notes of 20th
Century scientists such as Milton B. Trautman.
Certain of the information concerning the early fauna of the area was
interpolated from the writings of the early pioneers, surveyors and
naturalists of the early 1800's who wrote of the conditions elsewhere
in Ohio. This information, often concerning streams and areas of Lake
Erie adjacent to the study area, was utilized in the historical
discussion contained in Section VI of this publication.
More recent information was gathered from publications, the records
of commercial fishermen, unpublished manuscripts and theses, and the
collections of local museums and Universities. Discussions with local
fishermen and residents were also helpful in determining the recent
changes which had occurred with the distribution and abundance of the
fish fauna.
More than 500 documents pertaining to the region or individual members
of the fauna were utilized during the literature search. Several
hundred of these are presently filed at the John Carroll University,
Department of Biology and/or The Sears Library, Case-Western Reserve
University. Approximately 160 of these are cited in this publication.
FIELD COLLECTIONS
The field collections were conducted in the nearshore areas of Lake Erie,
and in the drainages of the Rocky, Chagrin and Cuyahoga rivers. During
the period from June 1, 1971 through December 31, 1972, more than 200
collections were made at various sites, some of which were sampled
repeatedly. A variety of techniques were used, often several at a
site during a single collection. Over 77,000 specimens of fishes were
35
-------
collected and examined. All except approximately 7,000 were
subsequently released.
Specimens of each species collected were preserved and placed in the
John Carroll University Museum, Vertebrate Collections or in The Ohio
State University, Museum of Zoology. These specimens will serve to be
a permanent record of the species present during the study and shall be
maintained for reference or study by other investigators. The John
Carroll Collections are maintained by Dr. Andrew M. White, Biology
Department, and the Ohio State collections are under the direction of
Dr. Ted Cavender, Zoology Department.
Sampling Techniques
Samples were taken in the deeper waters employing an 18-1/2 foot
outboard motorboat, the "Noturus". In deeper areas of the lower river
drainages, rowboats were often utilized. During periods of heavy seas,
especially during the winter, a chartered commercial fishing vessel
was used. In order to insure that the greatest variety of fishes were
collected, several sampling techniques were utilized, depending upon
the conditions at the sample site. Often, more than one technique
was employed during a collection. These various techniques are described
as follows:
1. Gill Nets
Experimental gill nets were used in the open Lake, the deeper
portions near the shoreline, and in the lower sections of the
river drainages. These nets were 125 feet in length, 6 feet
in depth, and consisted of five panels of varied stretch mesh
sizes ( 1 in., 1-1/2 in., 2 in., 3 in., 4 in. ).
Stations were sampled with experimental gill nets for periods
of 24 to 48 hours. In some cases, additional gill nets were
utilized, these having stretch mesh sizes of 2, 2-3/4, 3-1/2,
4-1/2, 5, 6, 8, 10 or 12 inch stretch. As these larger sizes
were not used routinely in the sampling procedure, the fishes
collected by these nets were included only in the distribution
data and have been disregarded in the evaluation of relative
abundance and species diversity.
It was difficult to sample in the shallow waters of the Lake
and lower rivers due to the interference on the part of
recreational boaters and sport fishermen. The gill nets
therefore, were always set between 0-7 feet from the bottom,
and at least 10 feet below the surface. Occasional samples
36
-------
Figure 5 : Gill net samples being collected in the Cleveland
Harbor during January.
37
-------
were taken in these areas by setting nets for short periods in
the early morning hours or at night. Crews would then remain
. with the nets insuring that fishermen or boaters did not
become entangled.
A considerable number of samples in the upper and middle
portions of the rivers were taken with the aid of short (125')
gill nets. Often large pools were sampled by placing one of
these nets across the pool, and then swimming in the pool in
order to frighten the fishes into the net. In this manner,
several species were collected that were extremely difficult
to capture by other methods.
Many samples were not included in the data concerning the
relative abundance and some were completely disregarded as
representative since high winds and storms frequently filled
the nets with trash and debris. This often caused the nets to
roll and collapse; or tore large holes in the gill net, thereby
reducing its efficiency.
2. Trawling
Trawling samples were taken in order to collect species that
were either too small to capture with the gill nets or were
not readily collected by that technique. Trawling was difficult
to accomplish in the study area, especially in lower rivers and
the Cleveland Harbor, because of the great quantity of rocks,
trash and debris on the bottom. A limited amount of trawling
was accomplished and this information is included in the
distribution data only, since most attempts at these collections
were considered to be unrepresentative.
The trawl utilized in the collection of this data was a 16 foot
semiballoon otter trawl equipped with mud rollers.
3. Fyke Nets
Fyke nets were utilized on a limited basis due to the heavy
use of the study area by recreational boaters and sport
fishermen. Tampering, theft and boating accidents due to the
obstruction of waterways invalidated most of the samples. The
possibility of boating accidents would have created a public
relations problem in many areas. Fishes collected by the
Fyke nets are included in the distribution data only.
Fyke nets were successfully used in certain areas of the upper
and middle portions of rivers, and in these cases the nets were
set for periods of 24 hours. The nets consisted of 4 foot hoops
and twenty foot wings. The mesh was of 1/2 inch stretch mesh.
38
-------
u>
Figure 6: Fyke Net Sample Being Collected in a Pool in a Tributary Stream.
-------
4. Seining
The shallow beaches along the Lake Erie shoreline and shallow
areas within the marinas and harbors were sampled with seines
and a crew of four men.
In the river drainages, seining was the most effective method
of collection, and was utilized extensively. Seining in the
streams was accomplished using three man crews. All available
habitats were sampled within 1/2 mile areas both upstream and
downstream of the station. Depending upon the characteristics
of the area, a variety of seines were utilized. These included
the following:
A. A 50.foot, 1/2 inch mesh seine with a 4 X 4 foot
bag. The seine is 4 feet high.
B. A 26 foot, 1/4 inch mesh seine with a 4 X 4 foot
bag. The seine is 4 feet high.
C. A 16 foot, 1/4 inch mesh seine with a 4 X 4 foot
bag. The seine is 4 feet high.
D. An 8 foot Common Sense seine, 4 feet high with
1/4 inch mesh.
E. A 4 X 4 foot fry net with 1/16 inch mesh. This
seine constructed of "Ace" netting.
Of the fishes collected by seining, approximately 95% were
identified at the collection site and then returned to the
stream. The remainder were placed into a solution of 6%
formalin and returned to the laboratory for confirmation and
to be used as representative specimens.
5. Sport and Commercial Catches
No attempt was made to actively survey the catch of either
sport or commercial fishermen. In some localities however,
certain species were observed only in these catches. These
data have been included in the distribution of species and
are not incorporated into the relative abundance data. At
times, only persons engaged in these activities observed some
species. These reports were considered valid only when supported
by a clear, dated photograph or the specimen itself (or portions
of the specimen which could identify it to species).
The records of the Cleveland area commercial catch and the
Ohio Division of Wildlife gill net surveys have been considered
40
-------
Vy^tjifii, %fS"K;-3^
Figure 7: Seining in the Cleveland Harbor Shallows.
-------
valid and have been utilized as a source of recent data.
6. Direct Observations
•Observations of fishes without supporting collections were,
in almost every case, considered to be invalid. Only the
observation of a species having unique characteristics was
accepted, and then only if reported by a reliable observer.
Such species as the Longnose Gar were accepted while species
such as the Common Emerald Shiner, Bluegill Sunfish or White
Sucker were not accepted unless substantiated by a specimen.
LABORATORY TECHNIQUES AND METHODOLOGY
Coefficient of Condition
Fishes utilized in the calculation of the Coefficient of Condition (K)
were collected and then returned to the laboratory on ice. The
specimens were weighed as soon as they reached the laboratory. Weights
were taken with a Mettler Balance, and were recorded to the nearest
gram.
Lengths were also taken in the laboratory, as soon as the specimen was
weighed. Lengths were recorded in millimeters, using a standard fish
measuring board, obtained from Wildco of Michigan.
Data was entered into the Burroughs 5700 computer located at John Carroll
University where the calculations were made. The standard foumula for
the calculation of K was utilized. The formula is given below:
K = W( 105) / L3
where W = Weight in grams
L = Length in millimeters, and the standard
length is used.
The age of certain species was determined by standard techniques of the
reading of scale annuli. Specimens of scales were taken from fishes to
be aged and stored in envelopes upon which the pertinent data was
recorded. Scale impressions were made of several scales from each sample
by the techniques described by Smith (140). Annuli were read using a
Fish scale projector and magnification equipment ( Eberbach, Inc).
42
-------
Species Diversity Index
The species diversity index(calculated)was based on either gill net
or seining samples. The two techniques were not compatable relative to catch
per unit of effort and therefore, samples were treated as distinct data.
Gill net samples were all converted to a catch of 24 hours duration and
with 1000 feet of experimental net. Often this necessitated the multiplic-
ation of a collection, but more often, samples were taken with nets of
1400 feet. The data was relatively uniform throughout the collecting
period as pertains to the size of meshes and length of the net.
Seining samples were converted to a standard of one hour of effort. Since
the crews utilized only one seine at a time this resulted in a rather
uniform conversion of data.
The species diversity index calculated is that of Shannon-Weaver. The
formula utilized is presented below, and is compatable with that used
by the other investigators involved in the Phase one project.
D = -dii/n) Iog2 (n±/n)
where n.^ = the number of individuals in the i species
n = the total number of individuals in all species
In addition, the maximum diversity was calculated, in order to provide an
assessment of species richness. This was calculated according to the
formula:
d" = Iog0 S
max 2
where S = the number of species present.
Equitability was calculated between the diversity and maximum diversity
and is presented as the value of E. this was calculated according to
the formula:
E = D / Iog2 S
43
-------
>?.'^-;^, •.;'
, .
• *• -;',- ,;>'-.' V;>'
• v/.v™ •,-,„,; .1 ^.j
Figure 8: Gill Netting in Streams.
Gill net collections were made in areas of streams where
seining or fyke net collections were impractical due to
depth or substrate.
44
-------
SECTION VI
STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Utilizing all of the methods described, more than 77,000 specimens
of fishes were captured and examined. All except approximately 7,000
of these were subsequently released. These latter specimens are
currently preserved in the museums of the John Carroll University,
University Heights, Ohio or The Ohio State University Museum of
Zoology, Columbus, Ohio. They will be maintained by these museums
for future documentation and/or research.
The results of this study were primarily intended to provide a firm
baseline of both past and present distribution and abundance of fishes
in the Cleveland Metropolitan area. A total of 107 species and
subspecies are included in the following discussion, representing
60 per cent of all species of fishes known to have occurred in the
state of Ohio.
Individual Species Accounts, Past and Present
In discussing these 107 species and subspecies, we recognize that
fish populations fluctuate, sometimes radically, from year to year.
Realizing this we feel that a few years data are insufficient to
discuss abundance except in relative terms. Therefore, the terminology
such as "abundant" or "common" are necessarily vague, and are
intended only to provide gross quantitative measures. For those who
wish to examine the actual numbers of each species collected, these
figures are presented in tabular form at the end of the discussion.
In general, our definition of the terms utilized in the discussion
is as follows:
(1) Extremely Abundant
present in huge concentrations; utilizing the proper
technique, they are normally extremely easy to collect
and comprise a major percentage of most collections.
(2) Abundant
present in fairly large concentrations; occurring in
most collections, sometimes in considerable numbers.
(3) Common
sufficiently numerous to be present, at least in some
numbers, in almost every collection.
45
-------
(4) Uncommon
usually present in small numbers, at least a few
individuals occurring in some collections ,
(5) Rare or Commercially Extirpated
either present in only a very few collections and
then represented by only one or a few individuals; or
when the numbers captured commercially are so few
as to be economically unprofitable.
(6) Scientifically Extirpated
a species is considered to be scientifically extirpated
if it was not taken by any type of scientific or
commercial collection technique, regardless of the
effort to do so.
(7) Probably Extirpated
a species is considered to be probably extirpated
when no specimens have been captured for several years
despite a determined effort. It should be understood
that in such a large body of water as Lake Erie, it
is possible for a species to survive for years in a
small, isolated area of favorable habitat. As such, it
might be undetected by ichthyologists but increase
again in the future if favorable conditions should
once again become available. Therefore, it is difficult
to state unequivocably that any species is extinct in
Lake Erie.
Many species of fishes are highly migratory and may enter an area
only occasionally, sometimes in an annual cycle. In order to
indicate these conditions, the terminology described above is further
qualified at times by the adjective Seasonally. Where applicable,
such a designation is given immediately following the evaluation
of abundance.
The adjective Locally is used to qualify a species which has a very
specific habitat requirement. Such a species may be restricted in its
range throughout the study area, but may be abundant in limited areas.
This qualification immediately follows the evaluation of abundance.
The primary habitation (Lake, Stream, Ubiquitous) is also given for
each species. This is essential to an adequate understanding of the
distributions as presented in the following discussion. It should be
46
-------
noted however, that the preferred habitat for each species refers
to the habitat of the species within the study area. In other
parts of Ohio or elsewhere, the species may be found in different
areas. In this discussion the following general definitions are
utilized:
(1) Lake
Refers to the preference of the adult members of a
species for lentic or lower river waters.
(2) Stream
Refers to the preference of the adult members of a
species for lotic waters.
(3) Ubiquitous
Used when the adult members of a species occur in both
lentic and lotic habitats as residents (not as strays only)
In reading the following discussion it should be remembered that the
data contained in Volume I of this report was printed prior to the
completion of Volume II. The authors of Volume I were unaware of
the data that was to be collected in the summer of 1974. Therefore,
the numbers of specimens, and the total number of species in areas
such as the Cleveland Harbor are increased in Volume II. This is
due to additional data, and not to error on the part of the authors
of Volume I.
-------
INDIVIDUAL SPECIES ACCOUNTS OF THE STUDY AREA FISH FAUNA
1. SILVER LAMPREY, Ichthyomyzon unicuspis !
RARE 2
LAKE
Before the breeding streams were dammed and polluted immense numbers of
this parasitic lake species of lamprey ascended streams for the purpose
of spawning.
A decrease in abundance was observable by 1900 and this decline has
continued until the present.
An individual was collected during June of this survey. This specimen was
taken in the Chagrin River, presumably ascending in an attempt to spawn.
Additional specimens were collected in areas adjacent to the study area
by Lake Erie commercial fishermen. In discussions with these fishermen
we were informed that the species is rarely observed, and that during
most years they collected fewer than twenty-five individuals. This
species and the Sea Lamprey are often confused; therefore, the total
observations of these fishermen most probably represent a composite of
both species.
4
(References; 66, 101, 119, 147, 150)
2. SEA LAMPREY, Petromyzon marinus
RARE
LAKE
Apparently this parasitic species invaded Lake Erie after 1930 (147)
but according to available records it has never become abundant. Its
confusion with the Silver Lamprey has led to the belief that it was more
Scientific and common names from Bailey, et. al., 1970; for
subspecific status see Trautman, 1957.
Relative abundance in the study area during this survey.
Preferred habitation within the study area.
These references are all of the available literature sources concerning
the species in the Cleveland area of which we are aware. For historical
information concerning the species in Ohio see reference number 147;
for recent information concerning Lake Erie status see 150; all other
references cited are specific. Reference numbers within the text are
cited for the readers benefit and may be utilized for fuller and
more comprehensive documentation of the specific subject or incident.
48
-------
common than is actually the case. Preserved specimens indicate that
it has always been rare in Lake Erie.
Two specimens were collected during this survey, both in the Chagrin
River, apparently ascending the stream in an attempt to spawn. Two
specimens were collected in Lake Erie, adjacent to the study area,
near Avon Lake, Ohio. One was attached to a Carp, the other to a
Freshwater Drum. The same factors of siltation, damming and pollution
which have contributed to the decline of the Silver Lamprey have limited
the success of the Sea Lamprey.
(References; 37, 147, 150)
3. AMERICAN BROOK LAMPREY, Lampetra lamottei
LOCALLY COMMON STREAM
This stream inhabiting, non-parasitic lamprey may be readily collected
during its limited spawning season. At other times of the year, (as
ammocoetes, the larval form) it may be obtained by digging in the stream
bottoms. No attempt was made to collect this species, although a
single adult was seined in the Chagrin River during 1972. The species
is recorded from numerous localities in the upper portions of the
Chagrin River drainage (147) and in these areas it probably occurs
commonly.
(References; 147, 150)
4. LAKE STURGEON, Acipenser fulvescens
SCIENTIFICALLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
This large species, sometimes attaining a weight of 200 pounds, was
an important food source before 1900. It spawned in large numbers
in streams such as the Cuyahoga River prior to 1830. According to
Kirtland (95), spawning runs had ceased in the Cuyahoga on or before
1850 and the numbers of individuals in the open lake had drastically
declined. This decrease in numerical abundance is obviously the result
of stream obstructions which prevented sturgeons from reaching the
upstream spawning grounds. The deterioration of the Cleveland shore-
line accounts for its early avoidance of the areas near the shore.
After 1900, sturgeon populations which remained continued to decline.
In the early 1900's only a few specimens were taken per year by
commercial fishermen and by 1930 the species was considered extremely
rare, only occasional specimens being observed per year.
No documented specimens have been recorded in the Cleveland area for
several years. A concerted effort to collect one was made during this
study but none was taken. The species is currently a member of the
49
-------
Ohio Endangered Species List.
(References; 70, 74, 95, 119, 147, 150)
5. SPOTTED GAR, Lepisosteus oculatus^
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
Kirtland (95) stated that "a specimen was taken near Cleveland..."
about 1850 or 1851.
None has been collected in the Cleveland area since. This species
is also considered to be an Ohio Endangered Species.
(References; 96, 119, 147, 150)
6. LONGNOSE GAR, Lepisosteus osseus
UNCOMMON LAKE AND LOWER RIVERS
This gar was formerly numerous in areas where aquatic vegetation was
abundant. Lesser populations were present in other areas along the
shoreline and middle sections of the river drainages wherever deep
pools were present.
After 1900, disappearance of the aquatic vegetation and increased
siltation resulted in the drastic decline of this species.
At present, small populations occur in and near the mouths of the
Rocky and Chagrin rivers, especially where the water is quiet and
vegetated. The majority of the specimens of Longnose Gar were taken
in the marina channels of the Chagrin. This gar occasionally enters
the open lake and individuals were recorded in some Lake Erie shore-
line marinas. Two specimens were collected within the Cleveland
Harbor.
(References; 68, 97, 115, 119, 147, 150)
7. BOWFIN, Amia calva
UNCOMMON LAKE AND LOWER RIVERS
Originally the Bowfin was present in areas of low gradient streams and
embayments which were heavily vegetated. Kirtland reported that the
species was abundant in Lake Erie prior to 1851 (98). Since then it
has declined in abundance greatly.
During this survey two specimens were collected in the lower Chagrin
River. A few individuals were reported by anglers who caught them
in the lower Rocky River. Its present scarcity is probably the result
50
-------
Figure 9: Distribution of Lampreys, Gar and Bowfin
LAKE ERIE
Cuyahoga \f River
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
O Silver Lamprey
Q Sea Lamprey
^ Longnose Gar
• Bowfin
-------
of the decrease in aquatic vegetation and the filling of the shoreline
marshes.
(References; 64, 67, 98, 115, 119, 147, 150)
8. AMERICAN EEL, Anguilla rostrata
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
Kirtland (69) heard rumors of eels in Lake Erie waters after the
completion of the Welland Canal in 1829. It was not until sometime
later (date unrecorded) that he examined an eel caught in the Cuyahoga
River in Cleveland (147). This may have been the same one that Garlick
mentioned, that was taken "...last year (1856)..." in the Cuyahoga
River (35). In 1882, the Ohio Fish Commission began planting elvers
in Ohio waters and by 1887 they mentioned the capture of eels throughout
Ohio, especially in the Lake Erie drainages.
The species was fairly numerous following their introduction but we
have few records and little information realtive to eels after 1900.
Recently, no records of eels in the study area have been cited in the
literature and none was taken during the survey. It is assumed that
the stockings of eels did not produce a self-sustaining population in
this area.
(References; 35, 69, 119, 147, 150)
9. ALEWIFE, Alosa pseudoharengus
COMMON LAKE
This herring was first reported from Lake Erie in 1931, having probably
invaded through the Welland Canal. The species has not become as
numerous in Lake Erie as it has in others of the Great Lakes.
It continues to be uncommon as an adult in the immediate Cleveland
area but during the survey large numbers of fry were collected in the
shallow areas along the shoreline. Adults were most frequently
encountered during the colder months of the year and the largest numbers
of fry were taken near the mouth of the Chagrin River.
(References; 32, 147, 150)
10. EASTERN GIZZARD SHAD, Dorosoma cepedianum
EXTREMELY ABUNDANT UBIQUITOUS
Kirtland (75) considered this species as a recent invader (circa 1851)
52
-------
into Lake Erie from the Ohio River drainage via the recently constructed
canals. However, it is now generally believed by ichthyologists to
have been present in Lake Erie throughout historic times. It is
generally assumed that then the population was low and largely unconcen-
trated, and was therefore, unnoticed.
With the advent of power plants producing thermal discharges, shad
have become increasingly observable because of their tendency to
concentrate at such outflows during the winter. Their inability to
survive rapid temperature changes has resulted in massive kills. The
presumed increase in plankton, their principal source of food, has
probably resulted in a great increase in numbers.
At present this species is extremely abundant in the Cleveland area,
congregating in immense numbers at warm water discharges and near the
mouth of the Cuyahoga River during winter. In summer, it retires to
the deeper portions of the lake and is frequently absent from the
Cleveland Shoreline. During the survey, this species was represented
in approximately half of the collections from Lake Erie and the lower
portions of the three river drainages.
(References; 64, 75, 119, 147, 150, 163)
11. MOONEYE, Hiodon tergisus
SCIENTIFICALLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
Kirtland stated in 1847 (73), and again in 1851 (103), that "...this
fish abounds both in Lake Erie and the Ohio River. It was not very
highly valued for food." Commercially, it was then and is now considered
among the "trash" species and no accurate commercial records of its
abundance exist.
Apparently, the species remained abundant until after 1935, after which
it decreased sharply. During the depression of the early 1930fs many
Cleveland area residents utilized these as a food source, spearing them
in great numbers near hot water outflows.
Although a careful search was made for this species during this survey,
both in Cleveland and adjacent areas, not a single specimen was
collected. Apparently, the increase in siltation, turbidity and the
decline in suitable prey have contributed to the sudden disappearance of
this species.
(References; 55, 73, 103, 119, 147, 150)
53
-------
Figure 10: Distribution of Alewife and Eastern Gizzard Shad
agrin l^River
LAKE ERIE
Cuyahoga \* River
OLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
Alewife
Eastern Gizzard Shad
-------
12. CHINOOK SALMON, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
SEASONALLY COMMON LAKE
This species was first introduced unsuccessfully into Lake Erie waters
in 1875.
After 1890, it was occasionally reintroduced into the lake waters
(150). The first successful introductions occurred in the 1970's
when large numbers were introduced into the East Branch of the
Chagrin River.
Commercial fishermen reported fair catches of salmons during the survey
from areas adjacent to Cleveland, presumably of both Chinook and Coho.
Fourteen adult Chinook were collected during this survey from five
localities, including Cleveland Harbor, and recently, sport fishermen
at Gorden Park (near station five) caught many salmon which we assume
to be chinooks. Collections indicate that the stocked fingerlings
remain in the Chagrin River until the March following their release.
Downstream migration occurs after this and by May none was collected
in the streams. It is doubtful that any reproduction is occurring in
the study area.
(References; 9, 55, 150)
13. COHO SALMON, Oncorhynchus kisutch
SEASONALLY COMMON LAKE
As with the Chinook, this species was stocked irregularly without success
between 1876 and 1930 (150).
It was first successfully introduced into Lake Erie by planting
thousands of fingerlings in the Chagrin River during the years 1968
to 1970.
In 1972 this species was captured in Lake Erie by commercial fishermen,
sometimes in fair numbers. Specimens also were taken in the Chagrin
River, Rocky River, Cleveland Harbor and Edgewater Park. Apparently,
the species does not spawn in the Cleveland area, and the maintenance
of the Lake Erie population is entirely the result of restocking.
(References; 9, 55, 136, 150)
14. BROWN TROUT, Salmo trutta
RARE STREAM
This species is not native to North America.
55
-------
Brown trout have been sporadically stocked in Ohio tributaries since
1934 and possibly before, with little success (147).
During the survey, approximately 50 adults escaped into the Chagrin
River drainage from a trout club in Geauga County. Occasional specimens
are captured by sportsmen fishing in the Chagrin; and it is assumed
that such specimens are the results of similar escapes from stocked
ponds. One specimen was collected in the East Branch, Chagrin River.
(References; 147, 150)
15. RAINBOW TROUT, Salmo gairdneri
UNCOMMON STREAM
This trout was apparently introduced about 1886 with little success
(147). Its original range was western North America.
The species was successfully introduced recently in the Chagrin
River where thousands of fingerlings were released. In this river,
collections of many recently stocked fingerlings were made and in
addition, several yearlings were collected. Successful reproduction
has occurred in at least one of the tributaries of the East Branch,
Chagrin River. Both adults and very small young were collected at
one site.
Adults of this species are occasionally taken by sportsmen in the lower
Chagrin River and in 1974 we collected two specimens of Rainbow Trout
in the Cleveland Harbor. As with the Brown Trout, numerous escapes of
large adults occur from the trout clubs in the upper portions of the
Chagrin River.
(References; 9, 121, 147, 150)
16. BROOK TROUT, Salvelinus fontinalis
RARE STREAM
Kirtland stated that originally "speckled trout" occurred in "...a
branch of the Chagrin River, in Geauga County."
The species was sporadically introduced, unsuccessfully, both inten-
tionally and accidentally between 1900 and 1970.
No specimens were collected during the survey but in 1974 we observed
a single specimen in a tributary of the East Branch, Chagrin River in
Geauga County. As numerous escapes of this species are also reported
from local trout clubs in the area, it is probable that the species
exists in very snail numbers in the East Branch. It is doubtful
56
-------
Figure 11: Distribution of Salmon and Trout
LAKE ERIE
Ul
COLLECTIONS. AND, OBSERVATIONS
A Coho Salmon
^ Chinook Salmon
O Rainbow Trout
ty. Brown Trout
O Brook Trout
-------
that successful reproduction of this species occurs in the study
area.
(References; 35, 64, 147, 150)
17. LAKE TROUT, Salvelinus namaycush
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
This trout was formerly considered common (147). Kirtland (100),
noted its capture before 1850 from Lake Erie near the mouths of the
Cuyahoga and Rocky Rivers.
Apparently the species began to avoid the Cleveland shoreline as
early as 1860, and simultaneously began to decline in Lake Erie. Its
decline in Lake Erie was steady and by 1950 it had become nearly
extirpated.
Although the decline of this species in other Great Lakes was attributed
to the effects of the Sea Lamprey, it is doubtful that lampreys caused
the Lake Erie decline. Rather we agree with the suggestion of Hartman
and feel that low dissolved oxygen levels in the deeper portions of
the lake are the significant contributing factor to its decline (37).
No recent specimens have been reported and none was collected during
the current survey.
(References; 37, 68, 100, 147, 150)
18. CISCO or LAKE HERRING, Coregonus artedii
COMMERCIALLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
According to Garlick (35), the species was immensely abundant along
the Cleveland Shoreline prior to 1850.
In 1917 the commercial catch from Cuyahoga County was 3,536,647 pounds
and had a value of $297,030.00 (40). A drastic decrease occurred
after 1946 and by 1967 the total Ohio catch was reported to be 5 pounds
(133). This species has not recovered from this decline and local
commercial fishermen currently report only occasional specimens. No
specimens were collected during the current survey. The reasons for
its decline are speculative. The principal causes are believed to be
the combined effects of the deterioration of its spawning habitat due
to siltation and the overfishing during the spawning season.
(References; 35, 37, 40, 68, 147, 150)
58
-------
19. LAKE WHITEFISH, Coregonus clupeaformis
COMMERCIALLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
The whitefish, a favorite food species, was formerly abundant in the
Cleveland area especially during the spring and fall. More than a
million pounds annually were brought into Ohio ports prior to 1900.
This species decreased in abundance during the next two decades but
remained common. In 1917, 98,046 pounds were taken in Cuyahoga County.
This decline continued, and by 1963 the total catch for all Ohio ports
was only 699 pounds (40). No specimens were collected during the current
survey although occasional whitefishes were reported by local commercial
fishermen, captured four to seven miles offshore. Commercial fishermen
believe that this species avoids turbid waters. This may account for
the fact that it is occasionally taken offshore but not near the shore-
line in the Cleveland area.
(References; 37, 40, 64, 67, 147, 150)
20. RAINBOW SMELT, Osmerus m. mordax
SEASONALLY ABUNDANT LAKE
This recent invader was first recorded for Lake Erie in 1936 and rapidly
increased (147).
Spawning success in Cleveland is limited because of the lack of
suitable spawning grounds. The Cleveland population is probably
supported by production from neighboring streams and adjacent beaches
(147) . It is abundant during early spring and late fall in all areas
of the Cleveland Shoreline. The species is present in nearly half of
our Lake Erie samples, and 846 individuals represent nearly 6% of the
total fishes collected in Lake Erie. Adults occasionally ascend the
lower portions of all three river drainages but do not contribute
significantly to the total fish fauna of the streams. In late summer
and early fall, young of the year are often very numerous in mouths of
streams along the shoreline and in the Cleveland Harbor.
(References; 147, 150, 151)
21. CENTRAL MUDMLNNOW, Umbra limi
LOCALLY COMMON STREAM
Although this species was undoubtedly present throughout historic
times, no specimens were reported in the Cleveland area before 1890
(147).
59
-------
Figure 12: Distribution of Smelt and Mudminnow
Chagrin \River
LAKE ERIE
Cuyahoga \» River
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
0 Rainbow Smelt
A Central Mudminnow
-------
A few specimens were recorded after 1900, these in isolated localities
in the upper portions of the Cuyahoga and Chagrin River systems.
At present, the populations of Mudminnows are confined to only a few
limited areas, presumably because of the lack of suitable habitat
elsewhere. During the survey, Mudminnows were collected in the Chagrin
and Rocky River drainages. Populations in the swampy portions of the
Rocky River Reservation (Metropolitan Park) are large; those elsewhere
are much smaller. The species is confined to marshy, heavily vegetated
portions of the river systems, entering Lake Erie only as a stray.
It is severely affected by draining and filling of swamps.
(References; 65, 119, 124, 147, 150, 163)
22. CENTRAL GRASS PICKEREL, Esox americanus vermiculatus
COMMON STREAM
Kirtland, in 1845 (107), (as Esox umbrosus) considered the species
to be present in Lake Erie and some of its tributaries. Prior to
this time, it was obviously present in such localities as the marshes
of the lower Cuyahoga River, as described by Pease in 1797 (127).
It decreased in abundance after 1900 presumably because of extensive
draining and filling of marshes.
During this survey, it was collected only in the Chagrin River drainage
and the upper reaches of the Cuyahoga River. It is probably no longer
present along the Lake Erie shoreline.
(References; 107, 119, 124, 127, 135, 136, 147, 150, 163)
23. NORTHERN PIKE, Esox lucius
RARE LAKE
Little is known concerning the early abundance of the pike in this area
because of the confusion existing between pike and muskellunge.
Obviously it was numerous before the drainage of the extensive marshes
along the shoreline and in the tributaries; and the damming of tributary
streams.
Apparently, the pike remained relatively numerous after 1900. In
1922, 54,425 pounds were brought into Cuyahoga ports. However, the
muskellunge was included in some of the above poundage as indicated
by the lack of a reported poundage of muskellunge in 1922.
Presently, extremely small populations persist in and near the mouth of
the Chagrin River, and in various marinas along the shoreline. Probably
61
-------
Figure 13: Distribution of Pikes
LAKE ERIE
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
A Grass Pickerel
0 Northern Pike
Great Lakes Muskellunge
-------
limited reproduction occurs in these areas since post-spawn females
were collected in two marinas within the Cleveland Harbor. The popu-
lations of pike are present in the river and marinas during the entire
year, and during 1973, more than 10 specimens were collected within
the Cleveland Harbor. While this number may seem extremely low
(and is) we include it here since only three Walleye were collected
during the same period.
(References; 74, 69, 74, 91, 107, 111, 119, 144, 147, 150)
24. GREAT LAKES MUSKELLUNGE, Esox m. masquinongy
COMMERCIALLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
Klippart recorded this species as abundant in Lake Erie in 1830
(111). Kirtland in 1850 (74), stated that prior to that time
".. .muskellunge often run up the Cuyahoga several miles...". He
also reported that "...forty years since (1811) this fish was far more
abundant than at present (1850).", and that by 1850 "Muskellunge has
become scarce, and no longer seeks the mouth of the rivers to deposit
its spawn." The cause of this early decline was obviously the obstruc-
tions (dams) which prevented the reproduction of the species in upstream
marshes.
Ditching, draining and removal of aquatic vegetation also caused a
great decline in the abundance of this species after 1850.
According to the Ohio Division of Wildlife it occurs in very limited
numbers near the mouth of the Chagrin River in spring. No specimens
were collected by us during the survey, but a single specimen was
taken by an angler in the Chagrin River in 1972. This was substantiated
by a clear photograph which we have accepted. Also, one was collected
in 1970 west of Cleveland Harbor by Mr. James Shaefer, of the City
of Cleveland.
(References; 62, 72, 74, 90, 91, 111, 119, 144, 147, 150)
25. CARP, Cyprinus carpio
ABUNDANT UBIQUITOUS
In 1880, applicants in the Cleveland area received shipments of carp
fry from the federal government for stocking purposes. These were
primarily stocked in private ponds, where many escaped into nearby
streams.
By 1900, probably due to the increased availability of suitable habitat
resulting from enrichment of the water, it became firmly established
63
-------
Figure 14: Distribution of Carp.
Chagrirl River
LAKE ERIE
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
• Carp
-------
in Lake Erie and its Cleveland-area tributaries. In 1922, the Cuyahoga
County catch was 47,021 pounds.
Presently, this species is well established and can be captured in
any waters except those of highest gradients. It was present in over
a fourth of the total collections made in the survey. It is most
readily captured when large numbers of individuals are congregated in
the lower portions of the rivers, when spawning in spring. This species
hybridizes with the Goldfish.
(References; 115, 119, 124, 136, 137, 144, 147, 150, 163)
26. GOLDFISH, Carassius auratus
ABUNDANT LAKE
In 1850, Kirtland suggested that "if a little pains would be taken to
introduce it into streams and ponds in this vicinity (Cleveland), it
would soon become as numerous as our common minnows." (76). In 1885-86,
some Ohio applicants received Goldfish from the federal government
for stocking (147). The stockings were successful, and the species
has increased in numbers.
After 1900, it continued to increase in abundance.
At present the Goldfish is very abundant in the lower rivers, harbors
and shoreline marinas. It has been observed depositing eggs on the
Cleveland Harbor breakwall, on pilings in nearby marinas and in the arm
of the lower Cuyahoga River. Fry were collected in many locations
including the lower Cuyahoga. The species interbreeds with the Carp.
(References; 76, 115, 120, 135, 136, 147, 150, 163)
27. GOLDEN SHINER, Notemigonus crysoleucas
LOCALLY COMMON UBIQUITOUS
Kirtland (70) considered the Golden Shiner as occurring in most of the
ponds and lakes of Ohio and believed it to be a "valuable kind of
bait for pickerel." It was abundant in the weedy, sheltered bays and
vegetated marshes adjacent to Lake Erie, and in the vegetated sections
of many of its tributaries (150).
This species gradually decreased in abundance after 1900 as the swamps
and marshes were drained and aquatic vegetation decreased in amount.
At present, the Golden Shiner is restricted to isolated populations in
heavily vegetated portions of headwater streams, existing in limited
65
-------
Figure 15: Distribution of Goldfish.
Rocky 4 River
LAKE ERIE
Chagrin\River
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
Goldfish
-------
Figure 16: Distribution of Golden Shiner
Rocky l|River
ChagriWRiver
iAKE ERIE
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
Golden Shiner
-------
populations elsewhere including the lower portions of the tributaries,
and along the shores of Lake Erie. It is numerous only in the shore-
line marinas. Especially high populations occur in the Cleveland
Harbor marinas, where the Golden Shiner is one of the most abundant
forage species.
(References; 70, 119, 124, 147, 150, 163)
28. HORNYHEAD CHUB, Nocomis biguttatus
RARE STREAM
Because of the early confusion between this species and the River Chub,
little is known of its early abundance. Preserved specimens are
extant that were collected before 1901 (147).
After 1900, it declined greatly in abundance as its preferred habitat
was destroyed by increased siltation in the medium gradient portions
of streams which formerly provided a clean substrate and rooted aquatics.
During this survey, the Hornyhead was recorded from the upper reaches
of the Cuyahoga River, where among profuse aquatic vegetation 15
specimens were taken in a short period. The species is limited to
streams and was never reported from Lake Erie.
(References; 66, 119, 147, 150, 163)
29. RIVER CHUB, Nocomis micropogon
UNCOMMON STREAM
Little is known of the abundance of Hornyhead and River Chubs before
1900 because of the inability to satisfactorily distinguish the two
species (147). However, early collections of specimens from the Rocky
and Chagrin Rivers indicate that the River Chub may have been the most
numerous of the two.
After 1900, there appears to have been a definite decrease in abundance,
as occurred throughout the remainder of Ohio. As evidenced by museum
specimens, it remained present in all three tributaries, probably
declining with the increase in siltation.
During this survey, it was collected frequently in the clear waters
throughout the Chagrin River system. One specimen was taken in the
Rocky River and none in the lower Cuyahoga.
(References; 119, 147, 150)
68
-------
30. SILVER CHUB, Hybopsis storeriana
SCIENTIFICALLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
Kirtland, in describing this species, gave its type locality as Lake
Erie, (presumably in the vicinity of Cleveland), where it was taken
from the deeper waters of the lake. Some were taken in shore seines
as well. After midsummer, the young occasionally congregated in
considerable numbers about the mouths of rivers and bays.
Lake Erie populations remained high until after 1955. Recently, there
has been a drastic decline in this species in all of Lake Erie (150) .
Intensive trawling in the deeper portions of the Cleveland shoreline,
the river mouths and the harbors produced no specimens. It is assumed
that this once abundant species is now near extirpation in the vicinity
of Cleveland.
(References; 71, 85, 119, 147, 150)
31. BIGEYE CHUB, Hybopsis a. amblops
UNCOMMON STREAM
Kirtland did not recognize this species and there are few preserved
specimens before 1900. However, there is no reason to doubt that it
was at least as numerous in this area as in adjacent sections of Ohio.
Since 1900, the species has continued to decrease in abundance throughout
Ohio and apparently in this area also.
Although intensive seining was done in the Chagrin and Rocky Rivers
it was collected only in the middle portion of the Chagrin. This species
may be present in limited numbers in the Rocky River and the upper
portions of the Cuyahoga River. Its decline in numbers is apparently
continuing.
(References; 119, 147, 150)
32. WESTERN BLACKNOSE DACE, Rhinichthys atratulus meleagris
LOCALLY ABUNDANT STREAM
It is believed by most ichthyologists that this dace was originally
abundant only in the higher gradient streams east of the Allegheny
Front Escarpment.
It was locally abundant after 1900 in smaller tributaries east of the
Escarpment. Their numbers have recently decreased, as they did else-
69
-------
Figure 17: Distribution of River Chub, Bigeye Chub and Blacknose Dace
LAKE ERIE
Rocky
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
A River Chub
O Bigeye Chub
A Western Blacknose Dace
-------
where in Ohio, because of intensive ditching and draining.
During the current survey, the species was locally abundant in such
tributaries of the Chagrin River as the East Branch, Griswold Creek
and Aurora Branch. Also, it was abundant in the tiny tributaries of
the Cuyahoga River, such as Boston Run near Peninsula, Ohio.
(References; 119, 147, 150, 163)
33. LONGNOSE DACE, Rhinichthys cataractae
RARE UBIQUITOUS
There is no reason to doubt that the species was present on the shores
of Lake Erie and in its tributaries, although no records are extant
for the period before 1900.
It was recorded from the Grand River as early as 1900, but it was
not until 1929 that the species was found to be fairly numerous in the
Chagrin River drainage and along the Lake Erie shore during winter (147).
A small population apparently exists in Lake Erie that returns to the
onshore areas and migrates up certain tributaries during the colder
months. Intensive seining in suitable habitats along the Lake Erie
shoreline and lower portions of the rivers produced only a few specimens.
These individuals were collected on a riffle in the lower Rocky River
and in isolated areas of the Cleveland Harbor. It is assumed that the
Lake Erie population utilizing the Cleveland Metropolitan shoreline
has been nearly extirpated. However, local populations exist in a
limited section of the East Branch of the Chagrin River where they
remain throughout the year. These populations appear to have been
isolated by the establishment of the Willoughby Dam.
Throughout the year, another isolated population exists along a gravel
bar at the mouth of the Chagrin where both adults and fry were frequently
collected.
(References; 136, 147, 150)
34. CREEK CHUB, Semotilus a_. atromaculatus
ABUNDANT STREAM
In 1850, (77), Kirtland reported the species to be "abundant in every
brook and river in Ohio." It was formerly caught by ice fishermen
and considered to be an excellent panfish.
The many records in the local tributaries after 1900 indicate that it
71
-------
Figure 18: Distribution of Longnose Dace and Creek Chub.
LAKE ERIE
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
A Longnose Dace
0 Creek Chub
Rocky *River
-------
was still abundant.
This excellent forage and bait chub is presently abundant in all of
the tributary streams of the study area, except the lower Cuyahoga
River which is grossly polluted. None was taken in Lake Erie during
the survey although it may occur there as an occasional stray.
(References; 77, 115, 119, 124, 136, 147, 150, 163)
35. SOUTHERN REDBELLY DACE, Phoxinus erythrogaster
LOCALLY COMMON STREAM
In 1844, Kirtland stated that during April and May, every stream
swarmed with this species (68).
After 1900, the Redbelly was numerous only in the small tributaries of
the three river systems in the study area where it was an associate of
the Blacknose Dace. The species continued to decline in numbers and
its populations in many areas were extirpated because of ditching,
dredging and general deterioration of its habitat.
Currently it is taken in some very small, high gradient tributaries of
the Chagrin River. It was also collected from similar habitats in
the Rocky River drainage, and is probably present in similar tributaries
of the upper Cuyahoga. This species does not normally inhabit Lake
Erie or the lower portions of the rivers.
(References; 68, 77, 119, 147, 150, 163)
36. REDSIDE DACE, Clinostomus elongatus
LOCALLY COMMON STREAM
In 1841, Kirtland, in the initial description of the Redside Dace
gave the Cuyahoga River as one of the type localities (66). Even though
few specimens were saved, the species was probably widely distributed.
After 1900, it was recorded in the clear tributaries of the Cuyahoga
and Chagrin Rivers east of the Allegheny Front Escarpment. Although
preserved specimens are lacking, it probably was more widely distributed
at this time than at present.
During this survey, the Redside Dace, as with the Redbelly Dace, was
collected only in the tiny headwater tributaries. The species appears
to be declining in numbers and is becoming more limited in distribution.
(References; 63, 66, 68, 119, 147, 150, 163)
73
-------
37. PUGNOSE MINNOW, Notropis emiliae
RARE STREAM
As represented by specimens taken near the mouth of the Chagrin River,
the Pugnose Minnow was present prior to 1900 (147).
Since then, no records of its presence have been documented anywhere
in Northeastern Ohio, and it was considered by many to have been
extirpated.
During the current study two specimens were collected, one each on
June 6 and 16, 1972, in dense vegetation near the mouth of the Chagrin
River. This relict population is currently endangered, and no other
population is presently known in northeastern Ohio. Elsewhere in
Ohio, only a few relict populations exist and the species is considered
to be one of the state's endangered species.
(References; 62, 147, 150)
38. COMMON EMERALD SHINER, Notropis a. atheriniodes
ABUNDANT UBIQUITOUS
There is no reason to question the early abundance of the Emerald
Shiner in Lake Erie prior to 1900. Kirtland (108) recorded an immense
concentration (schools several miles long) which occurred on October
9-12, 1853 in the shallows in and near the mouth of the Rocky River.
Between 1900 and 1950 there was no indication of a decline or increase
in the numerical abundance of this species.
Currently, this shiner is undoubtedly one of the most important food
sources for piscivorous fishes in the study area, not only in Lake
Erie, but also in its tributaries. It remains abundant and contributes
more than 18 per cent of the specimens collected from the Lake and lower
sections of rivers in the Cleveland area during this survey. This
shiner is commercially important since it is the primary live bait
species utilized by sportsmen when fishing for Yellow Perch. Discussions
with bait dealers indicate that there has been a recent decline in
abundance of this species. This is supported by Van Meter and Trautman
(150) who state that it is "...possibly decreasing in abundance through-
out Lake Erie." It would be difficult at this time to determine whether
the decline will continue or represents only a temporary population
fluctuation. Should this indicate the initiation of a continuing trend,
we believe that there would be serious consequences to the loss of
such an important forage species in the Cleveland area.
(References; 108, 119, 147, 150, 163)
74
-------
Figure 19: Distribution of Redbelly and Redside Dace, Pugnose Minnow
and Emerald Shiner.
LAKE ERIE
-vj
Ul
Chagrin^River
RocKy
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
A Southern Redbelly Dace
•^ Redside Dace
O Pugnose Minnow
A Common Emerald Shiner
-------
39. ROSYFACE SHINER, Notropis rubellus
COMMON STREAM
There are preserved specimens from the area taken before 1900, and
it is assumed that the species was more numerous in the tributaries at
that time.
Although some large collections were taken in the tributaries east
of the Allegheny Front Escarpment since 1900, the species has obviously
become less numerous on the whole and some populations appear to have
been extirpated.
The Rosyface was taken, sometimes in considerable numbers, from the
middle and upper portions of the Chagrin and Rocky rivers. None was
taken in Lake Erie, although it may occur there as a stray. Occasion-
ally this species may serve as a food source for some Lake Erie fishes
entering the rivers to feed (such as yearling White Bass).
(References; 147, 150, 163)
40. NORTHERN REDFIN SHINER, Notropis umbratilis
RARE STREAM
Although large-sized populations occurred before 1900 in the Lake Erie
tributaries immediately to the east and west, only a few individuals
have been recorded from the study area.
Since then and prior to 1955, Redfins have been taken at the mouth of
the Chagrin and from the middle section of the Cuyahoga River.
Despite intensive seining, only two specimens were collected during
the current survey; one in the lower Rocky River, and the other in
the lower Chagrin. Apparently, this species has greatly declined in
numbers and appears to be near extirpation.
(References; 119, 147, 150, 163)
41. STRIPED SHINER, Notropis chrysocephalus
ABUNDANT STREAM
In 1847, Kirtland considered the Striped and Common Shiners to be
conspecific (71). As a result, no evidence exists indicating which
species was the most numerous.
76
-------
Since 1900, the species was widely distributed throughout the area,
but presumably was most numerous in the lower sections of the lake
tributaries. During the 1900 to 1970 period, the habitat of the
Striped Shiner was apparently increasing, whereas that of the Common
Shiner seems to have been decreasing.
Evidence for this change in habitats was observed during this survey.
Since 1950, the Striped Shiner has invaded from lower portions of the
three rivers, into the middle sections of both the Chagrin and Rocky
rivers. Furthermore, specimens collected in the former range of
the Common Shiner are predominately hybrids or intergrades between
these two species. This would indicate the continuing invasion of the
higher gradient tributaries by the Striped Shiner. It is probable
that this extension of the range is due to increased siltation,
which is favoring the Striped Shiner, the more silt-tolerant of the
two. Striped Shiners and their hybrids are most abundant in the lower
portions of the Chagrin and Rocky rivers. The species occurs occasion-
ally in Lake Erie as a stray.
(References; 71, 115, 136, 147, 150, 163)
42. COMMON SHINER, Notropis cornutus
LOCALLY COMMON STREAM
There is no reason to doubt that this species was as numerous, and most
probably more numerous in the study area before 1900 than it has been
since.
Since 1900, the habitat of this high gradient species has been eliminated
in some areas, and it appears to have become less abundant than formerly
(See Striped Shiner).
The Common Shiner was collected in limited areas in the upper tributaries
of the study area especially in those of the Chagrin River. Confusion
exists as to the conspecific identity of this species and the Striped
Shiner because of the large numbers of supposed intergrades occurring
in some areas, especially in the middle sections of the tributaries.
Hybrids between the Common and Striped Shiners with other species
such as the Rosyface Shiner and River Chub are frequently encountered
in some sections of area streams. Because of the morphological similarity
between the Common and Striped Shiners; or their intergrades, it is
often impossible to identify the parentage of a natural hybrid; that is
whether its one parent was a Striped, Common or intergrade between the
two.
(References; 115, 121, 124, 136, 147, 150, 163)
77
-------
Figure 20: Distribution of Rosyface, Redfin, Striped and Common Shiners
LAKE ERIE
00
Chagrin^lRiver
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
A Rosyface Shiner
O Northern Redfin Shiner
0 Striped Shiner
^f Common Shiner
-------
43. SPOTTAIL SHINER, Notropis hudsonius^
UNCOMMON LAKE
In 1845, Kirtland (71) considered this species to be confined to
Lake Erie where it was "not uncommon".
There is no reason to believe that there was any change in its abundance
before 1900.
The species was quite numerous in Lake Erie until 1925, when it began
to demonstrate a definite decline in numbers.
A recent survey of this species in the western basin of Lake Erie has
shown a significant decrease in numbers. In the Cleveland area, this
shiner has apparently also declined. It was occasionally taken in
fair numbers, especially where it was concentrated in the lower rivers
but in general, only a few were taken in a sample.
(References; 71, 119, 147, 150, 163)
44. SPOTFIN SHINER, Notropis spilopterus
COMMON STREAM
Unquestionably, this species was present throughout historic times;
its early abundance is unknown.
After 1900 it was noted throughout the streams of the area and in
protected portions of the lake shore. The number of this rather
pollution-tolerant species was observed to be increasing in abundance
in many localities, especially in the lower portions of the streams
north of the Allegheny Front Escarpment (147).
Indications during the present study were that the increased pollution
caused a recent reduction in numbers. It was abundant only in the
lower and middle sections of the Chagrin River and occurred in limited
numbers in the Rocky River. It appears to have become greatly reduced
along the shoreline of Lake Erie and in the lower Cuyahoga River.
While 3000 of these were collected in the Chagrin and Rocky rivers,
only a very few were taken from Lake Erie, this in spite of intensive
efforts to collect them.
(References; 119, 147, 150, 163)
79
-------
Figure 21: Distribution of Spottail and Spotfin Shiners
Chagrin Stiver
LAKE ERIE
00
o
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
A Spottail Shiner
A Spotfin Shiner
-------
45. CENTRAL BIGMOUTH SHINER, Notropis d. dorsalis
RARE STREAM
This species was not recorded in Ohio prior to 1900, but it is assumed
that a population was present in the Rocky River throughout much of
Columbian time.
It was not until 1922 that it was taken from the East Branch of the
Rocky River. This relict Ohio population was never extensive and the
largest number taken was a total of 23 individuals in two collections,
June 2, 1929 (147).
During this survey, none was found in the East Branch of the Rocky
River. One was taken on July 20, 1971, and another, August 16, 1971,
in the middle portions of the Rocky River itself; presumably these
were strays from a relict population somewhere in the upper Rocky
River drainage. Currently the Bigmouth Shiner is known only from the
Black and Rocky rivers. These two Ohio populations have been declining
rapidly. The species is considered to be an Ohio endangered species
and should be protected.
(References; 147, 150, 163)
46. NORTHEASTERN SAND SHINER, Notropis stramineus deliciosus
UNCOMMON UBIQUITOUS
Until 1928, the Sand Shiner was hopelessly confused with other species
of shiners. Preserved specimens exist which were taken in Cuyahoga
County, and there is reason to believe that the species was numerous
before 1900.
After 1900, it was present in fair numbers throughout the Chagrin and
Rocky rivers, in a few areas of the upper Cuyahoga drainage, and on the
exposed sand and gravel beaches of Lake Erie.
The present study indicates that the largest populations are in the
Chagrin River over clean sand-and-gravel substrates. The populations
inhabiting the local Lake Erie beaches appear to have been drastically
reduced and Sand Shiners are present there only in limited numbers.
(References; 136, 147, 150, 163)
47. NORTHERN MIMIC SHINER, Notropis v. volucellus
RARE UBIQUITOUS
Literature references prior to 1928 are absent because the Mimic Shiner
81
-------
Figure 22: Distribution of Sand, Mimic and Bigmouth Shiners.
LAKE ERIE
oo
N3
Chagrin Vjliver
'' COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
A Central Bigmouth Shiner
Northeastern Sand Shiner
Northern Mimic Shiner
-------
was hopelessly confused with other 6hiner species. However, preserved
specimens from Cuyahoga County indicate its presence before 1900.
After 1900, large populations were found along the shores and islands
of western Lake Erie, and presumably it was present along the shores
of the lake in the Cleveland area. It was present in all three tribu-
taries and was most numerous in the Rocky River.
Recently, a great decline has occurred in the Cleveland area and an
effort of more than several hundred man-hours of seining streams in
its former habitat produced only two specimens, one each from the Rocky
and Chagrin rivers. Collections taken on beaches indicate that it has
been nearly extirpated; of more than 10,000 cyprinids examined only
12 were Mimic Shiners.
(References; 147, 150)
48. SILVERJAW MINNOW, Ericymba buccata
COMMON STREAM
Since this species was not described until 1865, little is known of
its early presence in the area. McCormick (1892), recording it from
the streams of Lorain County, considered it rare in the Black River
(119), and presumably populations were similar elsewhere in northeastern
Ohio.
After 1900, and especially since 1920, the evidence suggests that the
Silverjaw has been rapidly increasing in northeastern Ohio.
The Silverjaw Minnow is relatively tolerant to some types of pollutants
provided that the sandy substrates remain unsilted. During the survey
it was found to be common to abundant in most areas of the Chagrin,
Rocky and upper Cuyahoga rivers. In some localities it was the most
abundant minnow.
(References; 119, 147, 150, 163)
49. NORTHERN FATHEAD MINNOW, Pimephales p. promelas
UNCOMMON STREAM
A few specimens have been preserved which were collected before 1900,
and there is little reason to believe that the species was not present,
at least in isolated populations, throughout historic time.
There appears to have been a definite population increase after 1900.
Since 1960 it has been increasingly utilized as a bait and forage minnow,
83
-------
and it is assumed that many are inadvertently introduced into streams
by anglers.
It was taken, although never in large numbers, from the middle and lower
sections of the Chagrin and Rocky rivers, and from the middle section
of the Cuyahoga River, notably at Peninsula, Ohio. One was collected
along the shoreline of Lake Erie, within the Cleveland Harbor.
(References; 67, 124, 147, 150, 163)
50. BLUNTNOSE MINNOW, Pimephales notatus
ABUNDANT UBIQUITOUS
From the many preserved specimens before 1900 throughout all of Ohio,
it is believed that this ubiquitous species was most numerous throughout
the area and present along the shoreline of the Lake.
Collections after 1900, demonstrate its almost universal presence in
the tributaries of the area and in the Lake. After 1925, it was
propagated by the Ohio Conservation Department. Some were released in
the study area.
Presently, it is an extremely abundant minnow in tributary streams, but
populations along the Lake Erie shoreline have noticably declined.
During the survey,it was routinely collected in the streams of the area,
and small numbers were taken along the Lake Erie shoreline, mainly in
marinas.
(References; 115, 119, 124, 135, 136, 147, 150, 163)
51. STONEROLLER MINNOW, Campostoma anomalum
COMMON STREAM
Reviewing the literature, Osburn (125) stated that this stream species
was very abundant and widely distributed in Ohio prior to 1900. There
is no reason to believe that it was not equally abundant in the tribu-
taries of the study area.
Since 1900, it has been taken commonly throughout the streams of the
area.
This high-gradient species was taken from the upper portions of the
Rocky and Cuyahoga rivers; and throughout the Chagrin, sometimes in
large numbers.
(References; 119, 124, 125, 136, 147, 150, 163)
84
-------
Figure 23: Distribution of Minnows.
LAKE ERIE
00
Ui
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
•^ Silverjaw Minnow
O Fathead Minnow
^P Bluntnose Minnow
A Stoneroller Minnow
-------
52. BIGMOUTH BUFFALOFISH, Ictiobus cyprinellus
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED • LAKE
There is a single specimen in the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology
collected by Kirtland at Rock Port, Cuyahoga County, in November of
1845 (147).
None have been taken since and the species may be considered to be
extirpated in the study area.
(References; 54, 147, 150)
53A. EASTERN QUILLBACK CARPSUCKER, Carpiodes cyprinus cyprinus
RARE LAKE
Kirtland stated that he had "...met with it in a few instances in
Lake Erie.", referring to it as the shad (102). Evidence before 1900
indicates its presence in Lake Erie and its tributaries.
There appears to have been slight increase in numbers of this subspecies
between 1900 and 1960, after which an apparent decrease occurred in
the Central Basin.
Although many young-of-the-year Carpsuckers were collected in the lower
portions of the rivers during the survey, it is impossible to determine
to which subspecies they belong. Two adult Carpiodes c. cyprinus were
collected in Lake Erie during this survey, and it is assumed that they
are rare. Since the population of Carpiodes £. hinei is larger, the
young-of-the-year collected in the rivers were probably of the hinei
subspecies. A small number of young-of-the-year Carpsuckers were col-
lected in the Cleveland Harbor during 1974, and during the same year,
3 yearlings were taken near the mouth of the Cuyahoga River. It is
possible that the young-of-the-year from the harbor are of the cyprinus
subspecies.
(References; 72, 102, 119, 147, 150)
53B. CENTRAL QUILLBACK CARPSUCKER, Carpiodes cyprinus hinei
UNCOMMON STREAM
Little is known of the abundance of this subspecies prior to 1900
since it was not recognized until 1956. The relatively few records of
Quillbacks before 1900 suggests that both subspecies were not numerous.
Since 1900, the subspecies Carpiodes cyprinus hinei has been increasing
in abundance.
86
-------
During the present survey, many adults of this subspecies were collected
in the lower Chagrin, while fewer were collected from the Rocky River.
Apparently, this subspecies continues to increase in abundance.
(References; 72, 102, 119, 147, 150)
54. SILVER REDHORSE, Moxostoma anisurum
SCIENTIFICALLY EXTIRPATED UBIQUITOUS
Although 19th Century ichthyologists failed to satisfactorily separate
the various species of the genus Moxostoma, it is believed that the
Silver Redhorse was at least as numerous, or maybe more so, before 1900
than it has been since. Conditions were then more favorable.
Since 1900, as well as before, specimens have been taken from the lower
portions of the Rocky River.
During the present survey, intensive seining of all habitats produced
none and it is assumed to have been extirpated in the area.
(References; 105, 119, 147, 150)
55. BLACK REDHORSE, Moxostoma duquesnei
RARE STREAM
As stated previously, 19th Century ichthyologists failed to separate
the suckers of the genus Moxostoma. Therefore, nothing is known relative
to its presence or abundance in this area prior to 1900.
It was not until 1930 that the species was generally recognized and
although it was not definitely recorded for northeastern Ohio, Trautman
believed this species to be present in high gradient streams such as
the Chagrin River prior to 1951 (147).
During the survey, 34 specimens of adults and yearlings, were taken in
the middle portions of the Chagrin River. Intensive collecting in
other streams and in the lake produced no additional specimens. Obviously,
the presence of young indicates successful reproduction in the Chagrin
River.
(References; 105, 147, 150)
56. GOLDEN REDHORSE, Moxostoma erythrurum
COMMON UBIQUITOUS
As has been previously stated, early workers failed to satisfactorily
87
-------
Figure 24: Distribution of Quillbacks, Golden and Black Redhorse.
oo
oo
LAKE ERIE
Chagrin W River
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
^ Eastern Quillback
£ Central Quillback
Q Black Redhorse
J. Golden Redhorse
OA
-------
separate the various species of the genus Moxostoma. It is assumed that
the Golden Redhorse was then the most numerous of the redhorses in
Ohio.
Since 1920, the species has been the most widely distributed and most
abundant of all the redhorses in the streams, whereas in Lake Erie it
was surpassed in abundance by the Northern Redhorse.
Results of the current survey indicate that this sucker remains the
most abundant redhorse in the streams and may have become the most
abundant redhorse species in Lake Erie near Cleveland due to the recent
decline of the Northern Shorthead Redhorse.
(References; 105, 147, 150, 163)
57. NORTHERN SHORTHEAD REDHORSE, Moxostoma m. macrolepidotum
RARE LAKE
Despite confusion existing before 1925 relative to the genus Moxostoma,
all evidence indicates that this was by far the most numerous redhorse
in Lake Erie.
Since 1900 and until recently, it was abundant throughout Lake Erie
and was numerous in the Cleveland area. We have observed large catches
in the Cleveland fish houses prior to 1955.
Since 1955, the species has declined in numbers and at present it is
rare. Only eight specimens were collected during the period of study,
all in the open lake. Examination of local commercial catches during
1972 indicate that the species has greatly declined in abundance, and
the average daily catch has been only a few specimens.
(References; 94, 119, 147, 150)
58. NORTHERN HOG SUCKER, Hypentilium nigricans
ABUNDANT STREAM
It is evident that the Hog Sucker originally was as numerous in all of
the tributaries, including the lower Cuyahoga, as it was throughout Ohio.
Since the species prefers the higher gradients, it was most numerous in
the upper sections of the streams.
Since 1900, the species has continued to be numerous in these tributaries,
except for those areas subjected to pollutants. Occasionally it is taken
in the shallow waters of Lake Erie near river mouths where it occurred
as a stray.
89
-------
The Hog Sucker may be readily collected throughout most of the upper
Cuyahoga and Rocky river drainages and is abundant in the upper two-
thirds of the Chagrin system. A specimen was also collected in the
shallows of Lake Erie near the mouth of the Chagrin River.
(References; 92, 104, 115, 119, 124, 136, 147, 150,163)
59. COMMON WHITE SUCKER, Catostomus c. commersoni
ABUNDANT UBIQUITOUS
Kirtland (92), stated that "This species abounds in every permanant
stream, lake and pond." Other ichthyologists testify to its universal
distribution and great abundance in the tributaries of Lake Erie.
This rather pollution-tolerant species appears to have shown only a
slight decrease in numerical abundance since 1900, but it appears that
the decline was accelerated after 1950.
At present, the species may be collected in fair numbers in nearly all
of the waters within the study area, with the exception of the lower
Cuyahoga River. It is reproducing with considerable success in the
Chagrin and Rocky rivers. In the early summer, thousands of fry may be
collected in a short period of time with little effort.
(References; 92, 104, 119, 124, 135, 136, 147, 150, 163)
60. EASTERN LONGNOSE SUCKER, Catostomus c. catostomus
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
In 1878, Klippart (111) recorded this species as occurring in the Ohio
waters of Lake Erie.
Although no specimens have been preserved from the Cleveland area,
Trautman observed an occasional specimen in the fish houses prior to
1955.
No specimens have been reported from any locality in the Ohio waters
of Lake Erie since 1960 and we have not been able to obtain a specimen
despite an intensive effort. This species is probably extirpated from
the Cleveland area.
(References; 57, 111, 147, 150)
90
-------
61. SPOTTED SUCKER, Minytrema melanops
RARE STREAM
Kirtland in 1851 (93), stated that the Spotted Sucker "...is abundant in
Lake Erie." This was not true after 1900. It is possible that in
the early 1800's it was present in numbers in the shallows of Lake
Erie in the vicinity of Cleveland when there were clean sand bottoms
and aquatic vegetation. There are preserved specimens for the period
before 1900.
Since 1900 the species has been taken occasionally in the Rocky and
Cuyahoga rivers.
Recently, Orr (124) reported collecting it in the upper Cuyahoga and we
have collected specimens there. In 1973 one individual was taken in
the lower Chagrin River among dense vegetation. As this species is
difficult to capture, it is possible that relict populations may
exist elsewhere. None was collected in Lake Erie.
(References; 92, 124, 147, 150)
62. WESTERN LAKE CHUBSUCKER, Erimyzon sucetta kennerlyi
RARE LAKE
Although there are specimens extant from the mouth of the Chagrin
River, little else is known concerning this species before 1900.
Since I960, it has been recorded in the upper Cuyahoga River by Orr
(124).
None was collected during this survey. It is possible that it may be
present in low numbers in the Chagrin and Rocky rivers.
(References; 119, 124, 147, 150)
63. CHANNEL CATFISH, Ictalurus punctatus
UNCOMMON UBIQUITOUS
As early as 1850, Kirtland observed its presence in the Cuyahoga River
indicating that it was rather numerous and that the species was
"...extensively diffused through the waters of Lake Erie...". He
likewise commented on the possible effects of dams upon this highly
migratory catfish, stating that it was "...decreasing in numbers in
many tributary streams as they are becoming obstructed with mill dams."
(79),
91
-------
Figure 25: Distribution of Shorthead Redhorse and White, Spotted and
Hog Suckers.
LAKE ERIE
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
A Northern Shorthead Redhorse
ft Hog Sucker
A Common White Sucker
Spotted Sucker
-------
The species was common to abundant in the area and contributed substan-
tially both to the commercial and sport fisheries between 1900 and 1955.
While Channel Catfish are taken in limited numbers throughout the study
area, it is no longer an abundant species. Commercial catches in
the open lake have declined. At present, the highest populations occur
in and near the lower Chagrin where many young were observed.
Significantly lower populations are present along the shoreline and near
the Rocky River.
(References; 40, 79, 119, 136, 144, 147, 150)
64. YELLOW BULLHEAD, Ictalurus natalis
COMMON UBIQUITOUS
Records before 1880 were unreliable because of the inability of writers
to separate the Yellow from the Brown and Black Bullheads, consequently,
its numerical status is unknown. It is assumed, however, that the
species was at least as abundant as later, because habitat conditions
were more favorable. Preserved specimens from the tributaries taken
between 1880 and 1900 are extant.
Between 1900 and 1960 the species was recorded only in the rivers,
and until this survey, it had not been collected from the Rocky River.
There appears to have been a general decline in numbers.
Throughout the investigation fair populations of this bullhead were
found in the lower portions of the Rocky and Chagrin rivers. Individuals
were taken in many other localities attesting to its general distribution.
The species does not normally inhabit the open lake and only a few
specimens were collected from Lake Erie, these from shoreline marinas.
(References; 119, 124, 147, 150, 163)
65. BROWN BULLHEAD, Ictalurus nebulosus
COMMON UBIQUITOUS
As was stated above, little is known concerning the early presence and
abundance of the individual bullhead species before 1900. Although the
Brown Bullhead's early numerical status is unknown, it is believed to
have been at least as numerous before 1900 as it has been since.
Between 1900 and 1965, the Brown Bullhead was the most numerous of the
three species of bullheads in the lake. Increased turbidity along the
shoreline and in the lower portions of the tributaries, coupled with
93
-------
the disappearance of aquatic vegetation, appears to have reduced its
numbers and possibly increased hybridization with the Black Bullhead,
as the latter increased.
The largest populations of this bullhead are presently confined to the
lower portions of the Chagrin and Rocky rivers although many of these
are Brown X Black bullhead hybrids. Most of the specimens from other
areas, and many from the lower rivers as well, show massive hybridi-
zation with the Black Bullhead. It appears at this time that Brown
Bullheads are declining in numbers, at least as a pure species.
(References; 73, 119, 124, 147, 150, 163)
66. BLACK BULLHEAD, Ictalurus melas
COMMON UBIQUITOUS
Although there was considerable confusion in the identification of the
three species of bullheads before 1900, preserved specimens testify to
the presence of the Black Bullhead in the tributaries and shallow
waters of Lake Erie in this area.
The species was recorded, sometimes in considerable numbers, in the
tributaries since 1900. It is believed that, as elsewhere, the species
has been increasing in abundance with the increase in the amount of its
habitat, (perhaps since 1850 according to Kirtland), (78). It is the
most tolerant of the three bullhead species to turbidity and pollutants.
Most of the specimens collected during this survey were taken from the
middle and lower portions of the rivers, including the Cuyahoga River
near Peninsula. Populations also occur in the Lake Erie marinas and in
Cleveland Harbor. As has been previously pointed out, the Black
Bullhead freely hybridizes with the Brown.
(References; 78, 115, 119, 124, 136, 147, 150, 163)
67. FLATHEAD CATFISH, Pylodictis olivaris
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
By 1850 Kirtland had not found this species in the waters of Lake Erie.
McCormick recorded relict populations from the Ohio waters of the Central
Basin of Lake Erie in 1892 (119).
Between 1900 and 1950, there was apparently no change in the numerical
status of this species, and it remained rare in the area; however,a
small population has been recorded from the Huron River where a few
individuals are captured annually (147).
94
-------
None was collected during this survey and no recent captures have
been reported by commercial fishermen in the area. The Flathead is
probably absent from the Cleveland area.
(References; 86, 119, 147, 150, 161)
68. STONECAT MADTOM, Noturus flavus
COMMON UBIQUITOUS
Many specimens preserved before 1900 indicate that the Stonecat was
present in the area and throughout the remainder of Lake Erie. Because
it was not commercially valued, little is known of its numerical
abundance. It is believed to have been numerous in Lake Erie near
Cleveland.
Throughout the 1900-1950 period, the species was present in the tribu-
taries and Lake Erie and quite numerous in the latter.
The many specimens collected during our survey indicate that it was
numerous along the Cleveland shoreline. It was present in smaller
numbers in the middle portions of the Chagrin and Rocky rivers, where
it inhabited moderately swift riffles with a substrate of gravel,
boulders and bedrock.
(References; 73, 119, 147, 150)
69. BRINDLED MADTOM, Noturus miurus
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED STREAM
Although preserved specimens are lacking, it is assumed that this
species was present in Lake Erie and its tributaries in this area
before 1900.
Between 1900-1950, the Brindled Madtom was recorded in the upper
Cuyahoga River. Although no specimens are extant from this area of
Lake Erie, the species was common in the shallows about the Bass
Islands and therefore, was assumed to have been present, at least in
low numbers, in the Cleveland area.
None was collected during the survey despite many hours of seining.
It is assumed that the species is scientifically extirpated, although
possibly, a very low population might exist in the Chagrin River in
isolated localities.
(References; 62, 119, 147, 150)
95
-------
Figure 26: Distribution of Catfish, Bullheads and Madtoms.
LAKE ERIE
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
A Channel Catfish
O Yellow Bullhead
(J) Brown Bullhead
if Black Bullhead
A Stonecat Madtom
-------
70. TADPOLE MADTOM, Noturus gyrinus
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED STREAM
Although literature references and preserved specimens of this small-
sized and relatively secretive species are lacking, it is assumed that
the Tadpole Madtom was present in the area and was numerous. The
extensive dredging, ditching and draining of the shoreline marshes, and
depletion of aquatic vegetation destroyed its habitat early in the 1900's.
Since 1900, a few have been taken from the lower portions of the Chagrin
River in cattail marsh near its mouth.
As with the previous species, this madtom was not found during the
survey. It is possible that it is extirpated, since its preferred
habitat has been almost completely eliminated within the Cleveland
area.
(References; 119, 147, 150)
71. TROUT-PERCH, Percopsis omiscomaycus
SEASONALLY ABUNDANT LAKE
Jordan and Evermann in 1896 (59) considered the Trout-perch to be
abundant in Lake Erie. There is no reason to question their statement.
After 1900 and until recently, in the colder periods of the year, the
Trout-perch was numerous in the shallows of Lake Erie in this area,
ascending a short distance into the tributaries.
During 1972 and 1973, the Trout-perch was collected between February
and May. It was present in all areas along the shore but was not taken
in the lower rivers. It was especially numerous in Cleveland Harbor
and in marinas where it spawned. A few young-of-the-year were collected
during the summer months in the Cleveland Harbor. Adults were not taken
in the study area during summer, fall or early winter. Apparently they
retreat to the deeper portions of Lake Erie.
(References; 59, 119, 147, 150, 163)
72. EASTERN BURBOT, Lota lota lacustris
RARE LAKE
Kirtland stated (99) that this species was "...abundant in the waters
of Lake Erie" prior to 1900.
97
-------
After 1900 and until at least 1955, the Burbot remained an abundant
species. In 1917, 171,929 Ibs. were brought into Cuyahoga County ports,
even though it was not considered to be a valuable commercial species
(40). Later it became increasingly sought after by sport fishermen,
especially during the colder weather months. Its initial decrease
in abundance was evident soon after 1960.
During the study, only occasional specimens were reported by commercial
fishermen in the area. We collected three individuals during the winter
months, all in the vicinity of Cleveland Harbor. The species probably
occurs in very limited numbers along the shoreline from January to
March, spawning near the river mouths. The Burbot is currently an
Ohio endangered species.
(References; 59, 119, 147, 150, 163)
73. BROOK STICKLEBACK, Culaea inconstans
LOCALLY COMMON STREAM
Kirtland in 1850 (89), stated that the Stickleback has been found in
tributaries of Lake Erie. We assume that some of these streams were
in the Cleveland area. In 1882, Jordan (57) stated that it was "...very
abundant in many streams in the Northern part of Ohio."
The species was repeatedly recorded after 1950 in the tributaries of
the Cuyahoga and Chagrin rivers. It appears to have decreased in
abundance because of destruction of habitat by ditching, draining, and
channelization.
The destruction of its habitat is continuing and at present the species
is primarily limited to a relatively few swamps and ponds within the
drainages of all three rivers. Within these areas, Sticklebacks are
abundant, and many hundreds may be collected in a single day with a
small seine.
(References; 57, 65, 89, 115, 119, 147, 150, 163)
74. BROOK SILVERSIDE, Labidesthes sicculus
RARE UBIQUITOUS
The abundance of preserved specimens from the Rocky, Cuyahoga and
Chagrin rivers indicate the general distribution of the Silverside in
this area before 1900. McCormick (119) also stated that it was common
"...in the Lake.", during his study in 1892.
Shortly after 1900 it became apparent that the Silverside was decreasing
98
-------
Figure 27: Distribution of Trout-Perch,Burbot,Stickleback and Silverside
Rocky ARiver
Chagrir^ River
LAKE ERIE
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
^ Trout-perch
Eastern Burbot
Brook Stickleback
Brook Silverside
-------
in numbers in the tributaries and in Lake Erie. This was probably
due to the destruction of its preferred habitat; clear waters and
vegetated shallows.
This decrease in abundance continues. During the survey it was taken
in only 10 collections. It was present in limited numbers in the
lower Chagrin and Rocky rivers, and along the shoreline in the Cleveland
Harbor. It is assumed that the decline in numbers began before 1900
and will continue.
(References; 62, 119, 124, 147, 150)
75. WHITE BASS, Morone chrysops
ABUNDANT UBIQUITOUS
Klippart (111) reported that in 1830, this species was captured with
shore seines and with hook and line and "...were then most numerous."
Since 1900, the species has been abundant. In 1922, 37,286 Ibs. were
brought into Cuyahoga County ports. Between 1939-49, the commercial
catch from Ohio waters of Lake Erie averaged 549,510 Ibs. per annum.
Currently, the. species is abundant in Lake Erie and occasionally in
the lower portions of the Chagrin and Rocky rivers. Great concentra-
tions of White Bass may be observed during certain times of the year
near warm water outfalls, such as the one near Gordon Park. Together
with the Yellow Perch it comprises the major portion of the sport and
commercial fishing catch in the Cleveland area. The species is
reproducing successfully in this area as evidenced by the presence of
fry and yearlings at nearly all Lake and lower river sampling sites.
(References; 71, 81, 111, 119, 132, 144, 147, 150, 163)
76. WHITE CRAPPIE, Pomoxis annularis
COMMON UBIQUITOUS
In 1850, Kirtland (82), did not separate the two species of Grapples,
referring to them collectively as Centrarchus hexacanthus. His drawing
is that of the present species. He stated that "Lake Erie seems to
be its most prominent resort..." and that considerable numbers are often
taken "...in the vicinity of Cleveland." There is no reason to believe
that it was not present in large numbers in the tributaries and the
Lake adjacent to Cleveland. After 1875, the White and Black Grapples
were usually separated in literature, and the White Grapple was considered
to be less abundant in Northern Ohio than the Black Grapple.
100
-------
Figure 28: Distribution of White Bass
LAKE ERIE
ChagrirJl River
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
White Bass
Rocky 4 River
-------
Since 1900 , the species has been numerous in the streams of the area
and many thousands have been captured in Lake Rockwell and liberated
elsewhere in Ohio.
Currently this species may be commonly collected throughout the Chagrin,
Rocky and upper Cuyahoga rivers, but at present it occurs in fewer
numbers in Lake Erie, principally in marinas.
(References; 82, 115, 119, 124, 136, 147, 150, 163)
77. BLACK CRAPPIE, Pomoxis nigromaculatus
UNCOMMON UBIQUITOUS
Little is known concerning the abundance of the Black Crappie in the
area prior to 1900 because of confusion with the White Crappie. It
is the general opinion of ichthyologists, commercial fishermen and
others that the Black Crappie was more numerous than the White, and
this may well have been true when there was an abundance of aquatic
vegetation and less turbidity.
After 1900, the species was locally abundant in the tributaries and
the Ohio Department of Natural Resources liberated many thousands of
adults throughout Ohio waters. These had been taken from such lakes
as Meander and Rockwell, in the upper Cuyahoga.
Results of our survey indicate that the species had drastically declined
and in most areas the White Crappie was now more abundant than the
Black. This is especially true of the lower rivers and harbors along
the Lake Erie shoreline. Large populations existed only in artificial
reservoirs and in heavily vegetated sections of the streams.
(References; 82, 119, 124, 147, 150, 159)
78. NORTHERN ROCKBASS, Ambloplites r. rupestris
COMMON UBIQUITOUS
Many preserved specimens collected between 1853-1900 and many litera-
ture references leave us no doubt as to the great abundance of Rockbass
in inland Ohio and in Lake Erie.
Between 1900 and 1965 it was common to abundant in the streams of the
area but little is known of the Lake Erie population during this period.
During this study, the species was found to be uniformly distributed
but not immensely abundant. Very small populations occurred about the
102
-------
Figure 29: Distribution of Crappies
•LAKE ERIE
Rock
River
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
A White Crappie
^ Black Crappie
-------
breakwalls of the Lake Erie shoreline, including the Cleveland Harbor.
The largest populations were found in the upper two-thirds of the river
drainages. It is believed that the species is declining in numerical
abundance.
(References; 67, 69, 87, 115, 119, 124, 147, 150, 163)
79. NORTHERN SMALLMOUTH BLACKBASS, Micropterus d. dolomieui
UNCOMMON UBIQUITOUS
The many preserved specimens and innumerable literature references
attest to the great abundance of this species in Lake Erie and inland
Ohio streams. Kirtland stated that it was "...a valued source of food
and was captured with hooks and lines, seines, nets, spears and guns."
(71). They were particularly vulnerable to capture because of the
clarity of the water, especially by spearing. After 1810, when hundreds
of dams blocked the upstream migrations, they were taken in huge numbers
with seines in the pools below dams, and later, while migrating
downstream, were caught in cribs and weirs placed on the openings of
dams. Kirtland mentioned that between 1849-1851, the waters were
"...literally black with fishing boats.", these boats containing hook
and line fishermen. Frequent catches of one hundred walleyes and
smallmouths were taken in a morning by a single person. During the
latter part of this period, a considerable decrease in abundance in
Lake Erie was noted (see history section).
In 1902, commercial fishing of this species was prohibited in Lake
Erie, but the decline in abundance continued (147).
At present, the once immense populations near the mouth of the Cuyahoga
River and along the lake shore, have disappeared. To the best of our
knowledge, not a specimen of Smallmouth was taken from the Cleveland-
Lake Erie shoreline during our 18 month survey by our crews, sport or
commercial fishermen. Populations do exist, however, in the upper
Cuyahoga River, the upper and middle portions of the Rocky River and
in all of the Chagrin River drainage, the largest populations remaining
in the middle portion of the Chagrin River. The Smallmouth has been
very adversely affected by mill dams, drainage, municipal and
industrial pollutants, etc., and has demonstrated a drastic decline
in numbers. It is probable that, unless corrective measures are taken
to abate these pollutants, the decline will continue.
(References; 35, 71, 91, 119, 136, 147, 150, 161, 163)
104
-------
80. NORTHERN LARGEMOUTH BLACKBASS, Micropterus s. salmoides
COMMON UBIQUITOUS
Preserved specimens and reliable literature references testify to the
presence before 1900 of the Largemouth Blackbass in weedy bays, harbors,
marshes and shallows of Lake Erie and the base- and low-gradient portions
of its tributaries.
Preserved specimens after 1900 indicate that the species was numerous
in the tributaries of Lake Erie and shallow waters in this area. Many
were captured in Lake Rockwell and liberated elsewhere in Ohio.
During this period the overall numerical abundance continued to decrease
in the shallows of Lake Erie. Between 1930 and the present, many
thousands of farm ponds were constructed in inland Ohio and those
in this area usually contained this species. Escapes from farm ponds
continually replenished the tributaries.
Presently the greatest concentration of this species continues to be
in the heavily vegetated reservoirs of the upper Cuyahoga River. In
other areas, such as the lower portions of the streams and lake shore,
the population has greatly declined in numbers even though the species
is more silt-tolerant than is the Smallmouth Blackbass. In areas such
as Cleveland Harbor and Edgewater Marina, where the Smallmouth has
apparently been extirpated, small populations were observed, especially
in the marinas, to be nesting and young-of-the-year were collected
from areas in the Cleveland Harbor. The limited reproductive success
of this species was apparently further hampered by sports fishermen who
removed the adults while they were tending their eggs in shallow
water, a time when they were most conspicuous and vulnerable to capture.
On June 29, 1972 we observed more than 30 nests that were tended by
adults in the Edgewater Marinas; within three days, all of these had
been removed by anglers. Considering the precarious state of the species
in this area, such a removal of spawning adults may have serious
deleterious effects.
(References; 111, 115, 119, 124, 135, 136, 147, 150, 163)
81. WARMOUTH SUNFISH, Lepomis gulosus
UNCOMMON STREAM
Although this species must have been present in the tributaries and
shallows of Lake Erie before 1900, no specimens had been reported or
preserved from this area.
Since 1900, Warmouth has been repeatedly taken in the Chagrin and
Cuyahoga rivers and was not uncommon in Lake Rockwell (147).
105
-------
Figure 30: Distribution of Rock Bass, Blackbasses and Warmouth.
RockijBb River
LAKE ERIE
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
If. Northern Rock Bass
Q Northern Smallmouth Blackbass
0 Northern Largemouth Blackbass
A Warmouth Sunfish
-------
Small populations persisted in the upper and middle portions of the
Chagrin River drainage and in the upper Cuyahoga River as well. This
species was not abundant in the rivers. Rarely are more than a few
taken at a time even then only in an occasional collection. One
individual was collected in Lake Erie; taken in the Edgewater marina.
Presumably this specimen was a stray, as the species does not inhabit
Lake Erie.
(References; 124, 147, 150)
82. GREEN SUNFISH, Lepomis cyanellus
COMMON STREAM
Preserved specimens and reliable literature references indicate that
previous to 1900, the Green Sunfish was present in this area, was
generally distributed and usually numerous from Cleveland westward.
Since 1920, the species was present in all of the tributaries in the
area, and apparently its numbers were increasing.
This Centrarchid is apparently one of the most pollutant-tolerant of
Ohio Sunfish species and was taken in large numbers in locations
where other species were few or absent. In areas of cleaner waters,
less silted substrate, and/or with aquatic vegetation, other sunfish
species usually far outnumbered the Green in abundance. It is our
opinion that the relative populations of sunfish species may be used
as general indices of water quality. Current survey indicates that
populations of Green Sunfish were low in the Chagrin River moderate in
the Rocky River; and in the middle Cuyahoga River it was the predominant
sunfish.
(References; 119, 124, 136, 147, 150, 163)
83. BLUEGILL SUNFISH, Lepomis m. macrochirus
COMMON STREAM
Specimens, captured before 1970, have been preserved from every Ohio
county bordering Lake Erie, and they, together with reliable litera-
ture records, indicate its presence in Lake Erie and tributary streams.
It was abundant and of importance as a sport fish after 1900 and was
found generally throughout the area. After 1920, thousands were removed
from Lake Rockwell and liberated elsewhere. The building of hundreds
of farm ponds in the area, almost all containing Bluegills, some of
which escaped, helped to maintain stream populations.
107
-------
While the Bluegill population in the area streams remained relatively
high, we found that in general, stream populations were considered by
many persons to be much higher than they actually are. This is
probably due to the difficulty encountered by the public in discrimin-
ating between the various species of sunfishes especially when dealing
with immature or hybrid specimens. Often, the classification of
"bluegill" is indiscriminately applied to an immature specimen of
Pumpkinseed or Green Sunfish. If, as we have previously stated,
sunfishes are to be used as indicators of water quality, then it is
essential that these species be correctly identified.
It was noted that Bluegill populations were high in the Rocky and
upper Cuyahoga drainages and moderate in the Chagrin River. A few
were collected in Lake Erie at Edgewater Park and in the Cleveland
Harbor,where it occurred in low numbers. In such areas, the Pumpkinseed
is far more numerous.
(References; 115, 119, 124, 135, 136, 147, 150, 163)
84. ORANGESPOTTED SUNFISH, Lepomis humilis
RARE STREAM
This species has been invading Ohio from the west since 1920 (147) .
None was found in the study area previous to this survey.
This sunfish is the most silt-tolerant of the Ohio sunfishes. Its
invasion eastward was apparently due to the extensive siltation of
the waters which is probably creating less favorable habitat for other
Centrarchids. The few individuals collected during this study are the
first records of the species in this area. Together with other recent
unpublished records from southeastern Ohio, the Cleveland area specimens
represent a significant extension of this species' range eastward in
Ohio. Previously, this species was recorded only from western Ohio
streams; the easternmost Lake Erie tributary was near Sandusky. It
is our opinion that the populations of this sunfish in the Chagrin
River will increase in the future.
(References; 58, 147, 150)
85. NORTHERN LONGEAR SUNFISH, Lepomis megalotis peltastes
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED STREAM, LAKE
Preserved specimens of this subspecies of Longear Sunfish along the
south shore and tributaries of Lake Erie indicate that it was present
in the Cleveland area. Probably it was numerous so long as aquatic
vegetation was profuse.
108
-------
Figure 31: Distribution of Bluegill, Green and Orangespotted Sunfishes.
LAKE ERIE
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
W Northern Bluegill Sunfish
A Green Sunfish
Q Orange-spotted Sunfish
Rocky 4River
-------
The few records since 1900 suggest that it decreased in abundance in
the area relatively early. There are three collections from the
Cuyahoga River prior to 1926 but none from the study area since.
Apparently the Longear Sunfish has been extirpated from the Cleveland
Metropolitan area as no specimens were collected during the survey.
(References; 119, 147, 150, 163)
86. REDEAR SUNFISH, Lepomis microlophus
LOCALLY COMMON ARTIFICIAL LAKES
This recently introduced species has been recorded from a tributary
in the upper Rocky River where it had been introduced into a pond,
from which some subsequently escaped. In 1939, 142 adult Redears were
liberated in Pippen Lake in the Cuyahoga drainage. Since 1944, their
young have been trapped and shipped throughout Ohio for stocking purposes.
No Redear Sunfish were collected in the streams or Lake Erie during this
survey. Stocked populations exist in impoundments of the river drain-
ages, especially in the upper Cuyahoga area. This species has never
been reported from Lake Erie.
(References; 147, 150)
87. PUMPKINSEED SUNFISH, Lepomis gibbosus
ABUNDANT UBIQUITOUS
Preserved specimens, taken along the south shore of Lake Erie from
Lucas to Ashtabula counties and numerous literature references, indicate
that it was well distributed and abundant throughout this area prior
to 1900. It occurred in both the straams and Lake Erie and was of some
commercial importance (147).
This Sunfish has continued to be present in the tributaries and shore-
waters of the Lake in the Cleveland area. There is evidence that it
has continued to decrease in abundance with the continued increase
in turbidity and decrease in the amount of aquatic vegetation.
The Pumpkinseed continues to be the most abundant and widely distributed
sunfish species in the Cleveland area. Contrary to the reports of
Havens and Emerson (135, 136) , we find that it was far more numerous than
the Bluegill, especially in the Chagrin River drainage. It was the
sunfish species most frequently collected in Lake Erie, and was common
in the Cleveland Harbor where it reproduces with some success. The
Pumpkinseed Sunfish is abundant in the upper Cuyahoga and Chagrin
rivers, common in the Rocky River and present in limited numbers in
110
-------
Figure 32: Distribution of Pumpkinseed Sunfish
RockyV River
LAKE ERIE
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
0 Pumpkinseed Sunfish
-------
the middle and lower portions of the Cuyahoga where the Green Sunfish
surpasses it in abundance.
(References; 88, 115, 119, 124, 136, 147, 150, 163)
88. SAUCER, Stizostedion canadense
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
Despite the confusion of the Sauger with the Walleye, there is no
doubt that before 1900 it was a valuable food species of considerable
commercial importance.
Between 1900 and 1945 the population throughout Lake Erie continued
to be large, and in 1917, 102,410 pounds were brought into Cuyahoga
County ports. Thereafter, remarkably constant decreases in abundance
occurred and by 1970, the species was considered to be nearly extirpated
throughout Lake Erie.
Presently, this species should be considered extirpated in the Cleve-
land area and, as suggested by Rieger (131), this decline was probably
due to the environmental deterioration of the rivers and near shore
waters. Evidence indicates that very probably, in the Cleveland area,
the Sauger was dependent on the nearshore (1-3 miles) for spawning.
After 1940, the deterioration of this area probably contributed to their
extirpation.
(References; 40, 69, 119, 131, 147, 150)
89A. WALLEYE, Stizostedion v. vitreum
RARE LAKE
Kirtland (84) mentioned that "Lake Erie seems to be its favorite
residence." Unfortunately, at this time, the Walleye and Blue Pike
were not considered to be distinct. It is impossible to definitely
state the relative abundance of each. Even though official records are
sparce, there is little doubt that the Walleye was immensely abundant
in the waters of Lake Erie prior to 1900. Records indicate that over
14 million pounds of Walleye were taken commercially in 1889, and over
12 million pounds in 1893 (118).
A drastic decline in numbers occurred in the late 1800's. By 1900 less
than 2 million pounds were taken. Since the commercial catch in 1955
was 6 million pounds, it is apparent that the population never recovered
to half of its original size. The major cause of this early decline was
obviously construction of dams, which effectively blocked the upstream
spawning runs of this highly migratory species.
112
-------
Figure 33: Distribution of Walleye.
ChagrinlRiver
LAKE ERIE
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
V Walleye
Rocky ( River
-------
Figure 34: A Large Walleye Collected in the Cleveland Harbor in 1971.
Walleye such as this one were once extremely abundant. In
1850 a person could catch more than 50 per day but in 1973
only occasional specimens were reported per year.
114
-------
Since 1900, spawning was primarily in the Lake Erie island region and,
to a lesser extent, in the lower rivers and shorelines of Lake Erie.
The population apparently recovered slowly between 1900-1955 and then
suffered another serious and sudden decline. In 1970, the total Lake
Erie commercial catch was less than one million pounds. The species
has not recovered from this recent decline in the Central Basin, although
some recent increase, (possibly a temporary one), has been noted in
the Western Basin. (Fig. 34.)
At present, the combined effects of stream obstruction, both chemical
and physical, and deterioration of the rivers and near-shore areas
have nearly eliminated the successful reproduction of this species in
the study area. Only occasional specimens of adults are taken and the
collections of a few yearlings in the lower Chagrin River suggest
that a small population might be spawning in or near the stream. On
the whole, this species should be considered rare in this area, having
little or no reproductive success.
(References; 37, 55, 62, 64, 69, 74, 84, 111, 118, 119, 147, 150, 161)
89B. BLUE PIKE, Stizostedion vitreum glaucum
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
The relative abundance of the Walleye compared with its subspecies, the
Blue Pike was unknown prior to 1900. It is assumed that the Blue Pike
was very abundant in the area because of proximity to the center of
Blue Pike abundance in the deeper waters of Lake Erie.
After 1900, with the loss of Sturgeon, Muskellunge, Pike and Blackbass,
it became increasingly important to the fisheries and was highly prized
as a food fish. In 1922, for example, 1,126,158 pounds were brought into
Cuyahoga County ports. After 1955, the population in Lake Erie col-
lapsed and by 1967, the species had become commercially extirpated
(37, 147, 150).
This once abundant and economically important species is presently
considered by many to be extinct. It was restricted primarily to Lake
Erie, the only other known populations of Blue Pike occurring in
limited areas of Lakes Ontario, Huron and Winnepeg. Apparently,
these other populations have undergone similar declines and the entire
subspecies may well be extinct. No specimens were reported or collected
during this survey.
(References; 37, 144, 147, 150)
115
-------
90. YELLOW PERCH, Perca flavescens
ABUNDANT UBIQUITOUS
Before 1900, the Yellow Perch was widely distributed and abundant
throughout Lake Erie, and was considered a "trash" species, because
at that time the more desirable Whitefish, Ciscoes and other prized
food fishes were abundant. At this time, Klippart (111) stated that,
its "...flesh is soft, rather coarse, and insipid; at best, it is
nothing more than a third-rate panfish.", and "The writers opinion is
that perch make better glue than food." During this period, Sterling
wrote that
"...perch were a most worthless animal...you
can have all you want [from fish dealers] for
the trouble of carrying them away. I once saw
three tons sold for manure...for as many dollars."
After 1900, and until 1950, the species was considered largely of
secondary importance. In 1917, only 33,701 pounds were brought into
Cuyahoga County ports even though they were obviously abundant. With
the decrease of other food fishes after 1955, especially the Blue
Pike and Walleye, the Perch became of major importance to the commercial
and sport fisheries.
Recently, the species appears to be declining in numbers although it
is the most important sport and commercial species in Lake Erie.
In the Cleveland area it was the most abundant food species. It was
currently reproducing in the Cleveland area, as evidenced by the col-
lections of eggs and all age classes during the survey. Schools of
Perch occasionally enter the lower rivers as adults, and young-of-the-
year were commonly collected in the lower Chagrin River and elsewhere.
Yellow Perch are currently abundant in all areas of the Cleveland
Shoreline including the Cleveland Harbor, and reports of specimens taken
from industrial water intakes indicate that they occasionally ascend
the lower Cuyahoga River from Lake Erie. Additional specimens have
been taken in the upper Chagrin and Cuyahoga rivers and may be the
result of stocking in reservoirs.
(References; 37, 40, 64, 73, 83, 111, 119, 124, 147, 150, 163)
91. BLACKSIDE DARTER, Percina maculata
RARE STREAM
Although little is known of the abundance of this darter prior to 1900,
there is no reason to doubt that it was present and perhaps locally
numerous in the area.
116
-------
Since 1900, the species has been found throughout the Rocky River
drainage and was present in lesser numbers in the Cuyahoga and Chagrin
rivers.
During the current survey, we were unable to obtain specimens from
the Rocky River. A few individuals were collected from several locali-
ties in the middle portions of the Chagrin River. In addition, Orr
and Rhodes (124) reported having collected two specimens in the upper
Cuyahoga River. The species must now be considered locally uncommon
and rare in overall abundance. This darter occasionally strays into
the waters of Lake Erie (150).
(References; 119, 124, 147, 150, 163)
92. CHANNEL DARTER, Percina copelandi
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED LAKE
No specimens of this primarily lake species appear to have been preserved,
but there is reason to believe that it was formerly numerous on the
clean, sandy shores of the Cleveland area.
Between 1924 and 1950, specimens were taken at the mouth of the Rocky
and Chagrin rivers. It decreased markedly in abundance after 1950
and no specimens have been reported from the study area since.
None was collected during our survey, and the species was assumed to
be extirpated in the study area, probably because of the destruction
of its habitat along the Lake Erie shoreline.
(References; 147, 150)
93A. OHIO LOGPERCH DARTER, Percina caprodes caprodes
RARE STREAM
After reviewing the literature, Osburn (125) concluded that this
species was widely distributed in Lake Erie and its tributaries before
1900. At that time, two subspecies of P^. caprodes were not recognized,
and it is assumed that both were included in his discussion.
Prior to this survey, the Ohio Logperch was recorded only in the
Cuyahoga River drainage. It is intolerant of pollution and siltation and
apparently has declined greatly in abundance.
In Ohio, this subspecies is primarily restricted to streams, although
small populations occasionally persist in impoundments. During this
study, one specimen was taken in the upper Cuyahoga River. An additional
117
-------
Figure 35: Distribution of Yellow Perch and Logperch Darters.
00
LAKE ERIE
Rocky
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
• Yellow Perch
Q Northern Logperch Darter
•^ Ohio Logperch Darter
-------
Logperch specimen was collected in the lower Chagrin River and was
identified as an intergrade between the Ohio and Northern Logperch.
This would indicate the presence of a limited !P. c^. caprodes population
somewhere in the Chagrin.
(References; 119, 124, 125, 147, 150, 163)
93B. NORTHERN LOGPERCH DARTER, Percina caprodes semifasciata
RARE LAKE
As has been previously stated, confusion between the two subspecies of
Logperch Darters makes it difficult to determine their exact abundance
before 1900. Apparently, the Northern Logperch was common along the
clean beaches of the study area.
Between 1900 and 1950, several specimens were taken on beaches near
Cleveland, but the population was declining along the shoreline (147).
A severe decline in numbers has occurred since 1950. Only three adults
were taken in Lake Erie during this survey. In the Cleveland Harbor,
the species is reproducing and small numbers of fry were collected
during 1973-1974.
(References; 119, 125, 147, 150, 163)
94. EASTERN SAND DARTER, Ammocrypta pellucida
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED STREAM
From literature references and many preserved specimens we conclude
that this sand-inhabiting species was present in the area prior to
1900 and probably was very numerous.
After 1900 it began to show a marked decrease throughout inland Ohio
and Lake Erie. After 1960, none have been recorded from Lake Erie.
In spite of an intensive effort to collect this species, none was
taken in the study area during this survey, although five specimens
were collected in the adjacent Grand River.
(References; 119, 134, 147, 150)
95A. CENTRAL JOHNNY DARTER, Etheostoma nigrum nigrum
ABUNDANT STREAM
Prior to 1900, failure to differentiate between the Central Johnny and
Scaly Johnny Darters made it impossible to ascertain the relative
119
-------
abundance of each. Members of the Johnny Darter complex could be found
throughout all the tributaries and along the shores of Lake Erie in
this vicinity. Typical examples of the Central Johnny Darter and
intergrades with the Scaly Johnny have been preserved. They are
known to have inhabited all of the streams and the lake shore in the
study area. Central Johnny Darters were probably numerous in all
streams and tributaries.
Since 1900, innumerable specimens have been taken from streams throughout
the study area.
During the survey, this subspecies was numerous in all of the area
streams, partly because of its tolerance to siltation and many types of
pollutants. However, it was not collected in the lower Cuyahoga River
where the pollution level was apparently intolerable. This darter
is abundant throughout the Chagrin and upper Cuyahoga and Rocky drainages,
whereas it was only moderately numerous in the other streams.
(References; 115, 119, 124, 125, 136, 147, 150, 163)
95B. SCALY JOHNNY DARTER, Etheostoma nigrum eulepis
RARE LAKE
The Scaly Johnny Darter, essentially a Lake Erie species in Ohio, was
not recognized until 1935 (147). As was previously stated, there are
no accurate records documenting its early abundance.
After 1935, and probably long before, this subspecies was rapidly
declining in numbers.
This decline has resulted in the near extirpation of the Scaly Johnny
Darters from the study area. Only a single individual was collected
during the study, this from the mouth of the Chagrin River. There is
an intergrading population in the lower Chagrin, and six intergrades
were collected in the lowermost mile of the Chagrin.
(References; 119, 125, 147, 150)
96A. "ALLEGHENY" GREENSIDE DARTER, Etheostoma b_. blennioides
UNCOMMON STREAM
There is reason to believe that the Greenside Darter, as a species, was
present and perhaps numerous in the tributaries of this area and adjacent
sections of Lake Erie before 1900.
120
-------
Since 1900, it has been particularly numerous in the upper sections
of the Rocky River and the upper half of the Cuyahoga River. Increased
siltation of the streams and the elimination of suitable habitat has
resulted in a gradual decrease in abundance in the study area.
Specimens were taken during this survey only from the Rocky and Chagrin
Rivers, but it should occur in the upper Cuyahoga River as well.
(References; 121, 130, 147, 150, 163)
96B. "OZARK" GREENSIDE DARTER, Etheostoma. b.. pholidotum
RARE LAKE
In 1968, Miller (121) described this subspecies from the Ozarks.
In Ohio it inhabits Lake Erie, in more or less typical form, and in
tributary streams especially in the lower poritons. In the study
area, we assume, that as elsewhere in Lake Erie (150), it was formerly
common in the shallows along the shore line, intergrading in the lower
sections of the tributaries with the "Allegheny" Greenside. At present
this form is nearing extirpation from Lake Erie. None was taken from
the beaches of the study area. A single specimen , captured in the
Chagrin River near its mouth, was an intergrade with the "Allegheny".
(References; 121)
97. IOWA DARTER, Etheostoma exile
SCIENTIFICALLY EXTIRPATED STREAM
No specimens of the Iowa Darter were reported prior to 1900. There
is no reason, however, to doubt their presence in the area, especially
in pothole lakes and streams having much aquatic vegetation and a
rich organic bottom.
Between 1900 and 1950, the species was taken in several localities in
the upper Cuyahoga and Chagrin rivers, after which it appears to have
been extirpated from most of these localities.
Despite intensive seining, none was taken during this survey and it may
be considered to be scientifically extirpated in the area.
(References; 147, 150)
121
-------
98. RAINBOW DARTER, Etheostoma caeruleum
ABUNDANT STREAM
Literature records before 1900 are unreliable in most sections of Ohio
because of confusion with the superficially similar species, the
Orangethroat Darter. Because the Orangethroat does not occur in this
area and since sufficient material is preserved from Cuyahoga, Lake,
Geauga, Portage, Summit and Medina Counties, we have been provided
with sufficient evidence of its former, widespread distribution (147).
Since 1900, it has been numerous throughout the tributaries, especially
east of the Allegheny Front Escarpment.
Presently in the study area the Rainbow Darter appears to be most
common in the upper Chagrin River, although smaller populations exist
in the upper Cuyahoga and Rocky river drainages.
(References; 115, 119, 124, 136, 147, 150, 163)
99. BARRED FANTAIL DARTER, Etheostoma f. flabellare
COMMON STREAM
Published records and preserved specimens indicate that before 1900 this
species was abundant and of general distribution in the Lake Erie
drainage, including this area.
Since 1900, it was numerous in all tributaries, especially in those
portions containing sluggish riffles and in pools having a swift
current.
At present a decline in universal abundance is evident and the species
is primarily restricted to small headwater tributaries of the rivers
in the study area which have not yet been subjected to the effects of
pollutants.
(References; 124, 125, 136, 147, 150, 163)
100. FRESHWATER DRUM, Aplodinotus grunniens
ABUNDANT LAKE
Kirtland (80) stated that Lake Erie "...abounds with this species."
Since 1900 the Drum has been an abundant inhabitant of Lake Erie;
95,019 Ibs. were brought into Cuyahoga County ports in 1922. If there
has been a change in numerical abundance, it is towards greater numbers.
Hartman (37) in giving possible causes for this increase states,
122
-------
Figure 36: Distribution of Darters.
LAKE ERIE
U)
Rocky L River
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
% Central Johnny Darter
© Scaly Johnny Darter
A "Ozark" Greenside Darter
"& Rainbow Darter
TO Barred Fantail Darter
-------
"The eggs are semi-buoyant and float at or near the
water surface, and thus avoid potentially deleterious
conditions on the lake bottom. Newly hatched larvae
also tend to remain near the surface."
This possible increase in the population is not to be considered
favorable. Hartmen continues,
"...this warm water species has virtually no commercial
market value and little appeal to sports fishermen in
Lake Erie."
Although this species occurs in great numbers in the Cleveland area of
Lake Erie, it is not as numerous as the Yellow Perch or Gizzard Shad.
Furthermore, during the cooler months of the year, it retreats to the
deeper portion of the Lake and becomes strikingly less abundant in
the near-shore waters of the study area. The Drum occasionally migrates
upstream and was taken as far upstream in the Chagrin River as the
Willoughby Dam. Collections of many year classes, including fry,
indicate that it successfully reproduces in the area.
(References; 37, 66, 80, 109, 119, 144, 147, 150)
101A. CENTRAL MOTTLED SCULPIN, Cottus b. bairdi
RARE STREAM
Although no locality records exist prior to 1900 (147), this subspecies
undoubtedly occurred in the small tributaries of the area. Early
conditions were more favorable than at present.
After 1900, sculpins were taken in several localities in the upper
half of the Cuyahoga and Chagrin rivers.
No collections of this species were made during this study. Although
it was not collected, it cannot be assumed to be extirpated from the
area, since many tiny tributaries were not sampled. We believe that
limited populations exist in the headwaters of the Chagrin and Cuyahoga
rivers. Obviously, Central Mottled Sculpins have become restricted
in their range and greatly reduced in numerical abundance.
(References; 119, 147, 150, 163)
101B. NORTHERN MOTTLED SCULPIN, Cottus bairdi kumlieni
RARE LAKE
Another sculpin subspecies had been taken east of the study area near
the Ohio-Pennsylvania border. This subspecies inhabits Lake Erie,
124
-------
and was not reported from the Eastern or Central Basins.
In 1974, a specimen of a Northern Mottled Sculpin was given to us by
Mr. David Kananen, of the City of Cleveland. The specimen had been
taken from the water intake screens. Apparently it was pulled into the
intake a few miles offshore. This specimen represents the first
record of the subspecies in the Central Basin.
In other areas, the Northern Mottled Sculpin was captured only in
shallow waters during the colder portions of the year, usually at the
time of ice formation (147). It is probable that a small population
inhabits the Cleveland area beaches during the winter months, retreating
to deeper waters at other times of the year.
(References; 147, 150)
125
-------
Figure 37: Distribution of Freshwater Drum and Sculpins
LAKE ERIE
River
Rocky
COLLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
^ Freshwater Drum (Sheepshead)
Q Northern Mottled Sculpin
A Central Mottled Sculpin
-------
Nursery Zones Within the Study Area
No attempt was made to intensively survey the study area for nursery
zones but certain observations should be included in this report. It
should be understood that more work in this area is necessary and
should be conducted in the future .
Fish fry and young-of-the-year were routinely collected during seining
operations throughout the survey and occasionally were taken in trawls
or gill nets. Three principal nursery areas occur along the Lake Erie
shoreline in the study area. In order of increasing importance (in
terms of numbers of individuals) they are;the mouth, lower one mile and
adjacent shoreline of the Rocky River; the mouth and adjacent shoreline
of the Chagrin River; and the Cleveland Harbor and adjacent marinas.
The area which produces the most diverse fauna is the Chagrin River
nursery; a slightly less diverse fauna is in the Rocky River nursery
area; and in the Cleveland Harbor, most of the nursery is dominated
by a few species.
The following tables ( 3-5 ) indicate those species which are collected
as fry or young-of-the-year in the three principal nursery areas. As
it is not unusual to collect a large number of young fishes when
seining due to the collection of an entire school, the number of
individuals becomes somewhat irrelevent. The abundance of each species
has been depicted as a relative term, Abundant, Common or Rare. It
was often the occurrence that we collected several thousand fry or
young-of-the-year during a single seining sample, all but a few specimens
were invariably released.
Spawning Areas
It is obvious that most smaller, non-migratory species of fishes are
reproducing within the study area. The success of these species is
individually expressed in their distributions and abundances which have
already been discussed. Certain species have been observed spawning
within the Cleveland Harbor and its adjacent marinas. Some have been
documented as spawning in the lower Cuyahoga River. As it is generally
assumed that these two areas do not support the reproduction of fishes,
we feel that these observations should be discussed even though a study
of spawning areas was not actively pursued. It is probable that the
list of fry and young-of-the-year are similar to a list that could be
constructed of the spawning areas, should such a study have been done.
During 1972-74, the Goldfish, Pumpkinseed Sunfish,Largemouth Blackbass
and Yellow Perch were documented as spawning within the Cleveland
127
-------
Table 3 : Species of Fishes Collected as Fry or Young-of-the-
Year in the Cleveland Harbor, 1972-1974.
Species
Alewife
Eastern Gizzard Shad
Rainbow Smelt
Eastern Quillback
Common White Sucker
Carp
Goldfish
Golden Shiner
Longnose Dace
Common Emerald Shiner
Spottail Shiner
Fathead Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Trout-perch
Brook Silverside
White Bass
Rockbass
Largemouth Blackbass
Green Sunfish
Bluegill Sunfish
Pumpkinseed Sunfish
Yellow Perch
Northern Logperch Darter
White Crappie
Abundance
Abundant
Abundant
Abundant
Rare
Uncommon
Common
Common
Abundant
Rare
Abundant
Uncommon
Rare
Common
Rare
Rare
Uncommon
Uncommon
Rare
Uncommon
Common
Abundant
Common
Rare
Uncommon
128
-------
, Table 4 : Species of Fishes Collected as Fry or Young-of-the-
Year in the Rocky River Near Lake Erie, 1972-1974
Species
Species
Alewife
Central Quillback
Common White Sucker
Goldfish
Common Emerald Shiner
Spotfin Shiner
Silverjaw Minnow
Brown Bullhead
White Bass
Rockbass
Smallmouth Blackbass
Bluegill Sunfish
Yellow Perch
Eastern Gizzard Shad
Golden Redhorse
Carp
Goldenshiner
Spottail Shiner
Northeastern Sand Shiner
Bluntnose Minnow
Brook Stickleback
White Crappie
Largemouth Blackbass
Green Sunfish
Pumpkinseed Sunfish
Freshwater Drum (Sheepshead)
129
-------
Table 5 : Species of Fishes Collected as Fry or Young-of-the-
Year in the Lower Chagrin River and Adjacent Areas
of Shoreline, 1972-1974.
Species
Longnose Gar
Eastern Gizzard Shad
Grass Pickerel
Goldfish
Longnose Dace
Common Emerald Shiner
Spotfin Shiner
Silverjaw Minnow
Channel Catfish
Black Bullhead
White Bass
Black Crappie
Smallmouth Blackbass
Green Sunfish
Bluegill Sunfish
Eastern Quillback
Golden Redhorse
Common White Sucker
Scaly Johnny Darter
Species
Alewife
Rainbow Smelt
Carp
Golden Shiner
Creek Chub
Spottail Shiner
Northeastern Sand Shiner
Bluntnose Minnow
Brown Bullhead
Brook Silverside
White Crappie
Rockbass
Largemouth Blackbass
Pumpkinseed Sunfish
Orangespotted Sunfish
Central Quillback
Black Redhorse
Yellow Perch
Freshwater Drum (Sheepshead)
130
-------
Harbor. Goldfish were observed to be depositing eggs on the undersides
of boats in the marinas and on the pilings within the harbor. Yellow
Perch spawned within the harbor utilizing debris to attach the eggs.
Such items as newspapers, wire, tree branches etc. were commonly used.
At one point, the Yellow Perch deposited large quantities of eggs on
the anchor lines and mesh of our gill nets. Pumpkinseed Sunfish and
Largemouth Blackbass were frequently observed tending nests which
contained eggs. Green Sunfish were observed nesting in the old river
channel of the Cuyahoga by Mr. Larry McGeehan and Mr. Dave Kananen of'
the City of Cleveland. The Centrarchid nests were usually located on
flat surfaces of objects such as the breakwall rock, boards or sub-
merged marina steps. The success of these species was documented by
the collection of fry, but the success is limited in most cases. As
has been indicated in Table Five, many other species of fry were
collected within the Cleveland Harbor, and it is probably that all of
these are reproducing with limited success.
Other areas also serve as spawning and nursery areas, but these were
not actively examined. Of interest in this discussion is the lower
ten miles of the Cuyahoga River. We have previously stated that in
this area the Goldfish and Green Sunfish were observed spawning in
1974. We have observed that above the Southerly Sewage Treatment Plant,
large quantities of young fishes may be collected. One such collection
(at Granger Road) produced the following fry and young-of-the-year,
(estimated numbers):
Creek Chub 50
Goldfish 25
Brook Stickleback 5
Common White Sucker 10
Stoneroller Minnow 15
Green Sunfish 1
Below the Sewage Plant, and especially as one approaches the Lake, the
condition of the river worsens. Within the lower five miles only the
Goldfish, Emerald Shiner and Green Sunfish were collected as Young-of-
the-Year or fry. Even though these species are present in the lower
few miles of river, one can hardly consider the lower Cuyahoga as a
spawning or nursery zone.
The Yellow Perch in the Cleveland Area
The Yellow Perch is the most abundant commercial and sport fish species
in the Cleveland Area. Its population remains rather high, although
not as high as in past years. In spring, the species is abundant
enough to collect several hundred specimens from a 1000 ft. experimental
gill net in 24 hours. It is the most sought after sport species and
contributes greatly to the remaining commercial fishery in the Central
Basin of Lake Erie. Because of its economic importance, a study was made
131
-------
of its growth rate and population structure, to determine the
possible effects of the Cleveland water quality on the species. The
study was conducted on specimens collected in the nearshore waters
near the Cleveland Harbor.
In examining the possible effects of the Cleveland shoreline on the
Yellow Perch, two methods were utilized (1) the length to age
relationship and (2) the length to weight relationship.
Specimens were collected in the summer of 1972. In order to standardize
the age to length data, only the June and July specimens were used,
whereas the length to weight relationship utilized all specimens that
were collected during the year.
During the period of study, 539 Yellow Perch were aged and the length
to age relationship was plotted (Fig. 38). Considering that gill
nets are extremely selective (56) it is not surprising that the year
classes 0+ and 1+ are poorly represented in the catch. Gill net of
the 1 inch size or smaller was not used in the survey. If, however, we
examine the year classes 11+ through V+, a pattern emerges that is
very similar to that of other Lake Erie studies. The overlap in length
of several age classes is considered to be normal for the Yellow Perch
in the Lake. The decreasing percentage of individuals in succeeding
years is also normal. In all respects, the length-age relationships
seem to be compatable to that found elsewhere in Lake Erie (133).
The relationship of length to weight, known as the coefficient of
condition or "relative fatness", may be utilized to determine the
condition of an individual fish specimen or population of a given
species. A starved, stunted or diseased individual or population will
be relatively lighter per mm. of length, and therefore, will have a
lower coefficient of condition (K).
The K for any given species will also be dissimilar at different
localities and in different years. For example, in the Western Basin
of Lake Erie in 1952, the K for the Yellow Perch was 1.78-2.19 (56),
while in the colder northern waters of Wisconsin the K for the same
species was 1.72-1.92.
During our study, a total of 1,654 specimens of Yellow Perch were
examined and the K factor calculated. As explained by Jobes (56),
the K factor is influenced slightly by seasonal changes, (especially
due to the increase in gonad size) and also is influenced by gill net
techniques since "fatter" specimens tend to be collected more frequently.
In spite of these fluctuations, the K factor of specimens from the
Cleveland area consistantly shows high value, indicating that they
are in good condition and are not heavily stressed due to the poor
quality of the waters. The average value for all Yellow Perch examined
was 2.2 (range 2.06-2.45). When the length of the Cleveland area
132
-------
Figure 38: Length Frequency Distribution of 539 Aged Yellow Perch. (From Lake
Erie near Cleveland, Ohio, 1971 - 1972).
GILL NET SURVEY
LO
OJ
40-
35 -
4J
0)
53
H 3°-
•r)
O
^
4J ^-J
cd
u
o
w 20-
0)
o
* 15r-
10-
5-
1
i+-
!*X*X*X
^^^^•••IM
•gjsii
x*x*x
'X*X*X'
II
1
Sjig
X\vX-
III
X:X:X:
•X*X*X
:•:•:•:•:•:•
::::::::::::
•:•:•:•:•:•:
ijilJi?:::
:w:;:;
*x*x*x
iijijijiS
SixSi
''vX'X
•!•!•!•:$!
f
?!§•:!:
::i:x:x
ll^i
:•:•:•:¥:•
::•:•:•:•::
S§i?l
•:•:•;•:•:•
x*x*x
:•:•:•:!:;:
I
:::•:•:§
wS
| VT — — — j
TIT ' '
TTT-I- ...
Age Average Percent
Class Length (mm) of Catch
1+ 112.4 mm. 5.0 %
11+ 158 5 mm 76 3 %
III+ 178.6 mm. 16.7 %
IV+ 208.0 mm. 1.1 %
V+ 215.0 mm. 0.9 %
:|$8x:
XvX'X •"•'•*•'•*•'
liiwte*^
100 130 160 190 210 250
Standard Length (mm.)
-------
•g
UH
O
Figure 39: Length Frequency Distribution of 1,671
Yellow Perch.(From Lake Erie near
Cleveland, Ohio 1971 - 1972. ).
32 -
30 -
28 -
26 -
22 -
20 -
18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10
8-
6-
4-
2
™
40 70 10
V.' .'.*•*
()
88$:
£•;:•:•:'::'
1.
•il-8
:•;•&•••••
•'••••??:
!§i$s
0
1
IvX'X
:%%:;•
||:%i;
s$s
:-$S§
?:'•:'$:
i|%i:;
•SSv
ill
8
1
ssss
si§>i§
si§is
•'••K?.-:-:
/XvXv
||:§:
wSS
Siws
•S:i'*:$
x"£$
DO
ivSsi
si§s
Ss>s
III
:§%:•:•:
S:S§:
SJJjS
ssji-i
19
SxS-i;
;X'.'xjX
SS-w HSsS
Sl^^xTI^-
0 220 2'50 28b 310
Standard Length (mm)
134
-------
Figure 40: Length to Weight Relationship for Yellow Perch Population.
0)
500
450-
400 J
350 i
300
250J
200
150
100
50-
40 80 120 160 200 240
Standard Length (mm.)
280
136
-------
Perch is plotted against the weight, the resultant curve (Fig. 40)is very
similar to that indicated by Jobes (56). It is evident that adult
Yellow Perch are not severely harmed by the water quality in Cleve-
land, and in fact, seem to be growing well and are slightly heavier
than those from the Western Basin of Lake Erie.
Even though the above discussion seems to indicate that perch are
doing well in Cleveland area waters, it must be remembered that the
population is considerably lower in numbers than in past years.
Commercial fishermen ( 161) report that catches of Yellow Perch
continue to decline in terms of catch per unit of effort. This decline
cannot be attributed to the killing of fishes by pollutants, for major
fish kills (perch) are uncommon in the area and certainly do not
contribute significantly to reductions in population size. Similarly,
the commercial fishing cannot be blamed, for only one vessel was
engaged in fishing the area during 1972, and this vessel has recently
left Cleveland to fish elsewhere in Lake Erie. Probably sports fishing
presently removes more and smaller individuals than does commercial
fishing, but we doubt that the combined effort of both fisheries has
had much effect on the Yellow Perch population.
Considering that relatively few individuals are removed and that the
fishes are growing well and show little apparent stress from pollutants
as adults, the probability exists that a lack of reproductive success
would explain the continued decline of this species. This might be
attributed to the individual or combined effects of a number of
factors among which several appear particularly obvious (See p. 18).
It is our opinion that the poor quality of the nearshore waters in the
area of Cleveland have an influence on the population of young Yellow
Perch. The decline of forage species (shiners, minnows, etc.) has
probably led to a lack of available food not only for the adult Perch
but also for the Freshwater Drum, Aplodinotus grunniens. It is
possible that Drum, Smelt, adult Perch and other species have begun
to feed more heavily on young Perch in lieu of shiners. This
possibility is the direct result of the degradation of the water
quality along the shoreline.
The feeding behavior of Yellow Perch, Freshwater Drum and Rainbow Smelt
should be thoroughly investigated in the near future.
The Commercial and Sports Fishery, Past and Present
Originally, the commercial fishery in Lake Erie near Cleveland was a
viable and thriving operation. In 1922, a total of eleven vessels
and 19 small craft were engaged in fishing or transporting commercial
fishes and 171 persons were employed by the industry (144). Beach
seining, gill netting, trap netting, trotlines and handlines were all
135
-------
employed by the fishermen. During that year, 5,076,591 pounds of
fish were landed in the port of Cleveland.
The commercial fishery has declined steadily. By 1955 the industry
had dwindled to a few individual fishermen. By 1972, only a single
vessel was engaged in the fishery and this was crewed by a single
man. The catch during that year was valued at a few thousand dollars.
In 1973 this last vessel was sold, and now there is no commercial fishing
activity from the port of Cleveland.
The economic loss to the Cleveland area is considerable. Because of
its steady decline the loss of this fishery has gone virtually unnoticed.
At present, nearly all of the fresh fish sold in the city are imported,
and most of these are from Canadian sources. In table 6 we have
utilized information regarding the 1922 catch in Cleveland waters,
and have projected this to 1973 prices, to obtain a better appraisal
of the economic loss to the area. We realize that this is a rough
estimate. It should be noted that 1922 was already a depressed
fishery, (see history of the Fishery), and is not at all representative
of the fishery possible under the 1850 ecosystem.
We have converted the value of each species to a present day value
(per pound, live, wholesale),and in those cases where a species is
no longer marketed because of legislation or unavailability we have
converted the 1922 dollar value to 1973 value as per the US Bureau of
Statistics figures.
The total dollar value of $2,739,475.00 is considered to be an
approximate annual loss to the area. This figure is only the value
of round fish (uncleaned) and does not include the revenue lost to
associated industries such as packing, marketing or transportation.
To more fully realize the loss, one should multiply this figure by
approximately 2.7, the 1973 Cleveland conversion from wholesale round
fish to retail fillet. The resultant dollar loss figure then becomes
approximately $7,396,482, obviously a considerable loss to the Cleveland
economy.
The sport fishery has declined greatly. The fishery, once attractive
to anglers seeking Walleye, Blue Pike, Smallmouth Blackbass etc.
(See pp. 104, 112), has now become a White Bass, Yellow Perch and
Carp fishery attractive primarily to local residents. It is difficult
to estimate the loss in revenue because of the deterioration of the
sport fishery. Several studies have shown that the normal sports
catches for some species usually exceed the commercial catch, (Ref. 25,
and others), thus placing a high value on the tonnage caught. Further-
more, the economic value of associated businesses such as bait sales,
fishing tackle shops, meals, lodging and gasoline are normal additional
revenues associated with a sports fishery which attracts non-residents.
The loss of revenue to Cleveland residents, both in real monies and in
137
-------
Table 6 : Comparison of the Value of the Commercial Fishery in
Cleveland based on the 1922 Catch and the 1973 Wholesale
Prices for Round Fish.
u>
C3
Species
Burbot
Carp
Catfish
Cisco
Northern Pike
Blue Pike
Walleye
Sauger
Freshwater Drum
Suckers & Redhorse
White Bass
Whitef ishes
Yellow Perch
Landing
Value
(1922)
$ 803.00
1,732.00
1,544.00
73,286.00
2,721.00
140,625.00
8,494.00
16,115.00
2,111.00
1,975.00
1,719.00
846.00
14,480.00
Total
Pounds
(1922)
55,925
47,021
20,670
1,460,630
54,425
2,497,363
56,562
400,698
95,019
83,408
37,286
4,702
262,882
Price Per
Landing Pound
(July, 1973)
$ Unknown
.05
.40
Unknown
Unknown
.90
.75
Unknown
.04
.03
.27
.55
.42
Landing
Value
(1973)
$ 2,674.00
2,351.00
8,268.00
244,042.00
9,061.00
2,247,627.00
42,422.00
53,663.00
3,801.00
2,503.00
10,067.00
2,586.00
110,410.00
Totals
$ 266,451.00
5,076,591 Ibs.
$ 2,739,475.00
-------
the value of those fishes captured by anglers is obviously a
considerable loss. When this is added to the estimated loss by the
commercial industry, it would seem that the total is a large enough
figure to be of real economic concern to the City of Cleveland.
Population Fluctuations
It has long been recognized that seasonal fluctuations occur in fish
populations in given areas. Failure to recognize this may lead to an
improper evaluation of the relative abundance of a given species. The
Cleveland area is no exception. Many cold water species of Lake
Erie fishes frequent the nearshore waters only during the colder months.
Such species as the Burbot, Lake Trout and Cisco were rare or absent
during the summer months although they were formerly present, at
times abundant, in the winter. Prior to their extirpation from the
Cleveland area, the Whitefish behaved in a similar manner.
Other species utilized the shallow waters primarily during spring.
These entered the area to spawn and quickly retreated to the cooler,
deeper portions of the Lake. This has always been the case with the
present population of Trout-perches. This species was collected in
large numbers during March and May, 1972, but not a specimen was
taken during the following eight month sampling period. Recently,
we have ascertained the exact month in which the Trout-perch migrate
to the shoreline, arriving in the last week of January and first
week of February; leaving soon after spawning late in May. It is
obvious that unless samples are taken of the fish fauna during the
early part of the year, such a species would not be observed and
thus might be considered not present.
Other fluctuations in numerical abundance were noted along the
Cleveland area shoreline immediately following periods of stormy
weather. These fluctuations are well-known to commercial fishermen.
During high winds the soft muck bottom in the vicinity of Cleveland
is stirred by wave action, apparently causing such high turbidities
(and perhaps low dissolved oxygen levels) that the fishes retreat
to the deeper, cleaner areas approximately three to ten miles from
shore. They remain offshore (apparently scattered) for approximately
three days after the storm subsides. Recognizing this phenomenon
early in our studies, gill nets were set only during prolonged
periods of calmer weather. This tended to standardize the samples
even though it reduced the number of samples obtained.
Observations of the seasonal population fluctuations of four abundant
Lake Erie fish species made during the course of the study are presented
in Figure 41. These data were obtained during 1972. Collections
made during the month of March, April and May comprise the Spring
period; June, July and August are designated Summer; September,
139
-------
Individuals per 1000 ft. of gill net
r- IN; v^j -p*
r r T r
4.V
T
r
r
f
w
o
9
fD
M
rt
H-
N
N
03
H
a.
en
cr
OJ
a.
H
p
3
fD
I-1
M
0
<
ITI
n>
I-!
o
r1
M
0
w
a
o
cr
H-
CTO
H
fD
CO hr|
t3 M
(D e
O O
H- rt
ft) C
CD CD
rf
H- H-
° §
rt en
fD H-
O P*
H- tB
p. x)
rt O
^ T3
H-
O
ro en
h-1 H-
CU N
0 fD
O<
-• O
Hi
O
S4 Hi
H- O
O C
83
?T
fD
W
-------
October and November are presented as Fall; and December 1971 is
combined with January and February of 1972 to indicate the Winter
abundances. Although the lengths of gill nets used (See Methods)
varied from time to time, the numerical abundance of the Yellow
Perch, Rainbow Smelt, Eastern Gizzard Shad and Freshwater Drum was
standardized by presenting the data in terms of numbers of individuals
captured per 1000 feet of experimental gill net. It can be seen that
although these species are present during each season, the abundance
of each changes considerably. For example, the abundance of Gizzard
Shad in the Fall is 100-fold greater than in Summer; and the population
of Rainbow Smelt is 25 times greater in Winter than in Fall. Drum
are most abundant in Summer when it is at least 5 times more numerous
than in other seasons.
Such fluctuations represent the movement of large quantities of fishes
both to and from the nearshore waters in the vicinity of Cleveland. It
follows that to ascertain water quality of a given area, samples must
be taken during each of the four seasons, in order to insure a proper
evaluation of the relative abundance of fish species.
We have observed a similar phenomenon of abundance fluctuations in the
lower portions of the river drainages. This is not surprising, but it
is important to note that these changes often occurred on a regular
basis. Migrations of both lake and stream species to and from the
lower sections of rivers often changed species composition significantly.
The utilization of limited samples of fishes to determine the water
quality of the lower river watersheds is at best risky, and at most,
probably inaccurate. As an example of this fluctuation, Table 7
illustrates a series of six collections at a single site in the lower
Rocky River taken over a period of 10 months in 1972. These collections
were made with similar techniques and effort, and were standardized
by converting the data to fishes captured per hour of seining. As can
be seen, the species composition, relative abundance and species
diversity index changes significantly from collection to collection.
For example, a collection made on May 18, 1972, yielded 13 species of
fishes and contained both stream and lake species. A subsequent
collection made on the 27th of July, 1972, contained only four species,
all considered to be permanent residents of the lower river. A further
examination of these data indicates that the Spottail Shiner,predominantly
a Lake Erie species, was no longer present, and, in fact, it was not
until October that this species was again collected at the site. White
Bass likewise had retreated from the area and again returned during
the October sample period. These data may or may not indicate mass
migrations of certain species into the lower rivers, but since the
presence or absence of species and the number collected are factors
in the calculation of the species diversity index, it can be seen that
a very low index might be normal during certain periods of the year. It
might be added that stream samples are normally taken during the summer,
thus increasing the chances of low indices.
141
-------
Table 7: Fluctuations In Fish Species Composition and
Abundance in the Lower Rocky River.
Species 18/Jan
Alewife
Eastern Gizzard Shad
Coho Salmon
Chinook Salmon
Central Quillback
Common White Sucker
Carp
Goldfish
Golden Shiner
Longnose Dace
Common Emerald Shiner 3
Redfin Shiner
Striped Shiner
n • 1 O1_ • 1
SpottaiJ. bhiner X
Spotfin Shiner 64
Northeastern Sand Shiner 3
Northern Mimic Shiner
Fathead Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow 13
-t 1 HT • 1
Stoneroller Minnow l
Brown Bullhead
Brook Silverside
White Bass
Northern Rockbass
N. Smallmouth Blackbass
N. Largemouth Blackbass
Bluegill Sunfish
__ - , j r» .t • 1
Pumpkinseed bunrish
Yellow Perch
Co
2 7 /Mar
2
1
1
2
1
5
2000
4
onn
/UU
50
1
2
2
30
_ —
25
llection
18/May
300
10
2000
1
s,r\n
JUU
6
I
30
____
50
20
o
z
1
Date
27/Jul 6/Oct
50
150
-i
4
3
1
i
1 21
1
40
1
4
25
200
2
1
1 6
l$/0ct
5
20
8
1
5
c.
D
25
2
i
_L
100
1
10
Total Species 6 14 13 4 15 12
Diversity Index 1.204 0.846 1.435 1.922 2.389 2.284
142
-------
The species diversity index of this single site fluctuated between
.846 and 2.38 over the 10 month period, depending on which month
was examined. By most standards this would translate into both a
poor water quality and a rather good water quality in the same stream.
Species diversity indices of stations in the Lake were also found
to fluctuate, although not as markedly as the rivers. Diversity
fluctuations in the Lake collections were predominantly seasonal. We
feel that this great fluctuation in the rivers indicates the frequent,
although perhaps temporary, utilization of the lower rivers by both
Lake Erie species and individuals from upstream areas. This tends
to emphasize the importance of the lower river areas to both groups
of fishes. Unfortunately, it is these areas which become polluted
first.
Species Diversity in the Study Area
The species diversity index (Shannon-Weaver) was calculated for each
of the ten intensive study stations in Lake Erie. It was found that
the diversity was low, ranging from .691 to 1.615. While the index
fluctuated slightly from sample to sample, it is possible to state
that the diversity is rather uniform along the Cleveland shoreline
at points one-half to one mile from shore. This reflects the high
mobility of the species inhabiting these depths ( 25-30 ft.) as well
as the lack of avoidance of the areas nearer to the mouth of the
Cuyahoga River. The noticable differential between the species
diversity index and maximum diversity (Figure 42) is reflective of
the great predominance of the Yellow Perch and/or the Eastern Gizzard
Shad in nearly every sample. These two species usually comprised
more than 90% of each collection.
Samples taken nearer the shoreline, near the mouth of the Cuyahoga
River or in shoreline marinas usually produced considerably higher
diversities, and at the same time, more equivalent maximum diversities.
This is because of the presence of a more diverse habitat, to the
local attraction of shallower, more protected waters and in some
cases, to the presence of warm water outfalls or sewage effluents.
These latter factors have been shown to act as attractants for many
species of fishes. In general, we have found that pollution sources
are attractive to many Cleveland area fish species until they become
toxic. This point is reached in some areas of the lower Cuyahoga
River. Although fishes are usually present in this area in low
numbers, the diversity usually approaches zero. Once the Cuyahoga
flow mixes with the relatively cleaner harbor waters, the diversity
becomes strikingly higher. Within 200 yards of the river mouth, (near
the U.S. Coast Guard Station), the diversity index often reached a
value of 3.00. This figure is higher than the usual value for the
offshore stations in the vicinity of Cleveland.
143
-------
Figure 42: Fish Population Data on Ten Intensive Lake Erie Stations
Chagrinl River
Rocky
LEGEND
Species Diversity Index
Maximum Diversity
Number of Species
Density / 1000 ft. of
Gill Net
-------
The highest diversities in the study area occur at the mouth of the
Chagrin River, where collections often produce diversities over 4.00.
Slightly lower diversities occur elsewhere in the Chagrin drainage,
3.00 to 3.50. In the Rocky River the diversities are usually 2.00 to
2.50, indicating a slightly depressed area. The Cleveland harbor and
protected areas along the shoreline usually exhibit diversities of
2.50 to 3.00, while the offshore areas range from 1.00 to 1.50. The
lower Cuyahoga River diversities range from 0.00 to 0.50, indicating
an extremely distressed area. Figure 42 depicts the species population
analysis for the ten Lake Erie study sites. Information pertaining
to the distribution of fishes in the area rivers is contained in Table 9.
The relative abundance of species in the study area is presented in Table 10;
of the Lake and Lower Rivers in Table 11; of the Harbor area in Table 12,
Fourty-seven species are included in the species composition of the
Cleveland Harbor, of which many are probably reproducing (See page 128).
Obviously the study area, Lake Erie or the Cleveland Harbor are not
"virtually fishless" as has been stated by certain individuals in
the past.
Summary of the General Decline of the Cleveland Area Fish Fauna
Literature reports and unpublished records indicate that the Cleveland
metropolitan area contained, at one time or another, a total of 107
species and subspecies of fishes. The past literature indicated that
prior to 1800 immense numbers of fishes were present.
The degradation of the area began early and its effects of the reduction
of fish species and populations seemed to have occurred during three
distinct periods. The first period of decline occurred between 1800
and 1830 and was primarily caused by the physical obstruction of streams
by mill dams. These severely reduced the populations of those species
blocked from their upstream spawning grounds. The second period
began with the rapid expansion of industrialization and the concurrent
growth of the City of Cleveland; resulting in the input of many
pollutants into the Cuyahoga River. Between 1865 and 1890, the river
and nearshore areas became heavily polluted with materials ranging
from crude oil and raw sewage to sawdust and animal carcasses. This
of course eliminated the lower river and shoreline spawning grounds
for those species of fishes requiring such habitats.
During the 1950's another serious decline in Lake Erie species occurred.
Such valued species as the Walleye, Blue Pike and Sauger declined
rapidly. This decline has been unexplained but it is postulated
that low dissolved oxygen levels in the deeper portions of Lake Erie
are at least partially responsible.
Our present survey indicates that approximately 50% of those species
145
-------
reported for the Cleveland area are at this time either rare,
endangered or probably extirpated within the study area (Table 8 ).
Among those species most seriously affected are:
(1) those that are highly migratory stream spawning species
such as the Lake Sturgeon, Muskellunge, Northern Pike
or suckers. The initial cause of their decline is
attributed to stream obstructions during the early
1800's. The more recent effects of draining and siltation
have largely destroyed their former spawning grounds.
This recent factor, combined with "chemical dams" of
pollutants have rendered these species nearly
non-reproductive in the Cleveland area.
(2) those species which were limited to the lower river
habitats or to the nearshore areas of Lake Erie were
seriously affected during the 1850 to 1900 period.
Such species as the Longnose Dace, Largemouth Blackbass,
Walleye, Northern Mimic Shiner and many others were
adversly affected by the degradation of the nearshore
waters and the pollution of the lower rivers. Most of
these species depend upon habitats of clean sand or
gravels, heavily vegetated bays or shoreline marshes.
These species declined greatly prior to 1900, due
to the destruction of their preferred habitat. It
is probable that some of these species became extirpated
from the area during this period.
(3) stream species which were intolerant of chemical,
municipal pollutants or siltation were adversly affected
in the upper areas of the stream drainages by the recent
increase in human expansion into the suburbs. The
Sand Darter, Bigmouth Shiner and Hornyhead Chub have
continued to decline in areas where they were abundant
in past years, due to siltation and pollution of the
smaller streams and brooks. Poor land use planning and
improper erosion control measures are of primary cause
in these areas.
(4) those species that required colder, deeper portions of
Lake Erie during the summer months were abundant on
the Cleveland shoreline only during the winter or spring.
Such species as the Lake Trout, Cisco, Burbot and others
were recently affected by low dissolved oxygen levels
in the deeper portions of the Central and Eastern Basins
of the Lake. This is apparently the result of the
accumulation of organic materials in the form of dead
algae, sewage etc.
146
-------
Table 8
List of Fish Species which are Considered Rare, Probably
Extirpated or Extirpated Within the Study Area.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Current Status
Silver Lamprey
Sea Lamprey
Lake Sturgeon
Spotted Gar
Mooneye
Brown Trout
Brook Trout
Lake Trout
Cisco
Lake Whitefish
Northern Pike
Lake Muskellunge
Bigmouth Buffalofish
Eastern Quillback
Silver Redhorse
Black Redhorse
Northern Redhorse
Longnose Sucker
Spotted Sucker
Lake Chubsucker
Hornyhead Chub
Silver Chub
Longnose Dace
Pugnose Minnow
Redfin Shiner
Bigmouth Shiner
Mimic Shiner
Flathead Catfish
Brindled Madtom
Tadpole Madtom
Eel
Burbot
Brook Silverside
Orange-spotted Sunfish
Longear Sunfish
Sauger
Walleye
Blue Pike
Blackside Darter
Channel Darter
Ohio Logperch Darter
Northern Logperch Darter
Sand Darter
Scaly Johnny Darter
Iowa Darter
Central Mottled Sculpin
Northern Mottled Sculpin
Ichthyomyzon unicuspis
Petromyzon marinus
Acipenser fulvescens
Lepisosteus oculatus
Hiodon tergisus
Salmo trutta
Salvelinus fontinalis
Salvelinus namaycush
Coregonus artedii
Coregonus clupeaformis
Esox luscius
Esox m. tnasquinongy
Ictobius cyprinellus
Carpiodes c. cyprinus
Moxostoma anisurum
Moxostoma duquesnei
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Catostomus catostomus
Minytrema melanops
Erimyzon sucetta
Nocomis biguttata
Hybopsis storeriana
Rhinichthys cataractae
Notropis emiliae
Notropis umbratilus
Notropis dorsalis
Notropis v. volucellus
Pylodictus olivaris
Noturus miuris
Noturus gyrinus
Anguilla rostrata
Lota lota lacustris
Labidesthes sicculus
Lepomis humilus
Lepomis megalotis
Stizostedion canadense
Stizostedion v. vitreum
Stizostedion v. glaucum
Percina maculata
Percina copelandi
Percina c. caprodes
Percina c. semifasciata
Ammocrypta pellucida
Etheostoma nigrum eulepis
Etheostoma exile
Cottus b. bairdi
Cottus b. kumleini
Rare
Rare
Probably Extirpated
Extirpated
Extirpated
Rare
Rare
Extirpated
Extirpated
Extirpated
Rare
Rare
Extirpated
Rare
Extirpated
Rare
Rare
Extirpated
Rare
Rare
Rare
Extirpated
Rare
Rare
Rare
Rare
Rare
Extirpated
Extirpated
Extirpated
Extirpated
Rare
Rare
Rare
Extirpated
Extirpated
Rare
Extirpated (Extinct?)
Rare
Extirpated
Rare
Rare
Extirpated
Rare
Extirpated
Rare
Rare
147-
-------
Those species common or abundant within the study area are (1) species
which spawn and live primarily in the open Lake (Drum, Emerald Shiner),
(2) those which are highly pollution tolerant (Carp, Goldfish), (3) those
which live in the extreme headwater tributaries which in most areas are
relatively unaffected by human activities (Redside Dace), and (4) those
species which nest, cleaning their eggs routinely thus freeing them
of fine silts. Among these are the Sunfishes and Blackbasses, both of
which are still common in the rivers. Sunfishes are still common in
the Cleveland harbor and the Green Sunfish is one of the three
species reproducing in the lower one mile of the Cuyahoga River.
In spite of the present condition of the fish fauna in the Cleveland
metropolitan area almost all of the former species still may be found
within the study area. Many of these are only found in isolated,
small populations but it is important to realize that if the ecosystem
were restored repopulation would result, thus restoring many of the
species in the area. If the fishery in the Cleveland area is to be
restored, two things must be done; (1) the present fish stocks must
be protected so that potential repopulation sources are not lost
prior to the improvement of the water quality and habitat availability
and, (2), the immediate reversal of habitat destruction, water quality
degradation, stream obstruction and uncontrolled land use. The
latter approach is the goal of the U.S. and Ohio Environmental
Protection Agencies. The protection of present fish stocks is further
discussed in the section concerning recommendations.
148
-------
Figure 43: Headwater Habitat for Many of the More Uncommon Species of Cleveland Area Fishes.
-------
Table 9: Distribution of Cleveland Area Fish Species in the Three River Drainages
SPECIES
Silver Lamprey
Sea Lamprey
American Brook Lamprey
Longnose Gar
Bowf in
Alewife
Eastern Gizzard Shad
Chinook Salmon
Coho Salmon
Brown Trout
Rainbow Trout
Brook Trout
Rainbow Smelt
Central Mudminnow
Central Grass Pickerel
Northern Pike
CHAGRIN RIVER
X
X
X
X
X/
4
X
X
,
X
X
X
,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ROCKY RIVER
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CUYAHOGA RIVER
X
X
V
X
X
-------
Table 9: Stream Distribution of Fishes in Study Area (Continued )
SPECIES
Great Lakes Muskellunge
Carp
Goldfish
Golden Shiner
Hornyhead 'Chub
River Chub
Northern Bigeye Chub
Western Blacknose Dace
Longnose Dace
Creek Chub
Southern Redbelly Dace
Redside Dace
Pugnose Minnow
Common Emerald Shiner
Rosyface Shiner
Northern Red fin Shiner
CHAGRIN RIVER
W?e* UV^N^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ROCKY RIVER
^^ «&&* ^*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CUYAHOGA RIVER
<«*«* *^dVe v^6t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ln
-------
Table 9: Stream Distribution of Fishes in Study Area (Continued)
SPECIES
Striped Shiner
Common Shiner
Spottail Shiner
Spotfin Shiner
Central Bigmouth Shiner
Northeastern Sand Shiner
Northern Mimic Shiner
Silver jaw Minnow
Northern Fathead Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Stoneroller Minnow
Eastern Quillback
Central Quillback
Black Redhorse
Golden Redhorse
Northern Shorthead
CHAGRIN RIVER
«*** rit&*uf**
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ROCKY RIVER
«&* *v^6 v**
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CUYAHOGA RIVER
«,** ,^ev>^
X
X
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ln
S3
Redhorse
-------
Table 9: Stream Distributions of Fishes in Study Area (Continued)
SPECIES
Northern Hog Sucker
Common White Sucker
Spotted Sucker
Western Lake Chubsucker
Channel Catfish
Yellow Bullhead
Brown Bullhead
Black Bullhead
Stonecat Madtom
Brook Silverside
Brook Stickleback
White Bass
White Crappie
Black Crappie
Rock Bass
N. Smallmouth Blackbass
CHAGRIN RIVER
W?e* va^-%,0^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x ,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ROCKY RIVER
v^eX v&A^e ^o^6*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CUYAHOGA RIVER
\\&^ &t&* \^^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table 9: Stream Distributions of Fishes in Study Area (Continued)
SPECIES
N. Largemouth Blackbass
Warmouth Sunfish
Green Sunfish
Bluegill Sunfish
Orangespotted Sunfish
Redear Sunfish
Pumpkinseed Sunfish
Walleye
Yellow Perch
Blackside Darter
Ohio Logperch Darter
Northern Logperch Darter
Central Johnny Darter
Scaly Johnny Darter
"Ozark" Greenside Darter
"Allegheny" Greenside
CHAGRIN RIVER
W^ vaA^c***
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X ,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ROCKY RIVER
^^ ^\.^e V*>e-t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CUYAHCGA RIVER
™n* -^^ ^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Darter
-------
Table 9: Stream Distributions of Fishes in Study Area (Continued)
SPECIES
Rainbow Darter
Barred Fantail Darter
Freshwater Drum
(Sheepshead)
Central Mottled Sculpin
CHAGRIN RIVER
VM* m&*^*
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
ROCKY RIVER
«*>* ^* V**
X
X
CUYAHOGA RIVER
^ '^* Vf**
X
X
X
X
X
t_n
Ui
-------
Table 10 : The Relative Abundance of Fishes Collected in the Cleveland
Metropolitan Area Including Lake Erie, 1971-1974.
Species
Silver Lamprey
Sea Lamprey
American Brook Lamprey
Longnose Gar
Bowf in
Alewif e
Eastern Gizzard Shad
Rainbow Trout
Coho Salmon
Chinook Salmon
Rainbow Smelt
Central Mudminnow
Central Grass Pickerel
Northern Pike
Great Lakes Muskellunge
Eastern Quillback
Central Quillback
Black Redhorse
Golden Redhorse
Northern Shorthead Redhorse
Northern Hog Sucker
No. Collected
1
2
1
29
4
5250
6135
403 *
44
65
929
38
102
16
1
12
456
36
160
8
571
% of Total
0.001 %
0.002
0.001
0.029
0.004
5.230
6.112
0.402
0.044
0.065
0.926
0.038
0.102
0.016
0.001
0.012
0.454
0.036
0.159
0.008
0.569
* Collections of Rainbow Trout consist primarily of stocked young.
156
-------
Table 10 : Continued, Cleveland Metropolitan Area Collections
Species
Common White Sucker
Spotted Sucker
Carp
Goldfish
Golden Shiner
Hornyhead Chub
River Chub
Northern Bigeye Chub
Western Blacknose Dace
Longnose Dace
Northern Creek Chub
Southern Redbelly Dace
Redside Dace
Pugnose Minnow
Common Emerald Shiner
Rosyface Shiner
Northern Redfin Shiner
Striped Shiner
Common Shiner
Spottail Shiner
Spotfin Shiner
Central Bigmouth Shiner
Northeastern Sand Shiner
No. Collected
1570
2
477
166
886
15
193
565
1020
72
3296
33
77
2
10918
5775
2
766
2103
2091
3468
2
3109
% of Total
1.564 %
0.002
0.475
0.165
0.883
0.015
0.192
0.563
1.016
0.072
3.284
0.033
0.077
0.002
10.877
5.754
0.002
0.763
2.095
2.083
3.455
0.002
3.097
157
-------
Table 10 : Continued, Cleveland Metropolitan Area Collections
Species No.
Northern Mimic Shiner
Silver jaw Minnow
Northern Fathead Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Ohio Stoneroller Minnow
Channel Catfish
Yellow Bullhead
Brown Bullhead
Black Bullhead
Stonecat Madtom
Trout-perch
Brook Silverside
White Bass
White Crappie
Black Crappie
Northern Rockbass
Northern Smallmouth Blackbass
Northern Largemouth Blackbass
Green Sunfish
Bluegill Sunfish
Orangespotted Sunfish
Pumpkinseed Sunfish
Collected
15
5555
689
20035
2784
149
38
139
171
84
157
15
1949
262
180
186
321
255
278
963
5
1820
% of Total
0.015 %
5.534
0.686
19.961
2.774
0.148
0.038
0.138
0.170
0.084
0.156
0.015
1.942
0.261
0.179
0.185
0.320
0.254
0.277
0.959
0.005
1.813
158
-------
Table 10 : Continued, Cleveland Metropolitan Area Collections
Species No.
Warmouth Sunfish
Walleye
Yellow Perch
Blackside Darter
Ohio Logperch Darter
Northern Logperch Darter
Central Johnny Darter
Scaly Johnny Darter
"Ozark" Greenside Darter
"Allegheny" Greenside Darter
Rainbow Darter
Barred Fantail Darter
Freshwater Drum (Sheepshead)
Brook Stickleback
Northern Mottled Sculpin
Eastern Burbot
Striped Shiner X
Rosyface Shiner
Carp X Goldfish
River Chub X
Northern Creek Chub
River Chub X
Longnose Dace
Collected
25
25
5592
44
2
7
1372
1
1
115
912
45
589
73
1
3
7
218
2
2
% of Total
0.025 %
0.025
5.570
0.044
0.002
0.007
1.367
0.001
0.001
0.115
0.909
0.045
0.588
0.073
0.001
0.003
0.007
0.217
0.002
0.002
159
-------
Table 10: Continued, Cleveland Metropolitan Area Collections
Species No.
Common Shiner X
Striped Shiner
Longnose Dace X
Western Blacknose Dace
White Crappie X
Black Crappie
Common Shiner X
Redside Dace
Ohio Logperch Darter X
Northern Logperch Darter
Central Johnny Darter X
Scaly Johnny Darter
River Chub X
Common Shiner
Green Sunfish X
Pumpkinseed Sunfish
Brown Bullhead X
Black Bullhead
Totals
Collected
4362
1
8
1
1
6
1
32
9
100,376
% of Total
4.346 %
0.001
0.008
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.001
0.032
0.009
100.005 %
160
-------
Table 11 : The Relative Abundance of Fishes Collected in Lake Erie
And the Lower Portions of the Three Rivers; Chagrin,
Rocky and Cuyahoga, 1971-1974. Adult Specimens Only.
Species
Silver Lamprey
Sea Lamprey
Longnose Gar
Bowfin
Alewife
Eastern Gizzard Shad
Rainbow Trout
Coho Salmon
Chinook Salmon
Rainbow Smelt
Central Grass Pickerel
Northern Pike
Great Lakes Muskellunge
Eastern Quillback
Central Quillback
Black Redhorse
Golden Redhorse
Northern Shorthead Redhorse
Northern Hog Sucker
Common White Sucker
Spotted Sucker
Carp
No. Collected
1
2
29
4
5250
6135
2
44
21
929
45
16
1
12
446
10
71
8
27
724
1
360
% of Total
0.002 %
0.003
0.048
0.007
8.728
10.199
0.003
0.073
0.035
1.544
0.075
0.027
0.002
0.020
0.741
0.017
0.118
0.013
0.045
1.204
0.002
0.598
161
-------
Table 11 : Continued, Lake Erie and Lower River Collections.
Species
Goldfish
Golden Shiner
River Chub
Northern Bigeye Chub
Western Blacknose Dace
Longnose Dace
Northern Creek Chub
Pugnose Minnow
Common Emerald Shiner
Rosyface Shiner
Northern Redfin Shiner
Striped Shiner
Spottail Shiner
Spotfin Shiner
Northeastern Sand Shiner
Northern Mimic Shiner
Silver jaw Minnow
Northern Fathead Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Ohio Stoneroller Minnow
Channel Catfish
Yellow Bullhead
Brown Bullhead
No. Collected
156
783
27
26
1
19
84
2
10870
3317
2
412
2091
3155
1367
12
348
22
7560
96
148
9
112
% of Total
0.259 %
1.302
0.045
0.045
0.002
0.032
0.140
0.003
18.071
5.143
0.003
0.685
3.476
5.245
2.273
0.020
0.579
0.037
12.568
0.160
0.246
0.015
0.186
162
-------
Table 11 : Continued, Lake Erie and Lower River Collections
Species No.
Black Bullhead
Stonecat Madtom
Trout-perch
Brook Silverside
White Bass
White Crappie
Black Crappie
Northern Rockbass
Northern Smallmouth Blackbass
Northern Largemouth Blackbass
Green Sunfish
Bluegill Sunfish
Orangespotted Sunfish
Pumpkinseed Sunfish
Warmouth Sunfish
Walleye
Yellow Perch
Blackside Darter
Northern Logperch Darter
Central Johnny Darter
Scaly Johnny Darter
"Ozark" Greenside Darter
"Allegheny" Greenside Darter
Collected
144
76
157
14
1949
233
171
65
173
215
87
749
5
1596
13
25
5528
14
6
231
1
1
5
% of Total
0.239 %
0.126
0.261
0.023
3.240
0.387
0.284
0.108
0.288
0.357
0.145
1.245
0.008
2.653
0.022
0.042
9.190
0.023
0.010
0.384
0.002
0.002
0.008
163
-------
Table 11: Continued, Lake Erie and Lower River Collections
Species No
Rainbow Darter
Barred Fantail Darter
Freshwater Drum (Sheepshead)
Brook Stickleback
Northern Mottled Sculpin
Eastern Burbot
Carp X Goldfish
Common Shiner X
Striped Shiner
White Crappie X
Black Crappie
Ohio Logperch Darter X
Northern Logperch Darter
Central Johnny Darter X
Scaly Johnny Darter
Brown Bullhead X
Black Bullhead
Totals
. Collected
76
1
589
5
1
3
218
3022
8
1
6
9
60,153
% of Total
0.126 %
0.002
0.979
0.008
0.002
0.005
0.362
5.240
0.013
0.002
0.010
0.015
99.854 %
164
-------
Table 12 : The Relative Abundance of Fishes Collected in the Cleveland
Harbor and Adjacent Marinas (Revised July, 1974)
Species
No. Collected
% of Total
Longnose Gar
Alewife
Eastern Gizzard Shad
Chinook Salmon
Coho Salmon
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Smelt
Northern Pike
Carp
Goldfish
Golden Shiner
Longnose Dace
Creek Chub
Western Blacknose Dace
Common Emerald Shiner
Striped Shiner
Spottail Shiner
Spotfin Shiner
Northeastern Sand Shiner
Northern Mimic Shiner
Northern Fathead Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
1
92
2525
9
42
2
323
15
64
97
393
1
1
1
4092
1
903
6
33
6
1
74
0.01 %
0.85
23.43
0.08
0.39
0.02
3.00
0.14
0.59
0.90
3.65
0.01
0.01
0.01
37.97
0.01
8.38
0.06
0.31
0.06
0.01
0.69
165
-------
Table 12 : Continued, Cleveland Harbor and Marina Collections
Species
Stoneroller Minnow
Eastern Quillback
Black Redhorse
Golden Redhorse
Northern Shorthead Redhorse
Common White Sucker
Channel Catfish
Brown Bullhead
Black Bullhead
Stonecat Madtom
Trout-perch
Brook Silverside
White Bass
White Crappie
Black Crappie
Northern Rockbass
Northern Largemouth Blackbass
Warmouth Sunfish
Green Sunfish
Bluegill Sunfish
Pumpkinseed Sunfish
No. Collected
2
1
1
2
1
89
2
23
14
13
153
3
223
80
11
5
3
1
3
4
34
% of Total
0.02 %
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.83
0.02
0.21
0.13
0.12
1.42
0.03
2.07
0.74
0.10
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.32
166
-------
Table 12 : Continued, Cleveland Harbor and Marina Collections
Species
Yellow Walleye
Yellow Perch
Northern Logperch Darter
Freshwater Drum (Sheepshead)
TOTALS
47 Species
No. Collected
2
1254
1
170
10,777
% of Total
0.02
11.64
0.01
1.58
100.05 %
167
-------
-------
SECTION VII
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Anonymous. "Substantial Number of Walleyes Planted in Lake Erie".
The Fisherman. 23(1):4, 1971.
2. Anonymous. Commercial Fish Landings in Lake Erie. Publication
Number 200, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1970.
3. Anonymous. Commercial Fishing Occurring in Lake Erie Fronting
on Cuyahoga County during 1969. Ohio Department of Natural
Resources. 1970.
4. Anonymous. "Our Fishing Industry: Almost as Dead as Lake Erie."
The Plain Dealer Sunday Magazine. (Cleveland, Ohio). September
3, 1972.
5. Abrams, James P. and Clarence E. Taft. A Bibliography of Research
Conducted at the Franz Theodore Stone Laboratory and its
Predecessor of The Ohio State University from 1895 to 1968.
The Ohio Journal of Science. 71(2): 81-105. 1971.
6. Applegate, Vernon C. The Sea Lamprey in the Great Lakes. The
Scientific Monthly, pp. 275-282. May 1951.
7. Applegate, Vernon C. The Natural History of the Sea Lamprey,
Petromyzon marinus, in Michigan. University Microfilms,
University of Michigan. 1950.
8. Applegate, Vernon C. and H. Van Meter. A Brief History of
Commercial Fishing in Lake Erie. Fishery Leaflet 630.
U.S. Depearment of the Interior. 1970.
9. Armbruster, Dan C. Personal Communication. 1972.
10. Bailey, Merryll M. Age, Growth, Maturity and Sex Composition
of the American Smelt, Osmerus mordax, (Mitchill), of
Western Lake Superior. Transactions American Fisheries Society
93(4): 382-395. 1964.
11. Bailey, Reeve M. et. al. A List of Common and Scientific Names
of Fishes from the United States and Canada (third edition).
American Fisheries Society Publication. 1970.
12. Baker, Carl T. Jr. Survey of Offshore Fish Species in the Ohio
Portion of Lake Erie. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1972.
169
-------
13. Baldwin, Norman S. and R. W. Saalfeld. Commercial Fish Production
in the Great Lakes, 1867-1960. Technical Report No. 3.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1962.
14. Ball, Frederick L. and R. L. Scholl. Lake Erie Fisheries
Investigations. Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
Dingell-Johnson Project F-35-R-9 (Job No. 4, Draft). December 1970.
15. Bean, Tarleton H. Report on the Propagation and Distribution of
Food-Fishes. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish. Dept. Part 20, pp.20-80
(Document No. 424). June 30, 1894.
16. Beckel, Leslie. The Role of Aquatic Plants in Natural Waters.
17. Beeton, Alfred M. Environmental Changes in Lake Erie. Trans. Amer.
Fish. Soc. 90(2):153-159. 1961.
18. Boesel, M.W. Foods of Some Lake Erie Fishes. Ohio Division of
Wildlife, Publication No. W-326. 1965.
19. Brown, Edward Jr. Population Characteristics and Physical
Condition of Alewives, Alosa pseudoharengus, in a Massive
Dieoff in Lake Michigan. Great Lakes Fish. Comm., Technical
Report No. 13. December 1968.
20. Brown, Edward Jr. and Clarence Clark. Length-Weight Relationships
of Northern Pike, Esox lucius, from East Harbor, Ohio.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 94(4):404-405. October 1965.
21. Cahn, Alvin. Observations on the Breeding of the Lawyer,
Lota maculosa. Copeia. 3:163-165. November 1936.
22. Cairns, John Jr. Effects of Heat on Fish. Industrial Wastes.
1(5):180-183.
23. Clark, Clarence. Observations on the Spawning Habits of the
Northern Pike. Esox lucius, in Northwestern Ohio. Copeia.
No. 4. 1950.
24. Greaser, Charles W. The Structure and Growth of the Scales of
Fishes in Relation to the Interpretation of their Life History,
with Special Reference to the Sunfish, Eupomotis gibbosus.
Misc. Publications of the University of Michigan Museum of
Zoology. Number 17. December 1926.
170
-------
25. Crowe, Walter R., Earnest Karvelis and Leonard S. Joeris. The
• Movement, Heterogeneity and Rate of Exploitation of Walleyes
in Northern Green Bay, Lake Michigan, as Determined by Tagging.
Special Publication of the International Commission on
Northwest Atlantic Fish. 4:38-41. 1963.
26. Crowe, Walter R. Numerical Abundance and Use of a Spawning Run
of Walleyes in the Muskegon River, Michigan. Trans. Amer. Fish.
Soc. 84:125-136.
27. Daiber, Franklin C. The Food and Feeding Relationships of the
Freshwater Drum, Aplodinotus grunniens, Rafinesque, in
Western Lake Erie. Ohio Journal of Science. 52(1): 35-46.
January 1952.
28. DeRoth, Gerardus C. Age and Growth Studies of Channel Catfish in
Western Lake Erie. Journal of Wildlife Management. 29 (2) : 280-286,
29. Doan, Kenneth H. Catch of Stizostedion vitreum in Relation to
Changes in Lake Levels in Western Lake Erie During the Winter
of 1943. American Midland Naturalist. 33(2): 455-459. 1945.
30. Doan, Kenneth H. Some Meterological and Limnological Conditions
as Factors in the Abundance of Certain Fishes in Lake Erie.
Doctoral Dissertation (Unpublished). The Ohio State University
Abstract Number 36. 1942.
31. Duncan, Thomas and R. Stuckey. Changes in the Vascular Flora
of Seven Small Islands in Western Lake Erie. The Michigan
Botanist. 9:175-200. 1970.
32. Dymond, John R. Records of Alewife and Steelhead (Rainbow) Trout
from Lake Erie. Copeia. 1:32-33. 1932.
33. Fish, Marie Poland. Contributions to the Early Life Histories
of 62 Species of Fishes from Lake Erie. U.S. Bur. Fish Bull
47:293-398. 1932.
34. Fish, Marie Poland. Contributions to the Life History of the
Burbot. Bull, of the Buffalo Soc. of Natural History
15(1): 5-21, 1930.
35. Garlick, Theodadus . A Treatise on the Artificial Propagation of
Certain Kinds of Fish, with a Description and Habits of Such
Kinds as are most Suitable for Pisciculture. Theo. Brown Publ.
Ohio Farmer Office, Cleveland, Ohio. 142pp. 1857.
171
-------
36. Harkness, W.J.K. The Rate of Growth of the Yellow Perch (Perca
flavescens) in Lake Erie. University of Toronto Studies,
Publications of the Ontario Fish. Res. Lab. 6:89-95. 1922
37. Hartman, W.L. Lake Erie: Effects of Exploitation, Environmental
Changes and New Species on the Fishery Resources. Jour. Fish.
Res. Bd. of Canada. 29:899-912. 1972.
38. Hatcher, Harlan. The Story of New Connecticut in Ohio. The
Western Reserve. 268-271.
39. Hildreth, S.P. Pioneer History: Being an Account of the First
Examinations of the Ohio Valley, and the Early Settlement
of the Northwest Territory. Historical Society of Cincinnati.
H.W.Derby and Co. (Cincinnati, Ohio). 1848.
40. Hile, R. Fishery Industries of the United States. U.S. Department
of Commerce. 1918.
41. Hile, R. A Nomograph for the Computation of the Growth of Fish
from Scale Measurements . Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 78:156-162.
1950.
42. Hile, R. Mathematical Relationship Between the Length and Age
of the Rock Bass, Ambloplites rupestris, (Rafinesque).
Michigan Acad. of Science, Arts and Letters. 28:331-341.
1943.
43. Hile, R. Age and Growth of the Rock Bass, Ambloplites rupestris,
in Nebish Lake, Wisconsin. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 33:189-337.
1941.
44. Hile, R. and F.W. Jobes. Age, Growth and Production of the
Yellow Perch, Perca flavescens, (Mitchill), of Saginaw Bay.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 70:102-122. 1941.
45. Hile, R. Age Determination of Fish from Scales: Method and
Application to Fish Cultural Problems. The Progressive Fish
Culturist. No. 23:1-5. October 1936.
46. Hile, R. Fish Scales and Commercial Fisheries. The Fisherman.
1(10):10. 1932.
47. Hohn, Matthew Analysis of Plankton Ingested by Stizostedion
vitreum (Mitchill) fry and Concurrent Vertical Plankton Tows from
Southwestern Lake Erie, May 1961 and May 1962. Ohio Journal of
Science. 66(2): 193-197. 1966.
172
-------
48. Holley, John M. Personal Journal of the Moses Cleaveland Survey
Party in the Western Reserve. Western Reserve Historical Soc.
Cleveland, Ohio. 1797.
49. Horak, Donald L. and Howard A. Tanner. The Use of Vertical
Gill Nets in Studying Fish Depth Distribution, Horsetooth
Reservoir, Colorado. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 93:137-145.
50. Howe, Henry. Historical Collections o^ Ojiio. C.J. Krehbiel and Co.
Cincinnati. Vol. 1, 992 pp and Vol. 2, 991 pp. 1900.
51. Howley, Virginia R. Personal Communications: Western Reserve
Historical Society, Cleveland, Ohio. 1972.
52. Hoyt, Robert D. Age and Growth of the Silverjaw Minnow,
Ericymba buccata cope, in Kentucky. American Midland Naturalist,
86(2): 257-275. 1971.
53. Hubbs, Carl L. An Ecological Study of the Life-History of the
Freshwater Atherine Fish Labidesthes sicculus. Ecology
2(4): 262-276. 1921.
54. Hubbs, Carl L. Further Additions and Corrections to the List of
Fishes of the Great Lakes and Tributary Waters. Michigan Acad.
of Science, Arts and Letters. 11:425-436. 1929 (1930).
55. Jaycox, Robert. Personal Communication. 1972.
56. Jobes, Frank W. Age, Growth and Production of Yellow Perch in
Lake Erie. Fishery Bull. 70; Fish and Wildlife Service
No. 52(70): 204-266. 1952.
57. Jordon, David Starr Section IV, Report on the Fishes o;: Ohio.
Geological Survey of Ohio. 4:738-1002. 1882.
58. Jordon, David Starr. Report of Explorations Made During the
Summer and Autumn of 1888, in the Allegheny Region of Virginia,
North Carolina and Tennessee, and in the Western Indiana, with
an Account of the Fishes found in each of the River Basins of
those Regions. Bull. U. S. Fish. Comm. 8(1888): 97-192 pi 15
1890.
59. Jordon, David Starr and Evermann. The Fishes of North and Middle
America. Bull. U.S. National Museum. 47(1896): Pt. 1-1-1240
Pt. 2(1898)=1241-2183, Pt. 3(1898):2183-3136, Pt. 4(1900):
3137-3313, pis. 392.
173
-------
60. Kason, John D. "Salmon in Rocky River". The Emerald Necklace.
22(1):3.
61. Katz, Max and Arden R. Gaufin. The Effects of Sewage Pollution
on the Fish Population of a Midwestern Stream. Trans. Amer.
Fish. Soc. 82:156-165.
62. Kirsch, Philip H. A Report upon the Investigations in the Maumee
River Basin During the Summer of 1893. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm.
14(1894): 315-337. 1895.
63. Kirtland, Jared P. Personal Letter Files, 1830-1860. at: The
Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio.
64. Kirtland, Jared P. Report on the Zoology of Ohio. Annual Report
of the Geol. Survey, State of Ohio. 2:157-197. 1838.
65. Kirtland, Jared P. Descriptions of Four New Species of Fishes.
Boston Journal of Natural History. 3(1840):273-277. 1841.
66. Kirtland, Jared P. Descriptions of the Fishes of the Ohio River
and its Tributaries. Boston Jour. Nat. His. Article 10.
3(1840): 338-352, pis. 4-6. 1841.
67. Kirtland, Jared P. Descriptions of the Fishes of the Ohio River
and its Tributaries. Boston Jour. Nat His. 3(1840):469-482,
pis. 27-29. 1841.
68. Kirtland, Jared P. Descriptions of the Fishes of the Ohio River
and its Tributaries. Boston Jour. Nat. His., Article 2
4(1842):16-26, pis. 1-4. 1844.
69. Kirtland, Jared P. Descriptions of the Fishes of Lake Erie, the
Ohio River and their Tributaries. Boston Jour. Nat. His.,
Article 7. 4(1842): 231-240, pis. 9-11. 1844.
70. Kirtland, Jared P. Descriptions of the Fishes of the Ohio River
and its Tributaries. Boston Jour. Nat. His., Article 25.
4(1843): 303-308, pis. 14-15. 1844.
71. Kirtland, Jared P. Descriptions of the Fishes of the Ohio River
and its Tributaries. Boston Jour. Nat. His., Article 2.
5(1845):21, pis. 7-9. 1847.
72. Kirtland, Jared P. Descriptions of the Fishes of Lake Erie, the
Ohio River and Their Tributaries. Boston Jour. Nat. His.,
Article 16. 5(1845): 265-276, pis. 19-22. 1847.
174
-------
73. Kirtland, Jared P. Descriptions of the Fishes of Lake Erie, the
Ohio River and Their Tributaries. Boston Jour. Nat. His.,
Article 24. 5(1846): 330-344, pis. 26-29. 1847.
74. Kirtland, Jared P. Fragments of Natural History. The Family
Visitor, Cleveland, Ohio. 1(1):1. January 3, 1850.
75. Kirtland, Jared P. Chatoessus ellipticus; or, Gizzard Shad. The
Family Visitor, Cleveland, Ohio. l(l);l-2. January 3, 1850.
76. Kirtland, Jared P. Chinese Goldfish. The Family Visitor, Cleveland,
Ohio. 1(4):29. January 24, 1850.
77. Kirtland, Jared P. Leuciscus Atromaculatus,(Mitchell)Chub-Dace.
The Family Visitor. 1(27):213. October 3, 1850.
78. Kirtland, Jared P. Pimelodus Catus (Rafinesque), Bull-head -
Bull-pout. The Family Visitor. 1(1): 141. May 30, 1850.
79. Kirtland, Jared P. Pimelodus Coerulescens (Rafinesque), Blue
Catfish, Black Catfish and Silvery Catfish. The Family Visitor
1(22):173. July 25, 1850.
80. Kirtland, Jared P. Corvina oscula (LeSueur), Sheepshead of Lake
Erie, White Perch of the Ohio River. The Family Visitor.
1(7):133. May 16, 1850.
81. Kirtland, Jared P. Labrax multilineatus. White Bass, Striped Bass,
or White Perch of Lake Erie. The Family Visitor. 1(7):53
February 14, 1850.
82. Kirtland, Jared P. Centrarchus hexacanthus (Val.), Grass Bass,
Bank Lick Bass, Roach. The Family Visitor. 1(9):69.
Februauy 28, 1850.
83. Kirtland, Jared P. Perca flavescens (Mitchell), Yellow Perch. The
Family Visitor. 1(2):13. January 10, 1850.
84. Kirtland, Jared P. Lucia-perca americana (Cuvier), Pike and
Pickerel of Lake Erie, Salmon of the Ohio River and Sandre of
the Canadians. The Family Visitor. 1(8):61. February 21, 1850.
85. Kirtland, Jared P. Leucisus storerianus (Kirtland), Storers
Minnow. The Family Visitor. 1(52):256. December 12, 1850.
86. Kirtland, Jared P. Pimelodus limosus (Rafinesque). The Family
Visitor. 1(21):165. July 11, 1850.
175
-------
87. Kirtland, Jared P. Centrarchus aeneus, Rock Bass, Goggle-eyed
Bass, Black Sunfish. The Family Visitor. 1(10):77. March 7,
1850.
88. Kirtland, Jared P. Pomotis vulgaris (Cuvier) Roach, Sunfish.
The Family Visitor. 1(14): 109. April 4, 1850.
89. Kirtland, Jared P. Gasterosteus inconstans, Stickleback. The
Family Visitor. 1(16):125. May 2, 1850.
90. Kirtland, Jared P. Esox estor (LeSueur), Muskallonge. The Family
Visitor. Whole Number 60, 2(8):61. July 1, 1851.
91. Kirtland, Jared P. Piscatoriana. The Family Visitor. Whole
Number 63, 2(11):87. July 22, 1851.
92. Kirtland, Jared P. Catostomus communis ((LeSueur). The Family
Visitor. 2(40):317. February 13, 1851.
93. Kirtland, Jared P. Catostomus melanops (Rafinesque), Spotted
Sucker. The Family Visitor. 1(52):413. May 6, 1851.
94. Kirtland, Jared P. Catostomus aureolus (LeSueur), Mullet of
Lake Erie. The Family Visitor. 1(39):309. February 6, 1851.
95. Kirtland, Jared P. Ancipenser ribicundus (LeSueur), Common
Sturgeon. The Family Visitor. 2(29):229. November 25, 1851.
96. Kirtland, Jared P. Lepisosteus platystomus (Rafinesque),
Duckbilled Garfish. The Family Visitor. 2(20):157.
September 23, 1851.
97. Kirtland, Jared P. Lepisosteus osseus (Linn.), Common Garfish.
The Family Visitor. 2(18):141. September 9, 1851.
98. Kirtland, Jared P. Amia calva (Linn.), Dog-fish, Lake Lawyer.
The Family Visitor. 2(11): 109. August 12, 1851.
99. Kirtland, Jared P. Lota maculosa (LeSueur), Eel-pout. The Family
Visitor. 2(23):181. October 14, 1851.
100. Kirtland, Jared P. Salmo amethystus (Mitchill), Mackinaw Trout.
The Family Visitor. 2(13): 101. August 5, 1851.
101. Kirtland, Jared P. Petromyzon argenteus (Kirtland), Small
Lamprey. The Family Visitor. 2(26):205. November 4, 1851.
176
-------
102. Kirtland, Jared P. Sclerognathus cvprinus (LeSueur), Catostomus
cyprinus of Les., Carp of the Ohio River; Shad of Lake Erie—
The Family Visitor. 1(47):373. April 3, 1851.
103. Kirtland, Jared P. Hyodon tergisus (LeSueur), Toothed Herrinp-
Mooneyes. The Family Visitor. 2(17):133. September 2, 185l!
104. Kirtland, Jared P. Catostomus nigricans (LeSueur), Mud-sucker
The Family Visitor. 1(50):397. April 24, 1851.
105. Kirtland, Jared P. Catostomus Duquesnei , Red Horse, Pittsburg
Sucker of Fishermen. The Family Visitor. 1(46)-365
March 27, 1851.
106. Kirtland, Jared P. Peculiarities of the Climate, Flora and
Fauna of the South Shore of Lake Erie, in the Vicinity of
Cleveland, Ohio. American Jour, of Science. 13:215-219.
1852.
107. Kirtland, Jared P. Revision of the Species Belonging to the
Genus Esox, Inhabiting Lake Erie and the Ohio River. Annals
of Science, Cleveland, Ohio. 2(3):78-79. 1854.
108. Kirtland, Jared P. Alburnus nitidus. Silver Minnow. Annals
of Science, Cleveland, Ohio. 2(2):44-45. 1854.
109. Kirtland, Jared P. Fish Culture; Small Lakes. The Ohio Farmer,
Cleveland, Ohio. 7(36):281. September 4, 1858.
110. Kleinert, Stanton J. and Donald Mraz. Life History of the Grass
Pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus), in Southwestern
Wisconsin. Wisconsin Technical Bull. 37. Wisconsin Conservation
Department, Madison. 1966.
111. Klippart, John H. History of Toledo and Sandusky Fisheries. First
Annual Report, Ohio State Fish. Comm., Years 1875-1876. Nevins
and Myers Publ., Columbus, Ohio. pp.31-42. 1877.
112. Klippart John H. Catalogue of Fishes of Ohio. First Annual Report,
Ohio State Fish. Comm., Years 1875-1876. Nevins and Myers Publ.,
Columbus, Ohio. pp. 43-88. 1877.
113. Klippart, John H. Descriptions of Ohio Fishes, arranged from
Manuscript Notes of Professor D. S. Jordon, by His Assistant,
Earnest R. Copeland. Second Annual Report, Ohio State Fish
Comm. (1877). pp. 83-116. 1878.
177
-------
114. Kolbe, Carl F. Fishery Decline, a Matter Involving Efficiency
and Upset Food Conversion Processes. Unpubl. Manuscript,
University of Toronto, Fish. Res. Lab. 1948.
115. Kole, Bruce P. Personal Communication. 1972.
116. Lewis, Donald W. Some Factors Associated with the Decline of the
Lake Erie Commercial Fishing Industry in Ohio. Proc. 12th
Conf. Great Lakes Res. pp. 834-842. 1969.
117. Magnuson, John J. and Lloyd L. Smith, Jr. Some Phases of the Life
History of the Trout-perch. Ecology. 44(1): 83-95. 1963.
118. Marks, William D. Summary Review of the Lake Erie Commercial
Fish Catch Since the Beginning of Records. Michigan Water
Resources Commission. August 1962.
119. McCormick, Lewis M. Descriptive List of the Fishes of Lorain
County, Ohio. Lab. Bull., Oberlin College. No. 2. pp. 1-33,
pis. 1-14. 1892.
120. McDonald, Marshall. Report on the Distribution of Fish and Fish
Eggs by the U.S. Fish Commission for the Season of 1885-1886.
Bull. U. S. Fish Commission. 6(1880): 385-394. 1887.
121. Miller, Robert Victor. A Systematic Study of the Greenside Darter,
Etheostoma blennioides, Rafinesque (Pisces:Percidae). Copeia.
1:1-40. March, 1968.
122. Norden, Carroll. The Identification of Larval Yellow Perch, Perca
flavescens and Walleye, Stizostedion vitreum. Copeia.
No. 4, pp. 282-288, Fig. 1, Table 3. 1961.
123. Olson Donald E and Warren J. Scidmore. Homing Behavior of
Spawning Walleyes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 91(4): 355-361.
124. Orr, Lowell P. and Russell Rhodes. The Algae and Fishes of the
Upper Cuyahoga River. Unp. Manuscript. 58 pp. 1967.
125. Osborn, Raymond C. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State Acad. Sci.,
Special Paper Number 4, pp. 1-105. 1901.
126 Paulus, Robert D. Walleye Fry Food Habits in Lake Erie. Ohio
Fish Monographs, Ohio Division of Wildlife, No. 2. December 1969.
127 Pease, Seth. Personal Journal of the Moses Cleaveland Survey Party
in the Western Reserve, at: Western Reserve Historical Society,
Cleveland, Ohio. 1797.
178
-------
128. Price, John W. A Study of the Food Habits of Some Lake Erie
Fish. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 1963.
129. Pycha, Richard L. Recent Changes in the Walleye Fishery of
Northern Breen Bay and History of the 1943 Year Class. Trans.
Amer. Fish. Soc. 90(4): 475-488, figures 5, tables 11.
October 1961.
130. Rafinesque, C. S. Ichthyologia Ohioensis, or Natural History of
Fishes Inhabiting the River and its Tributary Streams,
Preceded by a Physical Description of Ohio and its Branches.
W.G. Hunt Publ., Lexington. 175 pp. 1820.
131. Reiger, Henry A. at. al. The Ecology and Management of the Walleye
in Western Lake Erie. Technical Report 15. Great Lakes Fish.
Comm. May, 1969.
132. Shafer, Paul V. General Catch Reports of Ohio Lake Erie Commercial
Fisheries for 1949. Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of
Wildlife, State of Ohio. Bull. No. 251. 1950.
133. Scholl, Russell L. Ohio Commercial Landings Lake Erie 1967-1969.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife
1970.
134. Sikes, Stephen. The Fishes of the Grand River, Ohio. Annual
Meetings, Ohio Academy of Science. 1972.
135. Simpson, George D., L.W. Curtis and Henry Merkle. The Cuyahoga
River; Lake Rockwell to Lake Erie. Havens and Emerson Ltd.
1968.
136. Simpson, George D., et. al. Water Pollution Study; Chagrin River
and Rocky River. Havens and Emerson Ltd. 1970.
137. Smiley, Charles W. Report on the Distribution of Carp to July 1,
1881, from Young Reared in 1879 and 1880. Report U.S. Comm.
Fish and Fisheries. 10(1882): 943-1008. 1884.
138. Smith, Charles G. Egg Production of Walleyed Pike and Sauger.
Progressive Fish Culturist. 54:32-34. 1941.
139. Smith, H.G., R.K. Burnard, E.E.Good and J.M. Keener. Rare and
Endangered Vertebrates in Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science
73(5):257-271. 1973.
179
-------
140. Smith, Stanford H. Method of Producing Plastic Impressions
of Fish Scales without using Heat. Progressive Fish Culturist.
16(2):75-78. 1954.
141. Sterling, E. Notes on the Great Lakes Fisheries, Depletion of
Blackbass. Bull, of the U.S. Fish Comm. 4:218-219. 1884.
142. Sterling E. Comments in: Records of the Cleveland Acad. Nat.
Science. May 21, 1877.
143. Surrarrer, T.C. Studies of the Rocky River Drainage. Unpublished,
Ohio Biological Survey Records.
144. Taylor, Hardon F. Fishery Industries of the U.S.: Report of the
Division of Fish. Industries for 1922. Bureau of Fish.,
Document No. 954. 1923.
145. Thayer, Mary Scott. The Development of Cleveland, Ohio from
1818 to 1850 as reflected in the Newspapers of the Period.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University,
146. Tomkiewicz, Linda A. Typical Fish Mortality Rates in Eastern Lake
Erie. Technical Report 4. Lake Erie Environmental Studies,
State University College, Fredonia, New York. April, 1970.
147. Trautman, Milton B. The Fishes of Ohio. The Ohio State University
Press, Columbus, Ohio. pp. 683. 1957.
148. Tucker, Thomas R and Stephen Taub. Age and Growth of the Walleye,
Stizostedion vitreum vitreum, in Hoover Reservoir, Ohio. Ohio
Journal of Science. 70(5):314. 1970.
149. Van Meter, Harry D. The Yellow Perch of Lake Erie. Ohio Conserva-
tion Bull. 24(11):22-23. 1960.
150. Van Meter, Harry D. and M. B. Trautman. An Annotated List of the
Fishes of Lake Erie and its Tributary Waters Exclusive of the
Detroit River. Ohio Journal of Science. 70(2): 65-78. 1970.
151. Van Oosten, John. The Dispersal of Smelt, Osmerus mordax, in the
Great Lakes Region. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 66:160-171. 1937.
152. Van Oosten, John. Records, Ages and Growth of the Mooneye,
Hiodon tergisus, of the Great Lakes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
90(2): 170-174. 1961.
180
-------
154-
156
157 van
158- van
'"'
°f
160. Whittlese,, Charles. fel, Hi,^ „, Cleve^a, Ohio. cleveland
161. Wittal, Fred. Personal Con»unications . 1972
'"-
181
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA 905/9-75-001
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
WATER QUALITY BASELINE ASSESSMENT FOR CLEVELAND AREA-
LAKE ERIE, Volume II - The Fishes of the Cleveland
Metropolitan Area Including the Lake Erie Shoreline
5. REPORT DATE
February 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
Dr. Andrew M. White
John Carroll University, Cleveland, OH
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPOR
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Cleveland
Department of Public Works, Water Quality Program
3090 Broadway Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Section 108 a Program
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA G005107
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of the Great Lakes Coordinator, Region V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Vol. II of 3 Vol. Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Volume III of the final report, on the water quality of the Cleveland lake and
watershed area, is in preparation.
16. ABSTRACT
The fish fauna in the near shore waters of Lake Erie and the Three Rivers Watershed
were investigated from July 1971 through December 1972, and in 1973, 1974. This
investigation was performed by the John Carroll University as a part of a broader
City of Cleveland study (Volume I) to establish a baseline for planning and measuring
the restorative value of water pollution abatement programs.
The study established a baseline of the existence of fish species; their relative
abundance and distribution; the habitat degradations due to pollution and their
effects on changes in fish population diversity, distribution and abundance.
The 86 fish species presently inhabiting the study waters are markedly different
than the 107 species documented historically in former times. Changes in fish species
are attributed to stream obstruction, pollution, siltation, loss of aquatic vegetation
and other causes.
The report concludes that the recovery of most species of fish to levels of
previous abundance is possible by the use of recommended pollution abatement and
habitat restoration measures. The potential economic significance of these measures
to the fishing industry in the Cleveland area is assessed, as a further planning
index.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Fishes
Water Pollution
Chagrin River
Cleveland, Ohio
Cuyahoga River
Lake Erie
Rocky River
Water Pollution Abatement
Economic Benefits
sanitary District Planning
COSATI F-ield/Group
06F
08H
13B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
!1. NO. OF PAGES
Document is available to the public through
the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22151
200
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |