&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905/R-92/006
November 1992
Biological Criteria Development for
Large Rivers with an Emphasis on
An Assesment of the
White River Drainage, Indiana
-------
EPA 905/R-92/006
Biological Criteria Development for Large Rivers with an
Emphasis on an Assessment of the White River Drainage, Indiana
Thomas P. Simon
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Standards
77 West Jackson, WQS-ldJ
Chicago, IL 60604
In cooperation with:
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Water Quality Surveillance and Standards Branch
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
November 5, 1992
-------
NOTICE
Use of this document is intended for the objective facilitation of information exchange between the States
and Federal Water pollution control biologists for which it was intended. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
When citing this document:
T.P.Simon. 1992. Biological criteria development for large rivers with an emphasis on an assessment of the
White River drainage, Indiana. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Water Division, Water
Quality Standards, Chicago, IL.EPA 905/R-92/006.
If requesting copies of this document:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Publication Distribution Center, DDD
11027 Kenwood Road, Bldg. 5 - Dock 63
Cincinnati, OH 45242
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
i. Last of Figures "i
ii. List of Tables v
iii. Executive Summary y
iv. Acknowledgements i*
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
Definition of Reference Conditions 2
Criteria for Selecting Reference Sites 2
2.0 STUDY AREA 3
Physiographic Provinces 3
Ecoregions 5
Natural Areas ?
Drainage Features 11
Historical White River data 11
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 12
Sampling 12
Site specific 12
Habitat 12
Community Analysis 14
Metrics 16
Scoring Modifications 51
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 52
Lower White River Drainage 52
East Fork White River Drainage 57
West Fork White River Drainage 61
Reference Sites 63
Predicted vs Observed Community 64
6.0 REFERENCES 69
7.0 APPENDICES
A. Adjacent State comparisons of tolerance classifications for computing the
Index of Biotic Integrity for Indiana taxa.
B. Adjacent State comparisons of feeding guilds for computing the Index of
Biotic Integrity for Indiana taxa.
C. Adjacent State comparisons of reproductive guilds for computing the Index
of Biotic Integrity for Indiana taxa.
D. Site Specific Index of Biotic Integrity scores for each of the stations
sampled in the Central Corn Belt Plain Ecoregion.
E. Fish nomenclature changes for the species of fish occurring within the
political boundaries of Indiana.
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Number Page
1 Map of Indiana and adjacent states showing the major and minor
drainage basins (from USGS drainage maps). 4
2 Map of Indiana and adjacent states showing the ecoregions
designation of Omemik and Gallant (1988) 6
3 Map of Indiana indicating the natural areas designation
ofHomoya et al. (1985). 8
4 White River drainage indicating the location of sampled locations
during 1990 and 1991. 13
5 Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in total
number of species with increasing drainage area for the White
River drainage. 21
6 Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in number
of darter/madtom/sculpin species with increasing drainage area for
the White River drainage. 24
7 Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the
proportion of large river species with increasing drainage area
for the White River drainage. 26
8 Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in number
of sunfish species with increasing drainage area for the White
River drainage. 29
9 Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in number
of round bodied sucker species with increasing drainage area for
the White River drainage. 31
10 Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in number
of sensitive species with increasing drainage area for the
White River drainage. 34
11 Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the
proportion of tolerant species with increasing drainage area for
the White River drainage. 37
12 Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the
proportion of omnivores with increasing drainage area for the
White River drainage. 39
111
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Figure
Number Page
13 Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the
proportion of insectivores with increasing drainage area for the
White River drainage. 41
14 Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the
proportion of carnivores with increasing drainage area for the
White River drainage. 43
15 Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the
catch per unit effort with increasing drainage area for the
White River drainage. 45
16 Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the
proportion of simple lithophil species with increasing drainage
area for the White River drainage. 48
. 17 Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the
proportion of diseased, eroded fins, lesions, and tumors (DELT)
with increasing drainage area for the White River drainage. 50
18 Longitudinal trends in the lower White River, a) IBI, b) total
number of species, c) number of darter species. 57
19 Longitudinal trends in the catch per unit of effort for select species
in the lower White River, a) buffalo, b) carpsuckers, c) channel catfish,
d) gizzard shad, e) redhorse 58
20 Longitudinal trends in the East Fork of the White River, a) IBI,
b) total number of species, c) number of darter species 59
21 Longitudinal trends in catch per unit of effort for select species in the
East Fork of the White River, a) buffalo, b) carpsuckers, c) channel
catfish, d) gizzard shad, e) darters, f) redhorse, g) round-bodied suckers 60
22 Longitudinal trends in the West Fork of the White River, a) IBI, b) total
number of species, c) number of darter species 61
23 Longitudinal trends in catch per unit of effort for select species in the
West Fork of the White River, a) buffalo, b) carpsuckers, c) channel catfish
d) gizzard shad, e) darters, f) redhorse, g) round-bodied suckers 62
24 Ambient temperatures of the middle Wabash River and thermal changes
from heated effluents in relation to the thermal preferenda of some
resident fishes (after Gammon 1983). 68
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number Page
1 Attributes of Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) classification,
total IBI scores, and integrity classes from Karr et al. (1986). 16
2 Index of Biotic Integrity metrics used to evaluate wadable/boatable
large river (< 2,000 miles2 drainage area) sites in the White
River drainage 17
3 Index of Biotic Integrity metrics used to evaluate wadable/boatable
great river (> 2000 miles2 drainage area) sites in the White
River drainage. 18
4 The distributional characteristics of Indiana darter (Etheostomatini),
madtom (Noturus), and sculpin (Cottus) species. 23
5 List of Indiana fish species considered to be indicative of a large river
fauna (Pflieger, 1971; Gerking, 1945). 25
6 List of Indiana sunfish species for evaluating quality pool habitat 28
7 Distributional characteristics of Indiana sucker species (family
Catostomidae). 30
8 List of Indiana fish species considered to be sensitive to a wide
variety of environmental disturbances including water quality and
habitat degradation. 32
9 List of Indiana fish species considered to be highly tolerant to
a wide variety of environmental disturbances including water
quality and habitat degradation for large river sites in Indiana. 36
10 List of Indiana fish species considered to be omnivores. 38
11 List of Indiana species considered to be simple lithophilic
spawners. 47
12 Species list of taxa collected in the White River drainage: East Fork
West Fork, and Lower White River drainages, Indiana, during sampling
in 1990 and 1991. S3
13 Thermal and dissolved oxygen grab profiles from the junction of the East
and West Forks White River to SR 61 bridge, 1991. 57
14 Reference sites determined using fish community biotic integrity for the
White River drainage, Indiana. 64
15 Temperature tolerance of White River fish species determined by laboratory
experiments and field observation (EPRI, 1981; Gammon 1983). 65
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 mandate the development of biological criteria for evaluating
the quality of the nation's surface waters. The White River drainage was investigated in Indiana to
determine water resource expectations for large rivers. A total of 49 sites were sampled in the White
River drainage in order to develop and calibrate an Index of Biotic Integrity for use in Indiana large
rivers. Based on anticipated variance within the two ecoregions, sub-basins were established using
natural areas as recognized by Homoya et al. (1985).
Three sub-basins were recognized and include the major drainage units of the White River; Lower White
River, West Fork White River, and East Fork White River drainages. Graphical analysis of the data
enabled the construction of maximum species richness lines for calibrating the Index of Biotic Integrity
for 13 metrics as modified for application to Indiana. Metrics were primarily based on the previous
works of Karr (1981), Karr et al. (1986), and Ohio EPA (1987). A few additional metrics are original to
this study and were evaluated to quantify water quality degradation characteristics. This includes the
proportion of large river taxa and a combination of sensitive benthic insectivores, e.g. darters, madtoms,
and sculpins. The number of sunfish species was modified to include the black basses, Micropterus.
Separate metrics were developed for large (1000 < x < 2000 miles2) and great river (> 2000 miles2)
drainage areas. Separate scoring criteria and metrics were developed for the two classifications.
Stations with drainage areas less than 2000 miles2 had a metric which included darters, madtoms, and
sculpins (all benthic insectivores). These species are sensitive indicators of a quality aquatic resource.
In reaches with drainage areas greater than 2000 miles2 a metric evaluating the proportion of large river
species was substituted. The proportion of large river species is based on the typical expectations of
large river fauna! composition after Pflieger (1975). Within these larger drainage reaches, a characteristic
fauna is anticipated, thus deviation from these expectations suggests that the resource has been
degraded.
The water resources of the three drainages were evaluated based on criteria calibrated for the White
River drainage using the Indiana large river index. A normal curve distribution observed for the River
drainages with respect to site biological resource classification. A trend towards decreasing biological
quality with increasing drainage area was evident. The Lower White River drainage showed a highly
skewed site distribution towards the lower extremes of biological quality. The trend was towards
declining biological integrity with increasing drainage area in both the East and West Forks, although
the East Fork White River possessed considerably better fish community at the headwaters. Site specific
data included an evaluation of thermal impacts on the River based on keystone species and an
evaluation of the Lower White River using the Index of Well-Being. Locality information, species specific
scoring criteria for tolerance classification, trophic and reproductive guilds are included in the appendix.
vu
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wishes to express their appreciation to those individuals
which enabled this study to be completed. Pete Howe, USEPA Region V, Water Division, Wayne Davis,
Valerie Jones, and Boniface Thayil, USEPA-Region V, Ambient Monitoring Section, and John Winters and
Denise Clark, Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) managed and facilitated
logistics and sampling needs. Special thanks to Thomas Lauer, Fisheries Scientist, Indiana Department
of Natural Resources who provided information from the Department's stream reports and enabled
sampling at reference sites. Field assistance was provided by John Miller,USEPA-Region V, Ambient
Monitoring Section; Andrew Ellis and Gregory Nottingham, IDEM biologists; and Ronald Abrant, ESAT-
Weston. We express our appreciation to all the Indiana landowners which allowed access across their
property to facilitate River launching of gear. We are indebted to Barry Chernoff and Marianne Rogers,
Field Museum of Natural History, Division of Fishes, and John Dustman, Indiana University-Northwest, for
use of the collection and work space to enable rapid processing of the large number of samples.
Shelby Gerking, Arizona State University, provided notes and copies of valuable information from his
previous collection efforts in Indiana. Numerous professional courtesies were provided by colleagues
which facilitated completion of this project: Randy Sanders, Marc Smith, Chris Yoder, and Ed Rankin,
Ohio EPA, provided help in numerous aspects of this study; John O. Whitaker, Jr., Indiana State
University, provided copies of reprints and past environmental studies conducted in the Lower White
River; James Gammon provided reprints of papers and much inspiration. His trail blazing efforts in large
river biocriteria development has encouraged many generations of future fish biologists to forge ahead in
protection of this valuable aquatic resource. Much information was gained through conversations with
colleagues concerning techniques and logistical aspects: William Matthews, Brooks Burr, Melvin Warren,
Jr., Lawrence Page, Douglas Carney, James Gammon, Ann Spacie, John O. Whitaker, Jr., John Lyons,
Phillip Cochran, Bob Hughes, Phil Larsen, Jim Omernik, Scott Mettee, Malcom Pierson, and Peter Howe.
Historic records were provided by Susan Jewett, National Museum of Natural History; Douglas Nelson
and Gerald Smith, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology; William Eschmeyer, California Academy of
Science; and Ted Cavender, The Ohio State University. Special thanks to John Lyons, Chris Yoder,
Wayne Davis, James Gammon, Lee Bridges, Dennis Clark, Steve Newhouse and James Stahl for
constructive review comments on previous drafts of the manuscript. Report layout and line graphs were
prepared by the Graphic Arts staff at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5. Cover
illustrations were prepared by Mrs. Marilyn Sterre, Bel] Museum of Natural History, and Ron Clayton,
Tennessee Valley Authority. The project manager, chief scientist, and author of this report was Thomas
P. Simon, Regional Biocriteria Coordinator.
Guest Reviewers:
Dr. James Gammon, De Pauw University
Chris Yoder, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Randy Sanders, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. John Lyons, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
TimSimonson, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Paul Kanaehl, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Dr. Dennis Clark, Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Dr. Michael Lydy, U.S. Geological Survey
IX
-------
Biological Criteria Development for Large Rivers with an
Emphasis on an Assessment of the White River Drainage, Indiana
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The reauthorization of the Clean Water Act and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's policy
requirement to adopt narrative and numerical
biological criteria for assessing the nations'
surface waters has prompted an instream
assessment of the water quality of the State of
Indiana. Section 304 (a) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) directs EPA to develop and publish
water quality criteria and information on
methods for measuring toxic pollutants on
bases other than pollutant-by-pollutant,
including biological monitoring and assessment
methods. The Clean Water Act suggests using
aquatic community components ("...plankton,
fish, shellfish, wildlife,plant life..."gee.
304(l)(a)) and community attributes ("...
biological community diversity, productivity, and
stability ...";sec. 304(l)(c)) in any body of water
and; factors necessary "...to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of all navigable waters ..."(sec.
304(2)(a)) for "...the protection and propagation
of shellfish, fish, and wildlife for classes and
categories of receiving waters..." (sec. 304
(2)(b)) and "...onthe measurement and
classification of water quality" (sec. 304(2)(c)).
The term biological integrity originated in the
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (PL 92-500) and has likewise appeared in
subsequent versions (PL 95-217; PL 100-1). Karr
and Dudley (1981) defined biological integrity
as, "the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to
support and maintain a balanced, integrated,
adaptive community of organisms having a
species composition, diversity, and functional
organization comparable to the best natural
habitats within a region". The use of a biological
component to evaluate the ambient lotic aquatic
community of our nations surface waters has
been well discussed elsewhere (Karr et al. 1986;
Ohio EPA 1987; Whittier et al. 1987; Simon et al.
1988; Davis 1990; Fausch et al. 1990; Karr
1991).
The assessment of the White River drainage
enabled the objective evaluation of specific
large river metric performance. The White River
drainage has impacts associated with only a few
point source dischargers. The primary discharge
sources are municipal facilities and electric
power generating stations distributed in the
lower White River and the upper portions of the
West Fork White River. The effects of thermal
influence have been well documented in the
literature (Raney and Menzel 1969; Brown 1976;
Brungs and Jones 1977; Hokanson and
Biesinger 1980; USEPA 1980; McCormick et al.
1981; EPRI1981). The characteristic signature
of thermal disturbance has been described by
Gammon (1973) and has been studied for
several decades in the middle Wabash River.
Changes in sensitive species unable to tolerate
increased thermal loads were documented for
redhorses, percids, and other coolwater
species. Gammon (1983) compared, predicted
and observed, changes in the fish community
near the Wabash and Cayuga Generating
Stations on the middle Wabash River.
Laboratory results compared favorably with
adult responses from field observations.
However, differences in results were due to
differences between the juveniles and smaller
individuals usually tested during laboratory
treatments to the larger individuals usually
encountered in the field. Gammon (1979, 1983)
concluded that even with large amounts of
temperature data that community response
could not be predicted as well as if measured
by field assessment.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the
biological integrity in Indiana water resources
based on "least impacted" reference sites for
establishing baseline conditions (Hughes et al.
1986). Least impacted reference sites were
representative of the subbasin under study and
reflect the better sites without anthropogenic
change. The following project goals were
addressed during the White River biological
criteria project:
o Develop biological criteria for large and
great river reaches using the Index of Biotic
Integrity and habitat classification;
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
o Identify areas of least disturbance within
the White River drainage for use as reference
stations;
o Develop maximum species richness (MSR)
lines from reference stations for each Index of
Biotic Integrity metric based on drainage area;
o Evaluate and assess the impacts of four
electric generating stations on the Lower and
West Fork of the White River under differing
temporal and spatial scales.
This technical report includes specific Index of
Biotic Integrity criteria through the development
of metrics and maximum species richness lines,
to delineate areas of least disturbance in the
White River drainage. The purpose of this study
is not to verify ecoregion boundaries, additional
study areas would need to be sampled to
determine the heterogeneity of the "fuzzy
border" areas.
Definition of Reference Conditions
In order to make accurate evaluations of the
region, various baseline geological, geographic,
and climatic differences need to be assessed.
The goal is not to provide a definition of pristine
conditions, since these types of conditions are
either few in number or nonexistent in heavily
populated states (Hughes et al. 1982; Whittier et
al. 1987). Our expectations are determined from
the structural and functional attainable natural
conditions of "least impacted" or reference sites.
Assessment of these criteria need to be
modified nationally, since different processes
can be attributed to the regional expectations
determining distribution of fishes. The ecoregion
concept is useful for separating large expanses
of habitat, since these areas are defined by the
use of different structural components (Omernik
1987).
In order to select stations for sampling it is
necessary to know the geographical boundary
of the "ecoregions" within the State of Indiana. A
valid ecoregion has boundaries where
ecosystem variables or patterns change
(Hughes et al. 1986). Omernik (1987) mapped
the ecoregions of the conterminous United
States from maps of land-surface form, soil
types, potential natural vegetation, and land use.
Each ecoregion was then delineated from areas
of regional homogeneity. Ecoregions became a
very useful mechanism for determining
community complexity and establish boundaries
associated with various land forms.
Ecoregions provide a geographical basis for
determining the appropriate response from
streams of similar proportion and complexity.
By selecting reference sites for establishing the
areas of "least impact", further calibration of the
Index of Biotic Integrity and monitoring will
reveal the current conditions of the surface
waters of Indiana. Once ecoregional
expectations are determined it is important to
consider that conditions do not remain static.
On the contrary, repeat sampling of stations,
both reference and site specific will need to be
conducted in order to document change over
time.
Because of subregional differences further
demarcation was made examining the role of
basin or watershed within natural areas. Natural
areas are similar to ecoregions with the
exception of using a biotic component. Fish
emigration is determined by the availability of
water of appropriate quality to ensure existence,
sustain growth, and increase fitness through
reproduction. Likewise, species-specific
differences exist in community structure which
may not reveal differences in current water
quality but may be determined by historical
geomorphic (Leopold et al. 1964) or
zoogeographic processes (Hocutt and Wiley
1986). Trends in Indiana water quality were
evaluated using a basin approach, within the
framework of ecoregions.
Criteria for Selecting Reference Sites
Several procedures are available for determining
reference stations. Larsen et al. (1986) and
Whittier et al. (1987) chose sites after careful
examination of aerial photographs, sub-basin
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
specific information review, and on-site
reconnaissance. This procedure is time
consuming and requires that a limited number
of high-quality sites be sampled in order to
predict regional expectations. The current
methods chosen were based on evaluation of
Regional Water Quality Planning Maps (USGS
undated) which identified known point and non-
point sources which may influence site
selection. An equal distribution of stations within
all parts of the basins were selected based on
historic collections sites (Jordan 1877; Gerking
1945; IDEM 1990) and were rigorously sampled
in order to get representative, distance specific,
quantifiable estimates of the species numbers
and biomass. In order to avoid bias, these data
points were determined for all metrics calibrated
in the Index of Biotic Integrity. Maximum
species richness lines were then compiled (see
methods), followed by calculations of Index of
Biotic Integrity values to reveal which stations
were the "least impacted" stations for the White
River drainage. Evaluation of habitat and other
physical parameters refined the final list of
reference sites. Sites which had habitat or water
quality deficiencies, but still attained high index
ratings would have been removed from the final
list. This action was not required, since poor
habitat and water quality affected various
portions of the community resulting in a lowered
index score. These sites are not pristine or
undisturbed (few exist in Indiana), but they do
represent the best conditions given the
background activities (i.e. anthropogenic;
cultural eutrophication).
Sampling was conducted in all mainstem river
reaches in the Lower, East and West Forks of
the White River from the headwater (< 100
square miles) to the largest mainstem drainage
area (ca. 11,400 square miles).
2.0 STUDY AREA
Indiana has an area of 36,291 square miles, and
drains the Ohio, the upper Mississippi, and
Great Lakes Regions (Seaber et al. 1984).
These three regions were further subdivided into
nine subregions (Fig. 1), five of which drain 86%
of the State (USGS 1990). The State of Indiana
lies within the limits of latitude 37° 46' 18" and
41° 45' 33 "north, for an extreme length of 275.5
miles in a north-south direction; and between
longitude 84° 47' 05" and 88° 05' 50" west with
an extreme width in an east-west direction of
142.1 miles.
The State has a maximum topographic relief of
about 900.9 ft, with elevations ranging from
about 300.3 ft above mean sea level at the
mouth of the Wabash River to slightly more than
1,201.2 ft in Randolph County in the east-central
part of the state.
This report considers only the White River
drainage and will be referred to as the River.
The White River drains an area of 11,400 square
miles (Hoggatt 1975). It crosses two ecoregions
and is the second largest drainage in Indiana
rivaled only by the Wabash River. The River
drains the Eastern Corn Belt Plain and Interior
River Lowland ecoregions (Omernik and Gallant,
1988). The River is located in central and
southern Indiana and drains in a southwestern
direction. Large tributaries which drain the
Eastern Corn Belt Plain include the Driftwood,
Big Blue, Flatrock, Eel, and Muscatatuck Rivers.
The Interior River Lowland includes the
mainstem Lower White River and the junction of
the East and West Forks.
Physiographic Provinces
Fenneman (1946) divided the State into two
physiographic provinces based on the
maximum extent of glaciation. The glaciated
portion of the State contains the Central
Lowland province, which includes the majority
of the White River drainage, and the unglaciated
portion is termed the Interior Low Plateaus
province.
Schneider (1966) further divided Indiana into
three broad physiographic areas that closely
reflect the surface-water characteristics of the
State. The White River drains a portion of the
Tipton TillPlain, Scottsburg Lowland, Norman
-------
Indiana Ecoregions
Great Lakes Basin
Mississippi River
Ohio River
Regional Boundary
Sub-Regional Boundary
Accounting Unit Boundary
Cataloging Unit Boundary
County Boundary
State Boundary
Figure 1. Map of Indiana showing Major and Minor drainage basins (from USGS data).
4
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
Upland, Crawford Upland, Dearborn Upland,
and Mitchell Plain. The Tipton TillPlain is
characterized by a depositional plain of low
relief that has been modified only slightly by
postglacial stream erosion. The southern section
of the State includes the Wisconsinan glacial
boundary and represents a series of north- and
south-trending uplands and lowlands.
Landforms in this area are principally due to
normal degradation processes.
The last major glaciation event dramatically
altered central Indiana during the Wisconsinan
period (14,000 to 22,000 years ago). As glaciers
advanced and retreated, the land surface was
dramatically altered as the landforms were
eitherscoured by advancing glacial ice or the
scoured materials were deposited by retreating
glaciers. Two distinct glacial lobes are known
to have advanced into Indiana, from the
northeast out of the Lake Erie and Saginaw Bay
basins and from the north from the Lake
Michigan basin.
Ecoregions
Omernik and Gallant (1988) characterized the
attributes of ecoregions of the midwest states.
Indiana has six recognized ecoregions: Central
Corn Belt Plain, Southern Michigan-Northern
Indiana TillPlain, Huron-Erie Lake Plain, Eastern
Corn Belt Plain, Interior Plateau, and Interior
River Lowland (Fig. 2). The White River basin
drains portions of the Eastern Corn Belt Plain
and Interior River Lowland ecoregions.
The following is a description of the Eastern
Corn Belt Plain and Interior River Lowland
ecoregions, summarized from Omernik and
Gallant (1988).
Eastern Corn Belt Plain
Much of the ecoregion consists of extensive
cropland agriculture. It is distinguished from the
western corn belt plains by the its natural forest
cover and associated soils. The gently rolling
glacial till plain is broken by moraines, kames,
and outwash plains. Elevations range between
399.3 ft to greater than 1320 ft. The ecoregion is
characterized by low relief, typically less than
66 ft; however, some morainal hills occur in the
northern portion near Lake Erie. Stream valleys
are long and sinuous and generally narrow and
shallow throughout the 31,800 miles2 of the
ecoregion. Small streams have narrow valley
floors; larger streams have broad valley floors.
Elevation varies from about 399.3 ft, in the
southern portion of the ecoregion, to over 999.9
ft on a few of the hills in die north. Precipitation
occurs mainly during the growing season and
averages from 35 to 40 in annually. The
ecoregion has few reservoirs or natural lakes.
Both perennial and intermittent streams are
common in the ecoregion. Constructed
drainage ditches and channelized streams
further assist in soil drainage in flat, poorly
drained areas. Stream density is approximately
one half mile per square mile in the most typical
portions of the ecoregion (Fig. 2).
The ecoregion is almost entirely farmland. The
major crops produced are corn and soybeans.
A total of 75% of the landuse is cropland, while
the remaining 25 % is permanent pasture, small
woodlots, or urban. Emphasis on livestock
includes the growing of feed grams and hay.
Swine, beef and dairy cattle, chickens, and
turkey are raised.
Most of the soils were developed under the
influence of deciduous forest vegetation. The
soils are loamy calcareous glacial till, overlain
by loess deposits. The soils are lighter in color
and more acid than the adjacent Central Cora
Belt Plain. Hapludolls and Ochraqualf s are the
dominant soil groups on dry and wet upland
sites, respectively. Argiaquolls, Haplaquolls, and
Medisaprists have developed in flats and
depressions. Hapludalf s and Fragiudalf s are
common on well drained slopes of valleys.
Shallow Hapludolls occur on some valley sides
where erosion has removed the glacial material
and exposed the underlying shale limestone.
Udifluvents and Fluvaquents have derived from
silty alluvium in narrow floodplains.
The natural vegetation of the area consists of
-------
Indiana Ecoregions
Central Corn Belt Plains
Eastern Corn Belt Plains
Northern Indiana Till Plains
Huron/Erie Lake Plains
Interior Plateau
Interior River Lowland
Figure 2. Map of Indiana showg the ecoregion designation from Omernik and Gallant (1988).
6
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
diverse hardwood forests, predominantly
American beech and sugar maple. However, a
significant amount of white oak, black oak,
northern red oak, yellow popular, hickory, white
ash, and black walnut exists. Many of the trees
are common in adjacent ecoregions, but most
are comprised of oak and hickory. Wetter sites
include white oak, pin oak, northern red oak,
yellow popular, ash, and sweetgum primarily,
and shingle oak, black oak, and hickory also
occur. Silver maple, cottonwood, sycamore, pin
oak, elm, and sweetgum grow along rivers and
stream corridors.
Interior River Lowland
The Interior River Lowland has varied land use
including forestry, diverse cropland agriculture,
orchards, livestock production, and oil and gas
production. The ecoregion consists of dissected
glacial till plain which is covered by thick mantle
loess, rolling narrow ridgetops, and a hilly to
steep ridge and valley slopes. The ecoregion is
characterized by areas ranging between 429-
633.6 ft in elevation. Local relief varies between
3.3 ft on the till plain to 108.9 ft on the rolling
ridges, to nearly 660 ft on prominent ridges.
Stream valleys in the hills are often intermittent
becoming perennial when they reach the valley
floors. Large watersheds in the ecoregion often
drain as much as 350 miles2 throughout the
19,000 miles2 of the ecoregion in the midwest.
Elevation varies from about 399.3 ft, in the
southern portion of the ecoregion, to over 999.9
ft on a few of the hills in the north. Precipitation
occurs mainly during the freeze period and
averages from 39 to 46 in annually. The
ecoregion has lakes, reservoirs, and numerous
scattered ponds.
Both perennial and intermittent streams are
common in the ecoregion. Constructed
drainage ditches and channelized streams
further drain soils in flat, poorly drained areas.
Stream density is approximately two miles per
square mile in the most typical portions of the
ecoregion (Fig. 2).
The ecoregion r is a diverse assemblage of
land uses including farmland which is used for
feed grains, and hay for livestock. Some corn,
soybeans, and red clover seed are also grown.
Undrained sites are used for forage crops,
pasture or timber (almost 33 % of the ecoregion
is forested). Emphasis on mixed farming,
livestock, and some orcharding and some grape
vineyards occurs on the upland sites. Mostly
beef cattle, swine and chickens are raised.
Most of the better drained soils of the Interior
River Lowland ecoregion are generally light in
color and moderately acidic. Hapludalphs,
dominate in silty loess, glacial till, and sandy
aeolian materials. Fragiudalphs have formed on
some silt-covered ridgetops. Paleudalphs are
common on old cherry limestones. Shallow
hapludolls occur on steep slopes. Udifluvents,
fluvaquents, and haplaquolls are found in poorly
drained floodplains.
The natural vegetation of the area consists of
oak-hickory forest. White oak, black oak, red
oak, bitternut hickory, shagbark hickory, yellow
popular, white ash, sugar maple, and black
walnut occur on well drained soils. Pin oak,
shingle oak, and sweetgum occur on wetter
sites. Riparian areas support pin oak, silver
maple, cottonwood, willow, sycamore, elm,
sweetgum, ash, and river birch.
Natural Areas
A natural region is a major, generalized unit of
the landscape where a distinctive assemblage of
natural features is present (Homoya et al. 1985).
It is similar to the ecoregion concept integrating
several natural features, including climate, soils,
glacial history, topography, exposed bedrock,
presettlement vegetation, and physiography. It
differs from the ecoregion concept in the
utilization of biodiversity of the fauna and flora
to delineate areas of relative homogeneity.
The White River drainage incorporates the
Central Till Plain, Southwestern Lowlands,
portions of the Highland Rim, Bluegrass,
Southern Bottomlands, and Big River Natural
Regions (Fig. 3).
The Central Till Plain is the largest natural
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
HOMOYA'S NATURAL REGIONS
OF INDIANA
NORTHERN LAKES
GRAND PRAIRIE—Kankakee Marsh
GRAND PRAIRIE—Kankakee Sand
GRAND PRAIRIE—Grand Paririe
NoRmwESTaN MoRAinAL— Chicago Lake
NoRiHERWESTERN MoRAiN/u.—Valparaiso
Moraine
NORTHWESTERN MORAINAL — Lake Michigan
boro6r
CENTRAL TILL PLAIN — Tipton Till Plain
CENTRAL TILL PLAIN — Entrenched Valley
CENTRAL TILL PLAIN -Bluffton Till
Plain
BLACK SWAMP
BLUEGRASS — Muscatatuck Flats and
BLUEGRASS — Scottsburg
BLUEGRASS — Switzerland Hills
SHAWNEE HILL — Crawford Upland
SHAWNEE HILL — Escarpment
ScvrmiESTEflN LOWLANDS — Glaciated
SOUTHWESTERN LOWLANDS — Plainville
SOUIHWESTEHN LOWLANDS — DriftlSSS
HIGHLAND RIM - Mitchell Karst Plain
HIGHUND RIM - Brown County Hills
HIGHLAND RIM — Knobstone Escarpment
SOUTHERN BonOM LANDS
Figure 3: Map of Indiana indicating the natural areas designation of Homoya et al.
(1985)
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
region in Indiana, formerly in the forested
Wisconsinan till in the central portion of the
state. The Region is topographically
homogeneous although glacial moraines are
common. The region is a major divide between
the communities with a strong northern affinity
and those with strong southern affinity, the
Entrenched Valley is a concentrated continuum
of northern, southern, eastern and western
affinities. The Tipton Till Plain subsection is the
predominant subsection of the West and upper
East Fork drainages. The Tipton Till Plain is
characterized by loamy Wisconsinan till.This
section is mostly undissected plain formerly
covered by an extensive beech-maple-oak
forest.
The soils are predominantly neutral silt and silty
clay loams. The northern flatwoods community
associated with these poorly drained soils were
ubiquitous but are now confined to the
scattered woodlots. Species common to the
woodlots include red maple, pin oak, bur oak,
swamp white oak, Shumard's oak, American
elm, and green ash. In slightly better drained
soils beech, sugar maple, black maple, white
oak, red oak, shagbark hickory, tulip popular,
red elm, basswood, and white ash.
The Southwestern Lowlands Natural Region is
characterized by low relief and extensive
aggraded valleys. The lower White River and the
lower portions of the East and West Forks
occur in this Natural Region. Much of the area
is nearly level, undissected, and poorly drained,
although in several areas the topography is hilly
and well drained. The region was glaciated by
the Illinoian ice sheet. Three sections include
the Plainville Sand section, Glaciated section,
and Driftless Area section. The Glaciated is the
only section which incorporates a portion of the
West Fork White River.
The Glaciated Section corresponds with the
Illinoian till plain. The soils are acid to neutral silt
loams with a thick layer of loess. Natural
communities include flatwoods forest in the
Driftless Section which include shagbark
hickory, shellbark hickory, pin oak, shingle oak,
hackberry, green ash, red maple, and silver
maple. This section had the greatest amount of
prairie habitat south of the Wisconsian glacial
boundary.
The Highland Rim physiographic region of the
Interior Plateau ecoregion is subdivided into
three subsections: Mitchell Karst Plain Section,
Brown County Hills Section, and Knobstone
Escarpment Section (Homoya et al. 1985). The
Highland Rim is a discontinuous belt of
underlying strata of Mississippian age, although
some Pennsylvanian aged strata crop out in
places. The region is unglaciated, with the
exception of a relatively unmodified glaciated
area at the northern and eastern boundary. The
area possesses a large expanse of karst
topography, nigged hills, and steep cliffs. Most
of the area was forested during presettlement
times, but large barrens occurred along with
smaller areas of limestone and siltstone and
gravel wash.
The major feature of the Mitchell Karst Plain
include several natural community types most
notably the karst plain which comprises caves,
sinkhole ponds and swamps, flatwoods,
barrens, limestone glade and several upland
forest types. The plain is relatively level except
for the limestone cliffs and nigged hills along
the periphery of the range. Caves are common,
the soil is generally well drained with silty loams
derived from loess and weathered limestone.
Acid cherry Baxter silty loam occurs mostly in
the south. Along the gravel wash communities
composed primarily of limestone and chert
gravel border most streams. Characteristic
species include Indian grass, Carolina willow,
big bluestem, Carolina willow, ninebark, pale
dogwood, and bulrush. Several forest
communities occur, however, the western
mesophytic forest type predominates and
include white oak, sugar maple, shagbark
hickory, pignut hickory, and white ash.
The Brown County Hills Section is characetrized
by deeply dissected uplands underlain by
siltstone, shale, and sandstone. The soils are
well drained acid silt loams with minor amounts
of loess. Bedrock is near the surface but rarely
crops out. The natural communities are uniform
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
dominated by oak-hickory, especially chestnut
oak, and ravines with mesic species including
beech, red oak, sugar maple, and white ash.
Upper slopes usually have pure monotypic
stands of chestnut oak, a thick growth of
greenbrier, low growing shrubs, and a carpet of
The Knobstone Escarpment Section is similar in
substrate and topography to the Brown County
Hills Section. The major difference is the
presence of Virginia pine in the upland forest
communities. The pine is commonly co-
dominant with chestnut oak on the many ridge
crests and south facing slopes. American
chestnut was historically dominant and has
been taken over by Chestnut oak. Rock
outcrops are rare and restricted to the ridge
tops. Glades with shaly substrates are present,
but rare, and occur on south facing slopes.
They are usually sterile environments due to the
unstable substrates and harsh conditions.
The Southern Bottomlands Natural Region is an
alluvial bottomland along the rivers and larger
streams in southwestern Indiana. It is
distinguished from other bottomland regions in
Indiana by the fauna! affinity to the lower
Mississippi River Valley and Gulf Coastal Plain.
The Illinoian glacial border bisects the region
placing the northern portion in the Central
Lowlands physiographic province and the
southern portion in the Interior Low Plateaus
province. The glacial border has had little effect
on the bottomland community. The soils of this
Natural Region are mostly neutral to acid silt
loams and are frequently flooded. The natural
communities included bottomland forest,
swamp, ponds, sloughs, and formerly marsh
and prairie. The bottomland forest included
pecan, sugarberry, swamp chestnut, pin oak,
swamp white oak, red maple, silver maple,
catalpa, shellbark hickory, sycamore, and green
ash. The southern swamps and sloughs have
bald cypress, swamp cottonwood, water locust,
pumpkin ash, and overcup oak. The unique
fauna of the region includes cottonmouth,
hieroglyphic turtle, diamondbacked watersnake,
eastern mud turtle, northern copperbelly,
swamp rabbit, harlequin darter, and yellow
crowned night heron.
The Bluegrass natural region is named for its
similarity to the physiography and natural
communities of the Kentucky bluegrass region.
The entire natural region has been covered by
one or more pre-Wisconsin ice sheets but today
only a thin veneer of till is present. The northern
boundary of the region approximates the
southern terminus of the Wisconsin glaciation.
Most of the natural area was forested, although
a few glade, cliff, and barren remnants remain,
as well as non-forested aquatic communities.
The natural area is comprised of three sections,
Scottsburg Lowland, Muscatatuck Flat and
Canyon, and Switzerland Hills Section. Only the
Scottsburg Lowland Section is included in this
discussion of the East Fork of the White River.
The Scottsburg Lowland Section is wide alluvial
and lacustrine plains bordering major streams.
Major soils are acid to neutral silt loams with a
sizeable eolian sand occurring just east of the
East Fork of the White River. No unique
communities or species are known to be
associated with it. Bedrock rarely crops out,
with the major exception being the Falls of the
Ohio. Predominant natural communities are
floodplain forest and swamp. The swamp
community is characterized by the occurrence
of swamp cottonwood, red maple, pin oak, river
birch, green ash, stiff dogwood, and
buttonbush. The slightly better drained
floodplain forest includes sweetgum, swam;
chestnut oak, swamp white oak, American eiw,
black gum, beech, shellbark hickory, and
occasionally pecan. The rare southern pale
green orchid and northern copperbelly, eastern
ribbon snake, are restricted to this area.
Wetland features include swamps, acid seep
springs, low-gradient, silt-bottomed, streams,
rivers and ponds.
The Big River natural region is defined by
aquatic habitat where the average flow is 7000
cfs or greater. This includes the lower White
River to its confluence at the junction with the
East and West Forks. The natural area is based
on the presence of several fish species (lake
sturgeon, shovelnose sturgeon, alligator gar,
shortnose gar, skipjack herring, smallmouth
buffalo, goldeye, mooneye, and blue sucker)
10
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
and several mussel species. The alligator
snapping turtle, hellbender, and riverweed are
also rare species restricted to this area.
Drainage Features
Three major drainage units occur in the White
River drainage of Indiana: the Lower White
River, East Fork White River, and the West Fork
White River drainages.
Lower White River
The Lower White River basin begins at the
junction of the East and West Forks and
consists otherwise of only minor tributaries. The
lower White River drains 31.3% of the State. The
White River flows southwest as a major tributary
of the Wabash River. Minor tributaries include
Lick Creek, Prides Creek, Harbin Conger Creek,
Wilson Creek, Plass Ditch, and Robb Creek. The
minor tributaries fluctuate with seasonal flows.
The lower White River varies dramatically with
baseflow from groundwater and contributions
from the East and West Forks. Average
discharge for the Lower White River,
downstream of the SR 61 bridge, near
Petersburg, is 11,850 cfs with ranges of 573 cfs
during 7 day, 10 year low flow and 183,000 cfs
during 100 year flood periods (Arvin, 1989).
West Fork White River
The West Fork White River drainage is the major
northern segment of the Lower White River
(comprising 5,372 miles2) which joins with the
East Fork White River near Petersburg. The
West Fork White River has been impounded,
and receives a substantial amount of its
streamflow from surface water. The section
immediately above Indianapolis has not been
dredged and probably reflects the resident fish
fauna. The major tributary segments of the West
Fork White River includes: the Eel River, Big
Walnut Creek, White Lick Creek, Eagle Creek,
Fall Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, Cicero Creek,
and Duck Creek. The West Fork White River
occurs in several ecoregions and natural area
sections. The average discharge of the West
Fork White River near Newberry (Greene County
upstream of the SR 57 bridge) is 4,746 cfs with
ranges of 200 cfs during 7 day, 10 year low flow
and 76,900 cfs during 100 year flood periods
(Arvin, 1989).
East Fork White River
The East Fork White River drainage is the major
south-eastern segment of the lower White River
(draining 5,745 miles2) which connects with the
West Fork White River near Petersburg. The
East Fork White River has fewer impoundments,
and receives a substantial amount of its
streamflow from surface water. The River
emanates north-east of Indianapolis and is
formed by the combination of Sugar Creek,
Driftwood River, Flatrock River, and Big Blue
River. The upper portions of the Driftwood River
possess an excellent ichthyofauna comprised of
over 70 species. Major tributary segments of the
East Fork White River include: Lost River, Indian
Creek, Salt River, Muscatatuck River, White
Creek, and Sand Creek. The East Fork White
River occurs in several ecoregions and natural
area sections. The average discharge of the
East Fork White River near Shoals (Martin
County downstream of US HWY50 bridge) is
5,467 cfs with ranges of 64 cfs during 7 day, 10
year low flow and 160,000 cfs during 100 year
flood periods (Arvin, 1989).
Historical White River Data
The White River is considered one of Indiana's
highest quality resources. The White River has
been intensively examined including its
limnology (Bybee and Malott 1914; Denham
1938); wastewater treatment (Calvert 1932,
1933; Crawford and Wangsness 1991);
hydrology (Duwelius 1990); groundwater flow
(Lapham 1981; Arihood and Lapham 1982;
Lapham and Arihood 1984; Duwelius and
Greeman 1989); and nonpoint sources (Martin
and Craig 1990). The aquatic communities of
the White River have been correlated with water
quality (WAPORA1976; Environmental Science
11
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
and Engineering 1987). Anderson et al. (1973)
examined periphyton and macrobenthos
community structure in the vicinity of the
thermal discharge at Petersburg, while Brinley
(1942) examined plankton response to sewage
treatment. The fish community has also been
well studied including distribution (Jordan 1875;
Gerking 1945; Whitaker et al. 1987); recovery
after fish kills (Braun 1988); thermal influence
(Proffittand Benda 1971; Whitaker and
Schlueter 1973; Whitaker et al. 1977; WAPORA
1976; EA Science and Technology 1992); and
the fisheries potential (Christensen 1968).
Additional fisheries studies have concentrated
on the East Fork (Tolentino 1988) and the West
Fork (Pearson 1977; Indiana Power and Light
1977; Kingsley 1983; Braun 1984).
The White River possesses a highly diverse fish
community. Previous studies have documented
a total of 75 species of fish in the White River
basin. The earliest records of Jordan (1877)
suggest the river was abundant with both food
and non-game species. EA Science and
Technology (1992) found 61 species in the
Lower White River, while Whitaker and Schlueter
(1973) collected 75 species. Tolentino and Ball
(1988) collected 48 species in the lower East
Fork White River. Pearson (1978) collected 32
species in the West Fork between Madison and
Randolph Counties while Braun (1984) found 48
species. Gerking (1945) documented only 9
species from the West Fork in Marion County,
Kingsley (1983) collected 54 species, and
Whitaker et al. (1987) found 61 total species.
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sampling
Site Specific
In order to answer the basin-specific questions
and to calibrate an IBI in order to evaluate
ecosystem health, a sufficient number of
samples were required for various drainages. A
total of 53 locations (Fig. 4) were surveyed
during September 1990 and August 1991 in
order to compile the data needed to evaluate
the maximum species richness lines for
calibration of the Index of : iotic Integrity.
Location information for ea^n site is contained
in Appendix E of this report. Since the primary
purpose of this study was to evaluate the water
quality of Indiana using biological methodology,
no further evaluation of site specific data (e.g.
site specific taxonomic species lists) will be
included other than an overall taxa list for each
sub-basin.
To ensure repeat sampling at the exact same
site, all locations are based on latitude and
longitude. Narrative descriptions for mileage are
from the center point rather than the edge of
the nearest town since the boundaries of many
Indiana towns will change, over the next century.
All sites were evaluated based on drainage area,
since this provides a reliable quantification
(Hughes et al. 1986) of stream size. As drainage
area increases, and with it stream order, fewer
locations are available for comparative analysis.
Habitat
The diversity of habitats sampled has a major
effect on data collection. A representative
sample always requires that the entire range of
riffle, run, pool, and extra-channel habitat be
sampled, especially when large rivers are
surveyed. Atypical samples result when
unrepresentative habitats are sampled adjacent
to the sampling site. Species richness near
bridges or near the mouths of tributaries
entering large rivers, lakes, or reservoirs are
more likely to be characteristic of large-order
habitats than the one under consideration
(Fausch et al. 1984).
A general site description of each established
sampling location was conducted using the field
observation procedure of Ohio EPA (1989) and
Rankin (1989). The Quality Habitat Evaluation
Index takes into account important attributes of
the habitat which increases heterogeneity.
Scoring incorporates information on substrate
composition, instream cover, channel
morphology, riparian zone and bank erosion,
12
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Figure 4: White River drainage indicating the location of sampled locations
during 1990 and 1991
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
and pool and rifflequality. Physical/chemical
parameters were recorded for each sample site
to assist in assessing the biological data further:
dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and specific
conductivity. Equipment utilized for physical
water quality analysis was a Hydrolab SVR2-SU
meter following the specifications of the
manufacturer.
Community Analysis
Sample Considerations
Only one electrofishing gear type need be used
at each location (Jung and Libosvarsky 1965;
Ohio EPA 1989). A T&J pulsed-DC generator
capable of 300 volt output was mounted in a
Coleman Sport-canoe. The boat was fished as
the Sport Yak, wading in shallow riffles and
runs, and floated through pools and
unwadeable habitat.
An attempt was made to collect all fish at each
site. Adult and juvenile specimens from each
stream reach were identified to species utilizing
the taxonomic keys of Gerking (1955), Trautman
(1981), and Becker (1983). Cyprinid taxonomy
follows Mayden (1989), canges in species
nomenclature is listed in Appendix E for
comaprability with previous investigations. The
young-of-the-year fish less than 20 mm in length
are not included in Index of Biotic Integrity or
composite totals anal, ..is. Early life stages
exhibit high initial mortality (Simon 1989) and
are difficult to collect with gear designed for
larger fish (Angermeier and Karr 1986). Collect-
ion of fish from this category will be retained for
possible future use in State water monitoring
programs (e.g. ichthyoplankton index (I2)).
The length of stream reach sampled is an
important consideration. Karr et al. (1986)
recommended in larger streams to select
several contiguous riffle-pool sequences rather
than relying on a standard length. When
electrofishing equipment was employed in larger
rivers (i.e. > 1,000 mi2), samples were taken in
units of 0.5 to 1.0 km (Gammon et al. 1981).
The length of the sample reach was long
enough to include all major habitat types.
Distances of 11 to 15 stream widths were
generally adequate to sample two cycles of
habitat (Leopold et al. 1964). Photographs;
township, range, and section numbers; latitude
and longitude; and county locations were
recorded on the data sheet.
Selecting the appropriate time of year for
sampling is critical. Karr et al. (1986) found that
periods of low-to moderate stream flow are
preferred and the relatively variable flow
conditions of early spring and late
autumn/winter should be avoided. Species
richness tends to be higher later in summer due
to the presence of young-of-the-year of rare
species, but this can be avoided if sampling
does not incorporate young-of-the-year species.
Samples of limited area may be less variable in
early summer than comparable samples taken
later in the year. A total of 5% of the total sites
were resampled for precision and accuracy
estimates.
Sample Site Selection
Fish sample sites were selected based upon
several factors:
1). Choosing stream reaches affected by point
source dischargers;
2). Stream use issues (i.e. Lower White River
adjacent Petersburg);
3). Location of physical habitat features (e.g.
dams, changes in geology, changes in
stream order, presence of stream
confluence, etc.);
4). Location of non-point sources of pollution
(e.g. urban areas or obvious farm runoff);
5). Variations in habitat suitability for fish;
6). Atypical habitat not representative of River
reach or basin.
14
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
Whenever possible, sites were located upstream
from pollution sources and adjacent tributaries
(Gammon 1973). Stations were selected from
natural areas, parks (Federal, State, County, and
Local), exceptional designated streams, and
from historical sampling locations whenever
available.
When non-impacted areas were not present,
"least impacted" areas were selected based on
the above criteria. Sites were chosen which
indicated recovery from channelization or
potential non-point source areas, and which had
a suitable riparian buffer on the shoreline. When
a series of point source dischargers were
located on a river, every effort was made to
sample upstream of the discharger present on
the highest upstream, segment, or to search for
areas of recovery between the dischargers
(Krumholz 1946).
When impoundments or other physical habitat
had been installed on the river, sampling was
conducted in the tailwaters of a dam (area
immediately downstream). Tailwaters possess
the greatest resemblance of the lotic habitat. In
areas where sampling could not be
accomplished downstream of the dam due to
lack of access, stream tributary segments were
located upstream of the dam away from the
immediate influence of the pooled portion.
Likewise, bridges were usually sampled on the
upstream side, away from the immediate vicinity
of any structure and any construction effects.
When deviated, habitat was more representative
of the reach downstream.
Fish from each location were identified to
species and enumerated. Smaller and more
difficult to identify taxa were preserved for later
examination and identification in the laboratory.
All fish were examined for the presence of gross
external anomalies. Incidence of these
anomalies was defined as the presence of
externally visible morphological anomalies (i.e.
deformities, erosion, lesions/ulcers) and is
expressed as percent of anomalous fish among
all fish collected. Incidence of occurrence was
computed for each species at each station.
Specific anomalies include: anchor worms;
leeches; pugheadedness; fin rot; Aeromonas
(causes ulcers, lesions, and skin growth, and
formation of pus-producing surface lesions
accompanied by scale erosion); dropsy (puffy
body); swollen eyes; fungus; ich; curved spine;
and swollen-bleeding mandible or opercle.
Hybrid species encountered in the field (e.g.
centrarchids, cyprinids) were recorded on the
data sheet, and ifpossible, potential parental
combinations recorded.
Index of Biotic Integrity
The ambient environmental condition was
evaluated using the Index of Biotic Integrity
(Karr 1981; Karr et al. 1986). This index relies on
multiple parameters (termed "metrics") based on
community concepts, to evaluate a complex
system. It incorporates professional judgement
in a systematic and sound manner, but sets
quantitative criteria that enables determination
of a continuum between poor and excellent
based on species richness and composition,
trophic and reproductive constituents, and fish
abundance and condition. The twelve original
Index of Biotic Integrity metrics reflect insights
from several perspectives and cumulatively are
responsive to changes of relatively small
magnitude, as well as broad ranges of
environmental degradation.
Since the metrics are differentially sensitive to
various perturbations (e.g. siltation or toxic
chemicals), as well as various degrees or levels
of change within the range of integrity,
conditions at a site can be determined with
considerable accuracy. The interpretation of the
index scoring is provided in six narrative
categories that have been tested in Region V
(Karr 1981; Table 1).
Several of the metrics are drainage size
dependent and require calibration to determine
numerical scores (Tables 2-3). The ecoregion
approach developed by USEPA-Corvallis, OR,
15
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Table 1. Attributes of Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) classification, total IBI scores,
and integrity classes from Karret al. (1986).
Total IBI
score
Integrity
Class
Attributes
58-60
48-52
40-44
28-34
12-22
Excellent Comparable to the best situation without human disturbance; all
regionally expected species for the habitat and stream size, including
the most intolerant forms, are present with a full array of age (size)
classes; balance trophic structure.
Good Species richness somewhat below expectations, especially due to the
loss of the most intolerant forms; some species are present with less
than optimal abundances or size distributions; trophic structure shows
some signs of stress.
Fair Signs of additional deterioration include loss of intolerant forms, fewer
species, highly skewed trophic structure (e.g. increasing frequency of
omnivores and other tolerant species); older age classes of top
predators may be rare.
Poor Dominated by omnivores, tolerant forms, and habitat generalists; few
top carnivores; growth rates and condition factors commonly
depressed; hybrids and diseased fish often present.
Very Poor Few fish present, mostly introduced or tolerant forms; hybrids common;
disease, parasites, fin damage, and other anomalies regular.
No fish Repeated sampling finds no fish.
compared "least impacted" zones within the
region (Omernik 1987). Ohio EPA (1987),
modified several of the metrics in order to make
them more sensitive to environmental effects
from their experiences in Ohio and to account
for stream and river size, faunal differences, and
sampling gear selectivity. The current study
utilizes the experiences of the Ohio EPA and
Karr et al. (1986) in adapting an index for
Indiana large and great rivers.
Metrics
In general, the metrics utilized for the current
study are those developed by the State of Ohio
(Ohio EPA 1987) for analysis of surface water
use-attainment. This includes modification of
. several of the original Index of Eiotic Integrity
metrics as proposed by Karr (1981).
Although the methodology and application of
the ecoregional expectations are similar in
approach to Ohio and much of the information
below is taken directly from the Ohio document
(Ohio EPA 1988), a significant difference exists
between the Indiana and Ohio data bases. This
16
-------
Table 2. Index of Biotic Integrity metrics used to evaluate wadable/boatable
large river (< 2,000 miles2 drainage area) sites in the White River
drainage.
Metric
Category
Species
Composition
Metric
Total Number of Species
Number Darter/Sculpin/Madtom Species
Number ofSunfish Species
Number of Round-Bodied Suckers Species
Number Sensitive Species
% Tolerant Species
Scoring Classification
5 3
>23 16-23
>4 2-4
>4 2-4
>4 2-4
>7 4-7
<15% 15-30%
1
> 16 (Fig. 6)
< 2 (Fig. 7)
< 2 (Fig. 9)
< 2 (Fig. 10)
< 4 (Fig. 11)
> 30% (Fig. 12)
Trophic % Omnivores'
Composition .< 2,000 square miles
% Insectivores1
_<.2,000 square miles
Fish
Condition
% Carnivores'
Catch per Unit Effort1
% Simple Lithophils'
% DELT anomalies'
<15% 15-30% > 30% (Fig. 13)
< 65 % 40-65 % > 40 % (Fig. 14)
Varies with drainage area (Fig. 15)
Varies with drainage area (Fig. 16)
Varies with drainage area (Fig. 17)
<0.1% 0.1-1.3% >1.3%(Fig. 18)
1 Special scoring procedures are required when less than 100 individual fish are collected.
difference exists in how the metric expectations
are developed. In Ohio, the ecoregional
reference stations were combined into a single
data set for the entire State, and later
modifications were developed for the Huron-Erie
Lake Plain. In Indiana, "least impacted"
conditions will be developed on a regional
basis, with recognition of basin differences
within ecoregion, based on the natural areas
classification of Homoya et al. (1985). Further
evaluation at the completion of the study will
determine if differential metric treatment is
warranted for basin specific or larger scale
criteria development.
17
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Table 3. Index of Biotic Integrity metrics used to evaluate wadable/boatable
great river (> 2,000 miles2 drainage area) sites in the White River
drainage.
Metric
Category
Species
Composition
Metric
Total Number of Species
% Large River Taxa
Number of Sunfish Species
Number of Round-Bodied Sucker Species
Number of Sensitive Species
% Tolerant Species
Scoring Classification
5 3
>23 16-23
>27% 13-27%
>4 2-4
>4 2-4
>7 4-7
<15% 15-30%
1
> 16 (Fig. 6)
> 13% (Fig. 8)
< 2 (Fig. 9)
< 2 (Fig. 10)
< 4 (Fig. 11)
> 30% (Fig. 12)
Trophic % Omnivores1
Composition > 2,000 square miles
% Insectivores1
> 2,000 square miles
Fish
Condition
% Carnivores'
Catch per Unit Effort
% Simple Lithophils
% DELT anomalies'
< 15 % 15-30 % > 30 % (Fig. 13)
>65% 40-65% > 40% (Fig. 14)
Varies with drainage area (Fig. 15)
Varies with drainage area (Fig. 16)
Varies with drainage area (Fig. 17)
<0.1% 0.1-1.3% >1.3%(Fig. 18)
1 Special scoring procedures are required when less than 100 individual fish are collected.
The Index of Biotic Integrity is sensitive to
differences in collection effort and gear type. In
order to account for these inherent biases,
separate expectations are developed for each of
the two stream classification types utilized in the
current study. Large River sites (<2000 miles2)
were primarily sampled for 500-1000 m using
wading techniques when possible. These sites
were sampled using a sport-yak configuration in
the sport canoe, while larger unwadable great
rivers (> 2000 miles2) were sampled using the
same boat-mounted equipment, but relied less
on wading techniques.
Below is an explanation of each of the twelve
metrics utilized for the calibration of the Indiana
Index of Biotic Integrity for large rivers. Due to
inherent differences at approximately 2000
18
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
miles2 drainage area, different metrics were
necessary to evaluate both large and great
rivers (> 2000 mi2 drainage area). No
differences were observed between the
ecoregions and drainage area for most metrics.
This was anticipated due to the limitations of the
gear type chosen and that large rivers tend to
be integrators of the upstream drainage area.
Maximum species richness lines were drawn
following the procedure of Fausch et al. (1984)
and Ohio EPA (1987). Scatter plot data
diagrams of individual metrics were first
evaluated for basin specific patterns. The
maximum species richness line method
primarily used was the trisection method, with
the exception of the total number of species
metric. This requires the uppermost line to be
drawn so that 95% of the data area lies
beneath. When data from impacted sites was
included and reflected fewer species than "least
impacted sites" the MSR lines were drawn so
trisection accounted for only the unimpacted
sites. The other two lines were then drawn so
the remainder of the area beneath the 95th
percentile line was divided into three equivalent
areas. In situations where no significant
deviation in relationship was observed within the
three basin segments, the segments were
pooled to reflect an ecoregional consensus.
Likewise, if no relationship with increasing
drainage area was observed, the maximum
species richness lines either leveled off at the
point where no additional increases were
exhibited or horizontal plots were
delineated indicating no increase with drainage
area.
The drainage area, where differentiation
between large and great river sites was derived,
was indicated on the graphs by a vertical
dashed line on the MSR line for percent large
river taxa. This relationship was determined by
searching for bimodal patterns in the basin
specific data set plots of species richness. A
sixth order polynomial defined where a
significant bimodal effect was evident for each
of the drainage basins (Fig. 7). The tails of the
data are not significant. However the point
where the data differentiates into two
distinct peaks suggest that the transition
between large and great rivers occurs at
approximately 2,000 miles2 drainage area.
19
-------
\Vhite River Drainage Biocriteria
Metric 1. Total Number of Fish Species (Large and Great Rivers)
Impetus
This metric is utilized for all of the stream
classification types used for calibrating the
Indiana Index of Biotic Integrity for Large and
Great Rivers. Unlike the Ohio metric, exotic
species are included in the total number of taxa.
The premise behind this metric is based on the
observation that the number of fish species
increases directly with environmental complexity
and quality of the aquatic resource (Karr 1981;
Karr et al. 1986). Although the number of exotic
or introduced species may be indicative of a
loss of integrity (Karr et al. 1986; Ohio EPA
1987), the differences between lower levels of
biotic integrity resolution may be due to
colonization of habitats by pioneer or tolerant
taxa which tend to incorporate exotic species.
This single metric is considered to be one of the
most powerful metrics in resolving water
resource issues since a direct correlation exists
between high quality resources and high
numbers of species for warmwater assemblages
(Ohio EPA 1987; Davis and Lubin 1989; Plafkin
et al. 1989; Simon 1991). As total number of
species increases, species become more
specialized and have narrower niche breadths,
numerous higher level interactions occur and
presumably enable greater efficiency in
resource utilization.
The clarification of drainage relationships, i.e.
headwater and wadable Indiana streams in the
Central Corn Belt Plain ecoregion, was made
primarily on the data from this metric. Large
River and wadable streams are differentiated at
1000 miles2 drainage area.
Large and Great Rivers Boat and Wading
Sites
The number of species is not strongly
correlated with drainage area at large or great
river boat and wading sites up to ca. 11,400
miles2. Determining the Index of Biotic Integrity
scoring criteria for this metric did not require the
recognition of sub-basins. Comparison of
maximum species richness lines for the
appropriate basin and drainage area did not
reveal any significant differences between
ecoregion or basin (Fig. 5; large and great river
boat and wading sites).
20
-------
Boating/Wading Sites
Ar\
4-U
W-^rv
QJ JU
O
Ul
Q.
(0
U- on
o
oc
UJ
ffl
•3 4f\
Z 1O
r\
O Lower A East Fork *We
White White Wh
» tfiiiiij i iiiiiii| • i • • « • 1 1 1 i fiijii«|
A
• • • c
• ^v c
: • * A 4 ;
• ^ i
^
• • • A ;
t A^^ :
~w~ ~^P
! A <
•
•
•
• » » • 1 « • 1 1 1 • • • t • • • 1 • • 1 I I I 1 • 1 • i IIIIBll
st Fork
ite
• i iiilil
•
>
5 :
•
^
> 1 :
•
10 10O 1000 1OOOO
DRAINAGE AREA (SQ. Ml)
10000O
Figure 5: Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in total number of
species with increasing drainage area for the White River drainage.
s.
o
-------
White River Drainace Biocriteria
Metric 2. Number of Benthic Insectivore Species (Large River < 2,000 miles2)
Proportion Great River Species (Great River > 2,000 miles2)
Impetus
Karr et al. (1986) indicated that the presence of
members of the tribe Etheostomatini are
indicative of a quality resource. Darters require
high dissolved oxygen concentrations, are
intolerant of toxicants and siltation, and thrive
over clean substrates.
Life history information for all of the 27 Indiana
species indicates darters are insectivorous,
habitat specialists, and sensitive to physical and
chemical environmental disturbances (Page
1983; Kuehne and Harbour 1983). Darters are
excellent indicators of a quality resource,
generally in riffle habitats.
Large River Sites
The darters include the genera: Ammocrvpta.
Crvstallaria. Etheostoma. and Percina. Of the
27 species recorded from Indiana, six are
commonly found throughout the State and are
not restricted to a particular stream size
(Gerking 1945). Fifteen species are confined to
the Ohio River basin; none of the species are
restricted to the Mississippi River basin; and a
single species occurs only in the Great Lakes
drainage (Table 4).
For large river sites, those less than 2,000 miles2
drainage area, this metric also includes
members of the family Cottidae (sculpins) and
Ictaluridae (madtoms; genus Notums). The
sculpins and madtoms are benthic insectivores
and functionally occupy the same type of niche
as darters. Their inclusion enables a greater
degree of sensitivity in evaluating streams that
naturally have fewer darter species. By adding
madtoms and sculpins this metric asymptotes
with increased drainage area (Fig. 7). The
number of benthic insectivores remain static
with increasing drainage area for each of the
three basins. In the West Fork White River
drainage, few darters occurred so this metric
was estimated based on the total number of
species which could be expected rather than
observed during the current study. No
differences inecoregion expectations were
observed between sites in the Interior River
Lowland and Eastern Corn Belt Plain.
Great River Sites
Due to a reduction of quality sites at higher
drainage area categories for the Lower White
River drainage the expected number of darter
species should be reduced. The darter, madtom
and sculpin species were not included in
cumulative scoring for drainage areas greater
than 2,000 miles2 due to inconsistency in
sampling and their patchy distribution in great
rivers. In order to determine quality habitat in
drainage areas greater than 2,000 miles2 a
subsitute metric was selected.
Pflieger (1971) noted that the large rivers of
Missouri possessed a distinctive fish faunal
assemblage that set them apart as a separate
faunal region. Pflieger recognized that
approximately 16% of the Missouri fauna
belonged to this group. He correlated the
distribution of the large river fauna with several
factors controling their distribution. Although
many environmental factors are involved, three
(bottom type, current velocity, and turbidity)
seem to be of fundamental importance.
Significant differences between the turbid
Missouri River and clearer Mississippi River
22
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
Table 4. The distributional characteristics of Indiana darter (Etheostomatini),
madtom (Noturus). and sculpin (Cottus) species.
Species
Distribution in Indiana Drainages
Statewide
Ohio
River
Great
Lakes
Mississippi
River
Ammocrvpta pellucida
A. clara
Crvstallaria asprella
Etheostoma asprigene
E. blennioides
£. caeruleum
E. camurum
£. chlorosoma
E. exile
E. flabellare
E. gracile
E. histrio
E. maculatum
E. microperca'
E. nigrum
E. spectabile
E. sQuamiceps
E. tippecanoe
E. variatum
E. zonale
Percina caprodes
P. copelandi
P. evides
P. maculate
P. phoxocephala
P. sciera
P. shumardi
Noturus eleutherus
N. flavus
N. gvrinus
N. insignis
N. miurus
N. nocturnus
Cottus bairdi
C. carol inae
C. cognatus
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
1 Restricted to northern portions of these drainages.
23
-------
Boating/Wading Sites
UJ
o
UJ
D.
(0
z
Q.
ID
O
i
o
&
<
n>
DARTEI
LL
O
cc
UJ
m
3
4f\
1U
*
O Lower A East Fork •West Fork
White White White
• • • 1 1 • • i| f i . • • • • . | i • i . • . i •! . i..iin| i ii
• • A* 0
• • • A O
• A«» m o
• • t • • • i i fl • • i i • • ft • 1 • • ••••||| ^^ • A .^ | •«§••• l^k •_ • •
1 1O 1OO 1OOO 1OOOO
I lift
•
5
3
1
• • I • •
100
DRAINAGE AREA (SQ. Ml)
< 2000 SQ. MILES
Figure 6: Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in number of
darter/madtom/sculpin species with increasing drainage area for the White River
drainage.
S
5
4
I
w
I
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
Table 5. List of Indiana fish species considered
Fauna (Pflieger, 1971; Gerking, 1945).
to be indicative of a Large River
Common Name
Scientific Name
Silver lamprey
Chestnut lamprey
Lake sturgeon
Shovelnose sturgeon
Paddlefish
Alligator gar
Shortnose gar
Skipjack herring
Threadfin shad
American eel
Mooneye
Goldeye
Silver chub
Gravel chub
Speckled chub
Mississippi Silvery minnow
River chub
Emerald shiner
Silverband shiner
Spottail shiner
Mimic shiner
Channel shiner
Bullhead minnow
Blue sucker
Smallmouth buffalo
Bigmouth buffalo
Black buffalo
Channel catfish
Blue catfish
Flathead catfish
Burbot
White bass
Yellow bass
Sauger
Walleye
Crystal darter
Eastern sand darter
Western sand darter
Channel darter
River darter
Freshwater drum
Ichthvomvzon unicuspis
I. castaneus
Acipenser fulvescens
Scaphrvhncus platorvhncus
Polvodon spathula
Atractosteus spatula
Lepisosteus platostomus
Alosa chrvsochloris
Dorosoma cepedianum
Anguilla rostrata
Hiodon alosoides
Hiodon tergisus
Macrhvbopsis storeriana
Erimvstax x-punctata
Extrarius aestivalis
Hvbognathus nuchalis
Nocomis micropoeon
Notropis atherinoides
N. shumardi
N. hudsonius
N. volucellus
N. wickliffi
Pimephales vigilax
Cvcleptus elongatus
Ictiobus bubalus
I. cyprinellus
I. niger
Ictalurus punctatus
I. furcatus
Pvlodictis olivaris
Lota lota
Morone chrvsops
M. mississippiensis
Stizostedion canadense
S. vitreum
Crvstallaria asprella
Ammocrvpta pellucida
A. clara
Percina copelandi
P. shumardi
Aplodinotus grunniens
25
-------
oc
UJ
E
ui
g
Boating/Wading Sites
O Lower
White
A East Fork
White
West Fork
White
D2000 Sq. miles
Figure 7: Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the r _,
of large river species with increasing drainage area for the White River drainage.
!
I
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
were noted based on the silt load, absence of
rubble bottoms, and flow characteristics. The
reduction in backwater habitat also limits the
presence of reproductive habitat for such
species as gar (Wallus et al., 1990). The number
of large river species increased considerably as
large river stations exceeded 2,000 miles2
drainage area (Fig. 7). The selection of taxa
representative of large river habitat (Table 5)
was based on Pflieger (1971) and Burr and
Warren (1986). The list of species was then
compared with known distributions of Indiana
species (Gerking, 1945).
27
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Metric 3. Number of Sunfish Species (Large and Great Rivers)
Impetus
This metric followed Karr (1981) and Karr et al.
(1986) by including the number of sunfish species
(family Centrarchidae), however the black basses
(Micropterus spp) were included. Unlike the Ohio
metric, the redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus is
included because it is native to Indiana (Table 6).
Hybrid sunfish are not included in this metric
following Ohio EPA (1987).
This metric is an important measure of pool
habitat quality. It includes all members of the
sunfish genera Ambloplites (rock bass),
Centrarchus (round sunfish), Lepomis (sunfish),
and Pomoxis (crappies), as well as, the ecological
equivalent Elassomatidae (Elassoma zonatuml.
Sunfish normally occupy slower moving water
which may act as sinks for the accumulation of
toxins and siltation. This metric measures
degradation of rock substrates (i.e. gravel and
boulder) and instream cover (Pflieger 1975;
Trautman 1981), and the associated aquatic
macroinvertebrate community which are an
important food resource for sunfish (Forbes and
Richardson 1920; Becker 1983). Sunfish are
important components of the aquatic community
since they are wide ranging, and distributed in
most streams and rivers of Indiana. They are also
very susceptible to electrofishing gear. Karr et al.
(1986) found sunfish to occupy the intermediate
to upper ends of sensitivity of the index of biotic
integrity.
Large and Great River Sites
The amount of pool habitat is a limiting factor in
many river reaches which prohibits colonization
by sunfish. This metric did not show any
difference in scoring based on ecoregion or sub-
basin. The number of sunfish species is not
affected by increasing drainage area using boat-
wading methods (Fig. 8).
Table 6. List of Indiana sunfish species
for evaluating quality pool habitat.
Common Name Scientific Name
Rock bass
Flier
Green sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Warmouth
Orangespotted sunfish
Bluegill
Longear sunfish
Redear sunfish
Spotted sunfish
White crappie
Black crappie
Smallmouth bass
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
Ambloplites rupestris
Centrarchus macropterus
Lepomis cvanellus
L. gibbosus
L. gulosus
L. humilis
L.macrochirus
L. rnegajotis
L.microlophus
L. punctatus
Pomoxis annularis
P. nigromaculatus
Micropterus dolomieui
M. punctulatus
M. salmoides
28
-------
10
8 8
5
oc
1°
Ul
0
u.
Ul
m
i 2
0
t
Figure
of Cei
drain;
Boating/Wading Sites
O Lower A East Fork • West Fork
White White White
• • !•••••• • 1 I • 1 P • • I • • I I V • • 1 • • 1 •••»••! • • ••••••
vo <& A, A. O
5. _
o
A 0 3
f*. ^N
• * ••••>•! • • ••••••! • • ••«•••! a ^i^
1
1 10 1OO 1OOO 100OO 100000
DRAINAGE AREA (SQ.MI)
? 8: Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in number
ntrarchids species with increasing drainage area for the White River
age.
Bt
1
1
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Metric 4. Number of Round-Bodied Sucker Species (Large and Great Rivers)
Table 7. Distributional characteristics of
Indiana sucker species (family
Catostomidae).
Impetus
The original Index of Biotic Integrity metrics
included the number of sucker species (Karr
1981; Karr et al. 1986). Suckers represent a
major component of the Indiana fish fauna since
their total biomass usually ranks them among the
highest contributors to the community. Most
sucker species are intolerant to habitat and water
quality degradation (Phillips and Underbill 1971;
Karr et al. 1986; Trautman 1981; Becker 1983)
and this results in sensitivity at the higher end of
environmental quality. Suckers, due to their long
life cycles (10-20 years), provide a long-term
assessment of past environmental conditions. Of
the 19 species extant in Indiana, Lagochila lacera
is considered extinct, seven species are widely
distributed throughout the State (Table 7). Extant
sucker genera include: Cvcleptus. Carpiodes.
Catostomus. Erimvzon. Hvpentelium. Ictiobus.
Minvtrema. and Moxostoma.
Large and Great River Sites
The number of sucker species, with the exception
of the Catostomus commersoni. Ictiobus and
Carpiodes. represent sensitive species intolerant
to thermal, siltation, and toxins stresses. The
redhorses are particularly important indicator
organisms in large rivers. Round-bodied suckers
include members of the genera Cvcleptus.
Hvpentelium. Moxostoma. Minvtrema. and
Erimvzon. These species are effectively sampled
with boat electrofishing gear and comprise a
significant component of large river fish faunas.
Their feeding and reproductive requirements are
indicative of sensitivity to turbidity and marginal to
poor water quality. The number of species were
not significantly different between large and great
rivers; among the two ecoregions or between
sub-basins (Fig. 9).
Species
Large Rare
Statewide Rivers Taxa
Cvcleptus elongatus X X
Carpiodes carpio X X
C. cvprinus X
C. velifer X X
Catostomus catostomus X
C. commersoni X
Erimvzon obloneus X
E. sucetta X
Hvpentelium nigricans X X
Ictiobus bubalus X X
I. cvprinellus X X
I. niger X
Lagochila lacera EXTINCT
Minvtrema melanops X
Moxostoma anisurum X X
M. carinatum X X
M. duquesnei XXX
M. ervthrurum XXX
M. macrolepidotum X X
M. valenciennesi X X
30
-------
Boating/Wading Sites
O Lower
White
1O
g
111
Q
UJ
5 /r
O 6
CD
6
z
o
DC
UJ
CD
A East Fork
White
West Fork
White
A
-aa
10
10O 1000 10OOO 10OOOO
DRAINAGE AREA (SQ. Ml)
Figure 9: Maximum species richness lines for determining trends In number of round-bodied
sucker species with increasing drainage area for the White River drainage.
I
3
I
-------
White River Drainase Biocriteria
Metric 5. Number of Sensitive Species (Large and Great Rivers)
Impetus
The number of sensitive species metric
distinguishes between streams of highest quality.
Designation of too many species as intolerant will
prevent this metric from discriminating among the
highest quality resources. Only species that are
highly intolerant to a variety of disturbances were
included in this metric so it will respond to
diverse types of perturbations (Table 8; see
Appendix A for species-specific information).
The number of intolerant taxa is a modification of
the original index developed by Ohio EPA (1987).
The metric included moderately intolerant species
when sampling at headwater sites. This
combination is called sensitive species since few
intolerant taxa are expected. The moderately
intolerant species meet most of the established
criteria of Ohio EPA (1987). An absence of these
species would indicate a severe anthropogenic
stress or loss of habitat.
The criteria for determining intolerance is based
on the numerical and graphical analysis of Ohio's
regional data base, Gerking's (1945)
documentation of historical changes in the
distribution of Indiana species, and supplemental
information from regional ichthyofaunal texts
(Pflieger 1975; Smith 1979; Trautman 1981;
Becker 1983; Burr and Warren 1986). Intolerant
taxa are those which decline with decreasing
environmental quality and disappear, as viable
populations, when the aquatic environment
degrades to the 'fair"category (Karr et al. 1986).
The intolerant species list was divided into three
categories, all are included in this metric for
scoring:
1). common intolerant species (I): species which
are intolerant, but are widely distributed in the
best streams in Indiana;
2). uncommon or geographically restricted
species (S): species that are infrequently
captured or that have restricted ranges;
3). rare or possibly extirpated species (R):
intolerant species that are rarely captured or
which lack recent status data.
Commonly occurring intolerant species made up
5-10% of the common species in Indiana. This
was a recommended guideline of Karr (1981) and
Karret al. (1986). Although the addition of species
designated as uncommon or rare sensitive
species (categories 2 and 3), inflates the number
of intolerant species above the 10% guideline,
nowhere in the State do all of the species coexist
at the same time. In order to evaluate streams in
the Large and Great river categories, only the
sensitive species metric will be used until further
resolution is possible with the addition of adjacent
ecoregion sampling. Until more sampling is
completed or improvements in water quality
warrant it, the sensitive species metric (Ohio EPA
1987) will be used for all Large and Great river
classifications in Indiana.
Large and Great River Wading and Boat Sites
The expected number of intolerant species was
anticipated to increase with drainage area among
the wading sites, however, such a positive trend
is not evident in White River drainage data (Fig.
10). Intolerant taxa are scarce and may even
decrease at larger wading and boat sites. In order
to provide meaningful stream reach comparisons
in Indiana, the sensitive species metric is currently
retained until further evaluation can be completed.
32
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
Table 8. List of Indiana fish species considered to be sensitive to a wide variety of
environmental disturbances including water quality and habitat degradation.
Sensitive Species
Common Name Scientific Name
Common Name
Scientific Name
Ohio lamprey
Northern brk lamprey
Least brook lamprey
American brk lamprey
Paddlefish
Goldeye
Mooneye
Redside dace
Streamline chub
Gravel chub
Speckled chub
Bigeye chub
Pallid shiner
Rosefin shiner
Hornyhead chub
River chub
Pugnose shiner
Popeye shiner
Bigeye shiner
Ironcolor shiner
Blacknose shiner
Blackchin shiner
Sand shiner
Silver shiner
Rosyface shiner
Weed shiner
Mimic shiner
Pugnose minnow
Longnose dace
Blue sucker
Highfin carpsucker
Northern hogsucker
Silver redhorse
River redhorse
Black redhorse
Golden redhorse
Shorthead redhorse
Greater redhorse
Ichthvomvzon bdellium
I. fossor
Lampetra aepvptera
L. appendix
Polvodon spatula
Hiodon alosoides
H. tergisus
Clinostomus elongatus
Erimvstax dissimilis
E. x-punctata
Extrarius aestivalis
Hvbopsis amblops
H. amnis
Lvthrurus ardens
Nocomis biguttatus
N. micropogon
Notropis anogenus
N_. ariommus
N. boops
N. chalvbaeus
N. heterodon
N. heterolepis
N. ludibundis
N. photogenis
N. rubellus
N. texanus
N. volucellus
Opsopoeodus emiliae
Rhinichthvs cataractae
Cvcleptus elongatus
Caroiodes velifer
Hvpentelium nigricans
Moxostoma anisurum
M. carinatum
M. duquesnei
M. ervthurum
M. macrolepidotum
M. valenciennesi
Mountain madtom
Slender madtom
Stonecat
Brindled madtom
Freckled madtom
Northern cavefish
Southern cavefish
Northern studfish
Starhead topminnow
Brook silverside
Rock bass
Longear sunfish
Smallmouth bass
Western sand darter
Eastern sand darter
Greenside darter
Rainbow darter
Bluebreast darter
Harlequin darter
Spotted darter
Tippecanoe darter
Variegate darter
Banded darter
Logperch
Channel darter
Gilt darter
Slenderhead darter
Dusky darter
Noturus eleutherus
N. exilis
N. flavus
N. miurus
N. noctumus
Amblvopsis spelaea
T. subterraneus
Fundulus catenatus
F. dispar
Labidesthes sicculus
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis megalotis
Micropterus dolomieui
Ammocrvpta clara
A. pellucida
Etheostoma blennioides
E. caeruleum
E. camurum
E. histrio
E. squamiceps
E. tippecanoe
E. variatum
E. zonale
Percina caprodes
P. copelandi
P. evides
P. phoxocephala
P. sciera
33
-------
m
•
: -1
•
(t1*
( )
CO 01
f
•
.
•
• j
.
4
•
> > j
> ;
•
.
9
'
0
ro
o
CD
> (Q
is §
| Q.
(Q
• c/>
^^^ ^^^
If
0 -n
o
x-
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
Metric 6. Percent Abundance of Tolerant Species (Large and Great Rivers)
Impetus
This metric is a modification of the original index
metric, the percentage of green sunfish (Karr et
al. 1986), by Ohio EPA (1987). This metric detects
a decline in stream quality from fair to poor
categories. The green sunfish, Lepomis cvanellus.
is a species that is often present in moderate
numbers in many Midwest streams and can
become a dominant member of the community in
cases of degradation or poor water quality. A
tolerance to disturbed environments enables the
green sunfish to survive and reproduce even
under perturbed conditions. Although the green
sunfish is widely distributed in the Midwest, it is
most commonly collected in low order streams.
This introduces an inherent bias for moderate to
large rivers. Karr et al. (1986) suggested
additional species could be substituted for the
green sunfish if they responded in a similar
manner. Several species in Indiana meet this
criteria of increasing in proportion with increasing
degradation of stream quality. This increase in the
number of tolerant species increases the
sensitivity of this metric for various sized streams
and rivers. Since different species have habitat
requirements that are correlated with stream size,
composition of the tolerant species metric does
not change with drainage area.
Indiana's tolerant species are listed in Table 9.
This list is based on a numerical and graphical
analysis of Indiana catch data and historical
changes in the distribution of fishes throughout
Indiana (Gerking 1945). Tolerant species were
selected based on the following criteria:
1) present at poor or fair sites: Based on our
data base of Indiana collections these species
are commonly collected at sites ranked either
fair or poor.
2) historically increases in abundance: Based on
historical collection information (Gerking 1945)
these species increase in abundance and
have not indicated any reduction in
distribution.
3) increased tolerance to degraded conditions:
these species increased in community
dominance when environmental conditions
shifted from good to fair or poor environmental
quality.
Species listed as tolerant taxa exhibit diverse
tolerance to thermal loadings, siltation, habitat
degradation, and certain toxins (Gammon, 1983;
OEPA, 1987).
Large and Great River Wading and Boat Sites
No relationship was evident for drainage areas
greater than 1000 miles2 (Fig. 11), nor was there
any relationship with ecoregion or sub-basin
apparent for the White River drainage.
35
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Table 9. List of Indiana fish species considered to be highly tolerant to a wide
variety of environmental disturbances including water quality and habitat
degradation for Large River sites hi Indiana.
Tolerant Species
Common Name Scientific Name
Longnose gar
Shortnose gar
Gizzard shad
Central mudminnow
Carp
Goldfish
Red shiner
Golden shiner
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Blacknose dace
Creek chub
River carpsucker
Quillback
Smallmouth buffalo
Bigmouth buffalo
White sucker
Channel catfish
Flathead catfish
Yellow bullhead
Brown bullhead
Eastern banded killifish
Freshwater drum
White bass
Green sunfish
Lepisosteus osseus
L. platostomus
Dorosoma cepedianum
Umbra limi
Cvprinus carpio
Carrasius auratus
Cvprinella lutrensis
Notemiponus crvsoleucas
Pimephales notatus
P. promelas
Rhinichthvs atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Carpiodes cvprinus
C. carpio
Ictiobus bubalus
I. cvprinellus
Catostomus commersoni
Ictalurus punctatus
Pvlodictis olivaris
Amieurus natal is
A. melas
Fundulus diaphanus diaphanus
Aplodinotus grunniens
Morone chrvsops
Leoomis cvanellus
36
-------
1O
8
(/)
LU
o
w ~
ft6
£4
Boating/Wading Sites
O Lower
White
A East Fork
White
West Fork
White
A AA—A-
o
-&•
1
¥
. . .5....
10
10O 1CK)0
DRAINAGE AREA (SQ. Ml)
10OOO
10OOOO
Figure 11: Maximum species richness lines for determining trends In the proportion
of tolerant species with Increasing drainage area for the White River drainage.
19.
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Metric 7. Proportion of Omnivores (Large and Great Rivers)
Impetus
The definition of an carnivore follows that of Karr
(1981) and Karr et al. (1986), which requires
species to take significant quantities of both plant
and animal materials (including detritus) and have
the ability, usually indicated by the presence of a
long gut and dark peritoneum, to utilize both.
Omnivores are species whose diets include at
least 25% plant and 25% animal foods. Fishes
which do not feed on plants but on a variety of
animal material are not considered omnivores.
Dominance of omnivores suggests specific
components of the food base are less reliable,
increasing the success of more opportunistic
species. Specialized filter-feeders are not included
in this metric after Ohio EPA (1987) since these
species are sensitive to environmental
degradation, e.g. paddlefish, Polvodon spathula
and lamprey ammocoetes, Lampetra and
Ichthvomvzon. Species which tended to shift diet
due to degraded environmental conditions were
also not included as omnivores, e.g. Semotilus
atromaculatus and Rhinichthvs atratulus. This
metric evaluates the intermediate to low
categories of environmental quality (Table 10; see
Appendix B for species-specific feeding guild
classification).
Large and Great River Wading and Boat Sites
Due to minor changes in omnivore classification,
only those species which consistently feed as
omnivores were included in our analysis. These
values differ from the omnivore percentages of
Karr et al. (1986) but resemble Ohio EPA's (1987)
classification. No relationship with drainage area
was found for large or great river sites (Fig. 12).
Table 10. List of Indiana fish species
considered to be omnivores.
Omnivores
Common Name Scientific Name
Gizzard shad
Threadfin shad
Central mudminnow
Goldfish
Grass carp
Carp
Cypress minnow
Central silvery minnow
Silver carp
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Bullhead minnow
River carpsucker
Quillback
Highfin carpsucker
White sucker
Dorosoma cepedianum
D. petenense
Umbra limi
Carassius auratus
Ctenopharvngodon idella
Cvprinus carpio
Hvbognathus havi
H. nuchalis
Hvpopthalmichthvs
molitrix
Pimephales notatus
P. promelas
P. vigilax
Carpiodes carpio
C. cvprinus
C. velifer
Catostomus commersoni
38
-------
VO
Boating/Wading Sites
C2 ^^\
^^J^^J
iS 7°
DC 6O
o
z
2 yl/^V
O 4O
30
2O
1
O Lower A East Fork • West Fork
White White White
• • • • i i • • | i • • • • • i • | * • i • • • • • | • • • • i i i • | • • • i • • • ^
* * A Q =
A 8
• O -f :
^± f\ 1
~T •2g% o 3
_jjL •^..^ 5 :
^ «^ H _ "!
• •••••••! • • t • • i t • 1 i ••••^•tl • •>•••*•! • t * * 1 1 'ii1
1O 1OO 100O 10OOO 10O
DRAINAGE AREA (SQ. Ml)
Figure 12: Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the proportion
of omnivores with increasing drainage area for the White River drainage.
I
I.
-------
White River Drainase Biocriteria
Metric 8. Proportion of Insectivores (Large and Great Rivers)
Impetus
The proportion of insect!vores is a modification of
Karr et al.'s (1986) original metric, proportion of
insectivorous cyprinidae. This metric is intended
to respond to a lowering of the benthic
macroinvertebrate community which comprises
the primary food base for most fishes. As
disturbance increases, the diversity of insect
larvae decreases, triggering an increase in the
omnivorous trophic level. Thus, this metric varies
inversely with metric 7 with increased
environmental degradation. The inclusion of all
insectivorous species was based on the
observation that all regions of Indiana do not
possess high proportions of insectivorous
cyprinids in high quality streams. This metric was
recalibrated following the recommendation of Karr
et al. (1986; see Appendix B for species-specific
classification).
Large and Great River Wading and Boat Sites
Insectivorous species designation generally
conforms to that provided in Karr et al. (1986),
however, I concur with Ohio EPA in the
elimination of the opportunistic feeding creek
chub, Semotilus atromaculatus. and blacknose
dace, Rhinichthvs atratulus. from the insectivore
designation. Leonard and Orth (1986) felt that the
current trophic definitions of Karr et al. (1986)
were rather arbitrary since they observed a
negative correlation between insectivores and
biotic integrity in a West Virginia stream. Scoring
criteria indicated no relationship existed between
drainage area and proportion of insectivorous
fishes in either ecoregion or sub-basin in the
White River drainage (Fig. 13).
40
-------
1OO
8O
co 70
ui
£ 6O
§
5O
ui . _
co 4O
^ 3O
2O
1O
Boating/Wading Sites
O Lower
White
•
.
•
;
: •
[
j
;
A East Fork • West Fork
White White
9 !
fi :
• • &*i o 5 i
A • _A_^_
— ^ — — • — " — |p •• ^~**"fr — — —
^ A Q Q •
••^. 8 j
"*" A ° 1 •
till • • ft I ft • • I 1 ft • !•••••! • t ^ I i • ft
10
100 10OO 10OOO 1000OO
DRAINAGE AREA (SQ. Ml)
Figure 13: Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the proportion
of insectivores with increasing drainage area for the White River drainage.
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Metric 9. Proportion of Carnivores (Large and Great Rivers)
Impetus
Karr (1981) developed the carnivore metric to
measure community integrity in the upper trophic
levels of the fish community. It is only in high
quality environments that upper trophic levels are
able to flourish. This metric includes individuals of
species in which the adults are predominantly
piscivores, although some may feed on
invertebrates and fish as larvae or juveniles.
Species which are opportunistic do not fit into
this metric, e.g. creek chub or channel catfish,
Ictalurus punctatus (Karr et al. 1986; Ohio EPA
1987). Karr et al. (1986) suggest that some
members of this group may feed extensively on
crayfish and various vertebrates, e.g. frogs.
Species-specific classifications are included in
Appendix B and include piscivores (P) and
carnivores (C).
Large and Great River Wading and Boat Sites
Karr (1981) suggested that the proportion of
carnivores should be a reflection of drainage area.
Such a correlation in streams greater than 20
miles2 was not found by Ohio EPA or previous
ecoregion studies (Simon, 1991). A drainage area
relationship was observed between the sub-basins
and increasing drainage area in the White River
drainage. The proportion of carnivores from the
current data base was considerably higher than
that approximated in Karr et al.'s (1986) original
numbers (Fig. 14).
42
-------
15
0}
UJ
oc
§
oc
g
1O
Boating/Wading Sites
O Lower
White
A East Fork
White
West Fork
White
ill J ft i III t •_•! I 1 »__!_• till _1 ^*.ft 1 ft • ft ft ft 1^ ft • ft I « ft
1O
1OO 10OO 10OOO 10000O
DRAINAGE AREA (SQ. Ml)
Figure 14: Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the proportion
of carnivores with increasing drainage area for the White River drainage.
i
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Metric 10. Number of Individuals in a Sample (Large and Great Rivers)
Impetus
This metric evaluates populations and is
expressed as catch per unit of effort. Effort is
expressed by relative number of individuals per
length of reach sampled, per unit of area
sampled, or per unit time spent depending on the
gear used. Karr et al. (1986) suggest that this
metric is most sensitive at intermediate to low
ends of the sensitivity continuum. When low
numbers of individuals are observed the normal
trophic relationships are generally disturbed
enough to have severe effects on fish abundance.
Because of this effect, scoring adjustments are
encouraged for large river sites in which less than
100 individuals are collected (see next section for
details). As integrity increases, total abundance
increases and becomes more variable depending
on the level of energy and other natural chemical
factors limiting production. Under certain
circumstances, e.g. channelization, increases in
the abundance of tolerant fishes can be observed
(Ohio EPA 1987). Lyons (1992) and Steedman
(1986) found that abundance, excluding tolerant
species, was highest at fair quality sites and lower
at sites classified as excellent. Our catch per unit
effort was determined based on the total number
of individuals collected per IS times the channel
width without modification for tolerant taxa. The
reach sampled was 500 m if the stream was
< 33 m wide or 1000 m maximum distance if the
stream was > 33 m wide. Each shocking run was
conducted with a standardized effort of 30
minutes of sampling per shoreline in 1000 m
zones and IS minutes per shoreline at 500 m
sites.
Large and Great River Wading and Boat Sites
A drainage area-dependent relationship was
observed for the White River drainage (Fig. 15).
Even at the river reach with the smallest drainage
area a minimum of 100 fish was collected. If
fewer than 100 fish are collected during a
sampling event, alternate scoring procedures are
required (see next section for details).
44
-------
11.
Ill
13
DC
UJ
Q.
1
Boating/Wading Sites
O Lower
White
A East Fork
White
West Fork
White
1O
1OO 1OOO 1OOOO 1OOOOO
DRAINAGE AREA (SQ. Ml)
Figure 15: Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the catch per
unit effort with increasing drainage area for the White River drainage.
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Metric 11. Proportion of Individuals as Simple Lithophilic Spawners (Large and
Great Rivers)
Impetus
This metric is a replacement for the original index
metric, proportion of hybrids (Karret al. 1986), by
Ohio EPA (1987). The hybrid metric was
abandoned since the original intent of the metric
was to assess the extent to which degradation
has altered reproductive isolation among species.
Difficulties of identification, lack of occurrence in
headwater and impacted streams, and presence
in high quality streams among certain taxa, e.g.,
cyprinids and centrarchids, caused a lack of
sensitivity for the hybrid metric.
Spawning guilds have been shown to be affected
by habitat quality (Baton 1975; Berkman and
Rabeni 1987) and have been suggested as an
alternative metric (Angermeier and Karr 1986).
Reproductive attributes of simple spawning
behavior requires clean gravel or cobble for
success (i.e. lithophilous) and are the most
environmentally sensitive (Ohio EPA 1987).
Simple lithophils broadcast eggs which then come
into contact with the substrate. Eggs develop in
the interstitial spaces between sand, gravel, and
cobble substrates without parental care.
Berkman and Rabeni (1987) observed an inverse
correlation between simple lithophilic spawners
and the proportion of silt in streams. Historically,
some simple lithophilic spawners have
experienced significant range reductions due to
increased silt loads in streams. Some simple
lithophils do not require clean substrates for
reproduction. Larvae of these species are
buoyant, adhesive, or possess fast developing
eggs with phototactic larvae which have minimal
contact with the substrate (Balon 1975) and are
not included in the above designation. Simple
lithophils are sensitive to environmental
disturbance, particularly siltation. Designated
lithophilic species are included in Table 11 (see
Appendix C for species-specific ratings).
Large and Great River Wading and Boat Sites
A relationship with drainage area was observed at
large or great river sites for the proportion of
lithophilic species in the White River drainage
(Fig. 16). Scoring was completed using the
trisection method of Fausch et al. (1984). The lack
of an increased relationship in the largest White
River drainage reaches was thought to be a
reflection of degraded condtions. Best
professional judgement was used in evaluating
this metric. Simple lithophils are major
components of fish communities indicating the
importance of clean gravel and cobble substrates.
46
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
Table 11. List of Indiana species considered to be simple lithophilic spawners.
.Simple Lithophils
Common Name
Scientific name
Common Name
Scientific Name
Paddlefish
Lake sturgeon
Shovelnose sturgeon
Redside dace
Lake chub
Streamline chub
Gravel chub
Cent silvery minnow
Mississippi
silvery minnow
Bigeye chub
Pallid shiner
Striped shiner
Rosefin shiner
Popeye shiner
River shiner
Bigeye shiner
Silver shiner
Rosyface shiner
Southn redbelly dace
Blacknose dace
Longnose dace
Blue sucker
Longnose sucker
White sucker
Northern hogsucker
Polvodon spatula
Acipenser fiilvescens
Scaphirhvnchus platorvnchus
Clinostomus elongatus
Couesius plumbeus
Erimvstax dissimilis
E. x-punctate
Hvbognathus havi
H. nuchalis
Hvbopsis amblops
H. amnis
Luxilus chrvsocephalus
Lvthrurus ardens
N. ariommus
N. blennius
N. boops
N. photogenis
N. rubellus
Phoxinus ervthrogaster
Rhinichthvs atratulus
R. cataractae
Cvcleptus elongatus
Catostomus catostomus
C. commersoni
Hvpentilium nigricans
Spotted sucker
Silver redhorse
River redhorse
Black redhorse
Golden redhorse
Shorthead redhorse
Greater redhorse
Burbot
Western sand darter
Eastern sand darter
Rainbow darter
Orangethroat darter
Tippecanoe darter
Variegate darter
Crystal darter
Logperch
Channel darter
Gilt darter
Blackside darter
Slenderhead darter
Dusky darter
River darter
Sauger
Walleye
Minvtrema melanops
Moxostoma anisurum
M. carinatum
M. duquesnei
M. ervthrurum
M. macrolepidotum
M. valenciennesi
Lota lota
Ammocrvpta clara
A. pellucida
Etheostoma caeruleum
E. spectabile
E. tippecanoe
E. variatum
Crvstallaria asprella
Percina caprodes
£. copelandi
P. evides
P. maculate
P. phoxocephala
P. sciera
P. shumardi
Stizostedion canadense
S. vitreum
47
-------
0.
O
LU
CL
5
1OO
9O
80
Boating/Wading Sites
O Lower
White
A East Fork
White
West Fork
White
i • 4 •«•••! ^** ft ft • ••*•!
10
10O 1(X)0 100OO 100OOO
DRAINAGE AREA (SQ. Ml)
2?.
w
I
ta
Figure 16: Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the proportion
of simple lithophil species with increasing drainage area for the White River drainage.
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
Metric 12. Proportion of Individuals with Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions,
and Tumors (Large and Great Rivers)
Impetus
This metric evaluates the status of individual fish
in the community using the percent occurrence of
external anomalies and corresponds to the
percent of diseased fish in Karr's (1981) original
index. Studies of fish populations indicate that
anomalies are either absent or occur at very low
rates naturally, but reach higher percentages at
impacted sites (Mills et al. 1966; Berra and Au
1981; Baumann et al. 1987). Common causes for
deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and tumors are
a result of bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic
infections, neoplastic diseases, and chemicals
(Allison et al. 1977; Post 1983; Ohio EPA 1987).
An increase in the frequency of occurrence of
these anomalies is an indication of stress and
environmental degradation caused by chemical
pollutants, overcrowding, improper diet, excessive
siltation, and other perturbations. The presence of
black spot is not included in the above analyses
since infestation varies in degree and is a function
of the presence of snails, thus it is not solely
related to environmental stress (Allison et al. 1977;
Berra and Au 1981). Whittier et al. (1987) showed
no relationship between Ohio stream quality and
black spot. Other parasites are also excluded due
to the lack of consistent relationship with
environmental degradation.
In Ohio and in the current study, the highest
incidence of deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and
tumors occurred in fish communities downstream
from dischargers of industrial and municipal
wastewater, and areas subjected to the
intermittent stresses from combined sewers and
urban runoff. Leonard and Orth (1986) found this
metric to correspond to increased degradation in
streams in West Virginia. Karr et al. (1986)
observed this metric to be most sensitive at the
lowest extremes of the Index of Biotic Integrity.
Large and Great River Wading and Boat Sites
The scoring criteria used for this metric follows
Ohio EPA (1987) and was developed by analyzing
wading and boat data. For wading sites, the
median score was rounded to the nearest 0.1%
for the highest expected score and 90th percentile
value. According to Ohio protocols, ifa single fish
in a sample of less than 200 fish was captured
with anomalies this would have been enough to
exceed the established criterion. Ohio EPA
scoring modifications enable a single diseased
fish to be present at a site to score a "5"and two
fish at a site to score a "3"when less than 200
individuals are collected (Fig. 17).
49
-------
10
8
6
in
Q
Boating/Wading Sites
O Lower
White
A East Fork
White
West Fork
White
1O
1OO
1OOO
1OOOO
1
5
*
•8
w
1OOOOO
DRAINAGE AREA (SQ. Ml)
Figure 17: Maximum species richness lines for determining trends in the proportion
of diseased, eroded fins, lesions, and tumors (DELT) with increasing drainage area
for the White River drainage.
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
Scoring Modifications
Samples with extremely low numbers in the catch
can present a scoring problem in some of the
proportional metrics unless adjustments are made
to reduce the possibility of rewarding degraded
sites. Aquatic habitats impacted by anthropogenic
disturbances may exhibit a disruption in the food
base and comprise very few individuals. At such
low population sizes the normal structure of the
community is unpredictable (Ohio EPA 1987).
Based on Ohio EPA experiences, the proportion
of omnivores, insectivorous fishes, and percent
individuals affected by anomalies do not always
match expected trends. Although scores are
expected to deviate strongly from those of high
quality areas, this is not always observed. Rather,
at times the opposite metric score is achieved
due to low numbers of individuals or absence of
certain taxa.
Scoring very degraded sites without modifying
scoring criteria for the proportional metrics can
overrate the total index score for these sites. The
following scoring modifications proposed by Ohio
EPA (1987) were adopted for evaluating Indiana
sites with low numbers of individuals.
Proportion of omnivores for large river and great
river sites is assigned a score of " 1" if less than
100 total individuals are collected. When less than
150 individuals are collected, but are dominated
(>50%) by such species as creek chub and
blacknose dace a "1" can be assigned when
dominated by generalist feeders. This is left up to
the biologist's best professional judgement when
at the site.
Proportion of insectivores is scored a "1'when a
high proportion of insectivores is observed and
less than 100 individuals are collected. At sites
with less than ISO individuals, this metric can be
scored "1" if the community was dominated
(>50%)by either striped shiner, common shiner,
or spotfin shiner. These species that can act as
omnivores under certain conditions (Angermeier
1985).
Proportion of top carnivores metric should be
scored a "1 "when dominated by high numbers (>
50%) of grass pickerel in impacted wading areas.
Proportion of simple lithophils always scores a "1"
at sites with less than 100 total individuals. Based
on Ohio EPA data (1987) this is rarely different
from its score without the adjustment.
Proportion of individuals with deformities, erosion.
lesions and tumor anomalies is scored a "1 "when
less than 100 individuals are collected. A high
proportion of young fishes may also be sufficient
reason to score a "1 "since they will not have had
sufficient time to develop anomalies from
exposure to chemical contaminants.
No scoring adjustments are necessary for
proportion of tolerant species. Some professional
discretion is possible when scoring metrics. For
example, if the metric score is within 5% of the
species richness trisection lines, award of an
intermediate value can be made, i.e. a score of 2
or 4.
51
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Lower White River Drainage
Species Composition: A total of 13 sites were
sampled in the Lower White River basin during
1990 and 1991. A total of 61 species were
collected (Table 12) and were numerically
dominated by cyprinid, centrarchid, and ictalurid
species.
The fish assemblages of the Lower White River
ranges from a low of poor (score of 27;
Petersburg site) to fair (score of 44; Giro site)
based on the Index of Biotic Integrity scoring
criteria (Fig. 18a). An increasing trend in biological
condition was observed from the junction of the
East and West Forks to the mouth of the Lower
White Rivers. The Index of Biotic Integrity scores
of the sites approximated a normal curve. The
frequency distribution for each of the IBI
community categories for the Lower White
stations (16) follows: fair 31.3% (5 stations); fair-
poor 37.5% (6 stations); and poor 31.3% (5
stations). The sites which had low index values
were closest to the Petersburg and Ratts
Generating Stations and to a limited extent the
city of Hazelton. The Lower White River 0.5 mi
downstream of Giro had high biotic integrity. This
River segment deserves protection to ensure that
the quality of the resource continues. The
lowermost reaches of the Lower White River were
degraded probably as a result of the Wabash
River near Mt. Carmel, Illinois.
The Lower White River possesses several species
unique to the White River drainage; harlequin
darter Etheostoma histrio. skipjack herring Alosa
chrvsochloris. and redfin shiner Cvprinella
lutrensis. Etheostoma histrio is considered state
endangered based on the single specimen from
the CR 1300S access near lona. This species was
thought to be extirpated from Indiana since it was
last collected 100 years ago by David Starr
Jordan (1890). Species of concern also include
the eastern sand darter, Ammocrypta pellucida.
This species is State listed and was collected
approximately 10 miles downstream of the
junction of the East and West Forks. Alosa
chrvsochloris is a large river species and was
distributed in the lower White immediately
upstream of Hazelton. The species C. lutrensis is
considered tolerant and are known to form hybrid
swarms with C. spiloptera.
Species Trends: Longitudinal trends of IBI and
number of species show increasing scores from
the junction of the East and West Forks of the
White River to the Wabash River (Fig. 18a). The
confluence below the two Forks and at the mouth
of the Wabash River had the lowest biotic
integrity, with the highest biotic integrity 18 River
Miles (RM) downstream of the confluence. Biotic
integrity and number of species in the stretch of
the River below Hazelton were reduced, however,
this was thought to be a function of the bedrock
substrate. The lower most reaches of the Lower
White River were degraded, probably as a result
of the influence of the Wabash River near Mt.
Carmel, Illinois.
The number of species showed a similar pattern
as IBI trends (Fig. 18b). Reduced number of
species was apparent downstream of the
Generating Stations (lowest in the entire Lower
White; 16 species). Maximum number of species
was exhibited approximately 18 RM downstream,
when a second perturbation below Hazelton
caused a further decline in species number. The
lowermost reaches of the Lower White River also
has a significant substrate change from sand to
bedrock downstream of Hazelton. Reduced
biological condition in this area of the River may
be a reflection of reducted habitat complexity.
Another observation was the pattern exhibited by
the CPUE of darters and redhorse (Fig. 19e, f).
Redhorse were completely absent from the Lower
White River with no species occurring until R.M.
1.5. Redhorse are known to be sensitive to
thermal changes (Gammon, 1983), as well as
other perturbations such as siltation and reduced
dissolved oxygen. Darter species were not
commonly found in the Lower White River even
though suitable habitat and other physical
characteristics were present. The number of
darter species oscillated (Fig. 18c) throughout the
Lower White River.
52
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
Table 12. Species list of taxa collected in the White River drainage: East Fork, West
Fork, and Lower White River drainages, Indiana, during sampling hi 1990
and 1991.
Petromyzontiformes-lampreys
Petromvzontidae - lamprey
Ichthvomvzon casteneus Girard, chestnut lamprey
I. unicuspis Hubbs and Trautman, Silver lamprey
Lepisosteiformes - gars
Lepisosteidae - gars
Lepisosteus oculatus Winchell, spotted gar
L. osseus Linnaeus, longnose gar
L. platostomus. shortnose gar
Amiiformes - bowfin
Amiidae -bowfin
Amia calva Linnaeus, bowfin
Anguilliformes
Anguillidae -eel
Anguilla rostrata (Lesueur), American eel
Clupeiformes - herring, shad
Cluepidae - herring
Alosa chrvsochloris (Rafinesque), skipjack herring
Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur), gizzard shad
D. petensese (Gunther), threadfm shad
Osteoglossiformes - mooneyes
Hiodon tergisus Lesueur, mooneye
Sabnoniformes - pike and mudminnows
Esocidae - pikes
Esox americanus Gmelin, grass pickerel
Cypriniformes - carps and minnows
Cvprinidae - carps and minnows
Campostoma anomulum (Rafinesque), stoneroller
Carassius auratus (Linneaus), goldfish
Cvprinella lutrensis (Baird and Girard), red shiner
C. spiloptera Cope, spotfin shiner
C. whipplei (Girard), steelcolor shiner
Cvprinus carpio Linneaus, carp
Ericvmba buccata Cope, silverjaw minnow
Erimvstax dissimilis Kirtland, streamline chub
Extrarius aestivalis Girard, speckled chub
Drainage
East Fork West Fork Lower
White White White
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
53
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Table 12. (Continued).
Drainage
Cyprinidae - minnows (Continued)
Hvbopsis amblops Rafinesque, bigeye chub
Hvboenathus nuchalis Agassiz, Mississippi silvery minnow
Luxilus chrvsocephalus (Rafinesque), striped shiner
Lvthrurus umbratilis (Girard), redfin shiner
Macrhvbopsis storeriana (Kirtland), silver chub
Nocomis microDQgon (Cope), river chub
Notemigonus crvsoleucus (Mitchell), golden shiner
Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque, emerald shiner
N. blennius (Girard), river shiner
N. boops Gilbert, bigeye shiner
N. buchanani Meek, ghost shiner
N. ludibundus Cope, sand shiner
H. photogenis (Cope), silver shiner
N. rubellus (Agassiz), rosyface shiner
N. shumardi (Girard), silverband shiner
N. volucellus (Cope), mimic shiner
N. wickliffi .channel shiner
Qpsopoedus emilie Hay, pugnose minnow
Phenacobius mirabilis (Girard), suckermouth minnow
Pimephales notatus (Rafinesque), bluntnose minnow
P. promelas Rafinesque, fathead minnow
P. vigilax (Baird and Girard), bullhead minnow
Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill),creek chub
Catostomidae - suckers and buffalo
Carpiodes carpio (Rafinesque), river carpsucker
C. cvprinus (Lesueur), quillback
C. velifer (Rafinesque), highfin carpsucker
Catostomus commersoni Lacepede, white sucker
Hvpentelium nigricans (Lesueur), northern hogsucker
Ictiobus bubalus (Rafinesque), smallmouth buffalo
I. cvprinellus (Valenciennes), bigmouth buffalo
Minvtrema melanops (Rafinesque), spotted sucker
Moxostoma anisumm (Rafinesque), silver redhorse
M. carinatum (Cope), river redhorse
M. duquesnei (Lesueur), black redhorse
M. ervthurum (Rafinesque), golden redhorse
M. macrolepidotum (Lesueur), shorthead redhorse
Siluriformes - bullhead and catfish
Ictaluridae - bullhead and catfish
Ameiurus natal is (Lesueur), yellow bullhead
Ictalurus furcatus (Lesueur), blue catfish
I. punctatus (Rafinesque), channel catfish
Noturus flavus Rafinesque, stonecat
East Fork
White
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
West Fork
White
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
Lower
White
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
54
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
Table 12. (Continued)
Ictaluridae - bullhead and catfish (Continued)
N. eleutherus Jordan, mountain madtom
£J . miurus Jordan, brindled madtom
N. noctumus Jordan and Gilbert, freckled madtom
Pylodoctis olivaris (Rafinesque), flathead catfish
East Fork
White
X
X
X
Drainage
West Fork Lower
White White
X X
X
X
X X
Percopsiformes - cavefish, pirate perch, trout-perch
Apherododeridae - pirate perch
Aphredoderus savanus (Gilliams), pirate perch X
Atheriniformes - topminnows, silversides
Fundulidae - topminnows
Fundulus notatus (Rafinesque), blackstripe topminnow XXX
F. olivaceus (Storer), blackspotted topminnow X
Poeciliidae - live-bearing fishes
Gambusia affinis (Baird and Girard), mosquitofish X
Atherinidae - silversides
Labidesthes sicculus (Cope), brook silverside XXX
Perciformes - basses, sunfish, perch, darters
Moronidae - temperate basses
Morone chrvsops (Rafinesque), white bass XXX
M. mississippiensis Jordan and Eigenmann, yellow bass X
Centrarchidae - black bass and sunfish
Ambloplites rupestris (Rafinesque), rock bass X X
Lepomis cvanellus Rafinesque, green sunfish XXX
L. gibbosus (Linnaeus), pumpkinseed X X
L. gulosus (Cuvier), warmouth X X
L.. humilis (Girard), orangespotted sunfish X X
L. macrochirus Rafinesque, bluegill XXX
L. microlophus (Gunther), redear sunfish XXX
L. megalotis (Rafinesque), longear sunfish XXX
L. punctatus (Valenciennes), spotted sunfish X X
Micropterus dolomieui Lacepede, smallmouth bass XXX
M. punculatus Rafinesque, spotted bass X X
M. salmoides (Lacepede), largemouth bass XXX
Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque, white crappie XXX
P. nigromaculatus (Lesueur), black crappie X X
Percidae -perch and darters
Ammocrvpta clara Jordan and Meek, western sand darter X X
A. pellucida Agassiz, eastern sand darter X X
Etheostoma asprigene (Forbes), mud darter XXX
E. blennioides Rafinesque, greenside darter X X
E. caeruleum Storer, rainbow darter X
E. flabellare Rafinesque, fantail darter X
55
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Table 12. (Continued).
Drainage
Percidae - perch and darters (Continued)
£. gracile (Girard), slough darter
£. histrio (Jordan and Gilbert), harlequin darter
E. nigrum Rafinesque, johnny darter
E. spectabile (Agassiz), orangethroat darter
Peroina caprodes (Rafinesque), logperch
P. maculata (Girard), blackside darter
£. phoxocephala (Nelson), slenderhead darter
P_. sciera (Swain), dusky darter
Stizostedion canadense (Smith), sauger
Sciaenidae - drum
Aplodinotus prunniens Rafinesque, freshwater drum
Cottidae - sculpins
Cottus bairdi Girard, mottled sculpin
C. carolinae (Gill), banded sculpin
East Fork West Fork Lower
White White White
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Total Number of Species
81
74
61
101
Population Attributes: Although the Index of Biotic
Integrity has the capacity to evaluate a specific
location, additional site specific measures need to
be examined. Therefore, longitudinal trends were
evaluated based on catch per unit effort (CPUE).
These values were standardized based on time
(60 minutes) within distance (1000 m). Measures
were based on sensitive and tolerant species
trends. The sensitive species measures included
CPUE of darters and redhorse, while tolerant
measures included CPUE of buffalo (Ictiobus
spp.), carpsuckers (Carpiodes spp.), channel
catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). and gizzard shad
(Dorosoma cepedianurri). These species are
expected to increase with perturbations.
An important consideration when evaluating
trends in the Lower White River is to recognize
that virtually no reference sites exist. Even the site
immediately below the confluence of the two
Forks was perturbed and not truly representative
of reference condition. Due to this observation, no
"least impacted" conditions exist for the Lower
White River. None of the stations were considered
excellent or good resource waters.
In the immediate vicinity of the two Generating
Stations, the CPUE of buffalo, carpsuckers, and
gizzard shad all declined with increases in thermal
load. Temperatures in the reach below the
junction of the East and West Forks and SR 61
bridge were greater than S°C above ambient
conditions (Table 13). The CPUE of carpsuckers
and channel catfish increased rapidly within 5 RM
downstream (Fig. 19b, c). The inability of buffalo
and redhorse to colonize this reach may have
been an indirect effect of the thermal loadings
(Fig. 19a, e). Redhorse would not have been able
to tolerate the thermal conditions, while buffalo
may not have been able to compete with the
thermophilic carpsuckers.
Gizzard shad have a preference for warm thermal
discharges were found in high concentrations
above the discharge and in low concentrations
throughout the rest of the Lower White River (Fig.
19d). This suggests that gizzard shad populations
may be forced upstream of the thermal input and
unable to exploit the area beneath the outfalls.
56
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
Community Trends Lower White River
IBIvaluM
60
50
i 30
20
1O
z
B
0 8 16 24 32 4O
A
Number of
4O
3O
20
1°
16 24
RIVER MULES
32
•4O
Numbwof
Outer Sp.
FIGURE 18: Longitudinal community trends in lower
White River subdrainage for IBI and species diversity.
a. IBI values, b. number of species, c. number of darter
species.
Table 13. Thermal and dissolved
oxygen grab profiles from the
junction of the East and West
Forks White River to SR 61
bridge, 1991.
Dissolved Temper-
River Mile1 Oxygen (ppm) ature (°C)
40.0 (Junction)
39.5 (P-I)
39.0 (P-O)
38.5 (R-I)
38.0 (R-O)
37.5 (SR 61)
6.2
6.9
4.7
5.0
5.5
6.9
26.5
26.6
40.8
30.8
38.8
31.7
P = Petersburg GS; R = Ratts GS; I = Influent;
O = Outfall (outside mixing zone).
East Fork White River Drainage
Species Composition: A total of 18 wading and
boat sites were sampled in the East Fork White
River basin during 1990 and 1991. A highly
diverse community of 81 species were collected
(Table 12), and were numerically dominated by
cyprinids, centrarchid, and catostomid species.
The headwaters of the East Fork White River,
including the Driftwood River, were extremely
diverse and composed of cyprinids, darters, and
catostomids. The headwaters of the East Fork
rated the highest biological integrity.
The fish community assemblage of the East Fork
White River drainage ranged from a low of poor-
very poor (score of 25; one station) to good
(score of 51; three stations) based on IBI scoring
criteria (Fig. 20). The biotic integrity of the East
Fork White River varied with increasing drainage
area. Stations above RM212 scored considerably
higher (10 IBI points) than downstream sites. Like
57
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Community Trends Lower White River
Ictlobus
16 24 32 4O
8 16 24 32 4O
B 16 24 32 40
Channrt
Cat»»ti c
16 24
RIVER MILES
16 24
RIVER MILES
FIGURE 19: Longitudinal community trends in lower White River subdralnage catch per unit effort, a. CPUE
buffalo, b. CPUEcarpsucker, c. CPUE channel catfish, d. CPUE gizzard shad, e. CPUE darters, f. CPUE
redhorse.
58
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
East Fork White River
6O
136 174 212 250
Numb* of
4O
136
174
212
250
10
NufflbM* Off
Darter Spectoc
I f\f\
136 174
RIVER MILE
212
25O
Figure 20: Longitudinal community trends In East Fork
White River subdralnage for IBI and species diversity.
a. IBI values, b. number of species, e. number of
darter species.
the Lower White River, the IBI scores of the East
Fork White River drainage approximated a normal
distribution with respect to water quality
classification. The frequency distribution for East
Fork White River stations (18) within each IBI
classification follows: good 16.7 % (3 stations); fair
11.1% (2 stations); fair-poor 50.0% (9 stations);
poor 16.7% (3 stations); poor-very poor 5.6% (1
station). Fish were collected at all sites in the East
Fork White River drainage. Sites which had low
index values were primarily attributed to non-point
sources (e.g., cities). An exceptional stream in the
East Fork White River drainage was the Driftwood
River, a main tributary component of the upper
East Fork White River. Stations sampled in the
Driftwood and upper East Fork White River had
good index of biotic intergity scores for all sites
sampled.
Species unique to the East Fork White River
include silver lamprey Ichthvomvzon unicusois.
chestnut lamprey I. casteneus. mooneye Hiodon
terpsus. grass pickerel Esox americanus.
streamline chub Erimvstax dissimilis. river chub
^foeomjs micropogon. blue catfish Ictalurus
furcatus. stonecat Noturus flavus. pirate perch
Aphredoderus savanus. fantail darter Etheostoma
flabellare. and sauger Stizostedion canadense.
The occurrence of these species in the East Fork
White River suggests these species may have
been reduced or extirpated from the West Fork
and Lower White River drainages.
Species Trends: Longitudinal trends suggest that
the non-point sources including the cities of
Columbus and Seymour have reduced the
biological integrity of the East Fork of the White
River (Fig. 20a). The dam at Williams has also
slightly reduced biological integrity in the area
immediately upstream probably as a result of
reduced flows and Alining dissolved oxygen
levels. The decline in biological integrity in the
lowermost reaches of the East Fork White River
cannot be explained: It should be noted that the
system recovers immediately upstream of the
Generating Stations.
The number of species also paralleled the IBI
longitudinal trend with reductions in species
richness below cities and above dams. A
59
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
East Fork White River
I I
eo
7O
eo
E 60
§
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
depression occurred for a short distance below
Columbus, while Seymour reduced species
richness for a distance of 12.5 RM. The change in
principal substrate from gravel and sand to
primarily sand below Seymour not considered a
primary reason for species reduction.
The number of darter species also was reduced
below the cities and above the dams (Fig. 20c). A
total of 10 species were collected from the East
Fork White River, with 5 commonly being
sympatric. Recovery from perturbations were
observed at the next downstream station in each
case. The reduction in number of darter species
at the junction with the Lower White River was not
anticipated since habitat and other physical
attributes of the location suggested that darters
should have been present
Population Attributes: Population specific
longitudinal trends were examined for CPUE of
sensitive and tolerant species (Fig. 21a-g). The
same species as previously listed were analyzed,
as well as the total number of round-bodied
suckers. As anticipated, the CPUE of tolerant
species were very low (i.e. buffalo, carpsuckers,
channel catfish, and gizzard shad) except for
perturbed areas in the East Fork White River (Fig.
21a-d). Sensitive species such as darters,
redhorse, and round-bodied suckers all exhibited
high CPUE in the East Fork White River except in
perturbed areas (Fig. 21e-g).
West Fork White River Drainage
Species Composition: A total of 18 sites were
sampled in the West Fork White River. A total of
74 species were collected (Table 12) and were
numerically dominated by centrarchid, cyprinid,
and catostomid species.
The fish community assemblage of the West Fork
White River ranged from a low of poor-very poor
(score of 24; one station) to a high of good
(score of 46; one stations) based on IBI
classification criteria (Fig.22a). The biotic integrity
of the West Fork White River varied with
increasing drainage area. Stations below electrical
generating stations scored considerably worse
than upstream sites, with the exception of Perry K
West Fork White River
Number of
180
24O
300
36O
Number of
180 24O
RIVER MILES
300
360
Figure 22: Longitudinal community trends In West Fort
White River subdrainage for IBI and species diversity.
a. IBI values, b. number of species, c. number of darter
species
61
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
West Fork White River
BufMo
Darters
25
A •
A,
V
r '.
i j
f ?
>
! if
1 *
M
«0 12O 16O 24O 30O 36O
120 180 240 300 360
60 120 180 240 300 360
B
4O
E
O1**
eo
12O ISO 24O 3OO
20
Round-
Bodtod Sudan
'
f
\'
5
lr\ j
f\ )
i£
r \ i
v UX V A
6O 12O 180 24O 3OO 36O
18O 24O
RIVER MILE
3OO 360
Figure 23: Longitudinal community trends in West Fork White River subdrainage catch per unit
effort, a. CPUE buffalo, b CPU E carps ucker, c. CPClE channel catfish, d. CPUE gizzard shad, s.
e. CPUE darters, f. CPUE redhoTM, g. CPUE round-bodied suckers.
62
-------
and Stout. The West Fork White Riverdrainage IBI
scores approximated a skewed curve towards
lower water resource quality. Among the 18 West
Fork White River stations 5.6% (1) were classified
as good; 11.1% (2 stations) as fair; 16.7% (3
stations) as fair-poor; 22.2% (4 stations) as poor;
and 33.3% (6 station) as poor-very poor. Fish
were collected at all sites in the West Fork White
River drainage. Sites which had low index values
were downstream of thermal input sources,
nonpoint source impacts, and urban areas. An
exceptional stream segment in the West Fork
White River drainage included the Broad Ripple
(Marion County) reach.
Species unique to the West Fork White River
include speckled chub Extrarius aestivalis. bigeye
chub Notropis boops. ghost shiner N. buchanani.
creek chub Semotilus atfoi^aculatus. white sucker
Catostomus commersoni. rainbow darter
fohenstnma caeruleum. slough darter £. gracile.
logperch Percina caprodes. and banded sculpin
Cottus carolinae. Two of these species, S.
atromaculatus and C. cnmmersnni are considered
tolerant, which coupled with the reduction in
sensitive East Fork White River taxa, indicates
chronic thermal stress.
Population Attributes: Longitudinal trends suggest
that the thermal and non-point sources have
reduced the biological intergity of the West Fork
of the White River (Fig. 22a). The cities of Muncie,
Noblesville, and Fishers reduced the biotic
integrity of the upper West Fork White River. Due
to sample locations, any individual impacts which
may have been present could not be discerned
between the Stout and Perry K Generating
Stations. The Pritchard and Edwardsport
Generating Stations significantly reduced the
biological integrity in the area immediately
downstream. The Pritchard Generating Station
decline was the most significant of the entire
study. It should be noted that the West Fork
White River drainage exhibited declining biotic
integrity immediately upstream of the junction as
a result of the Edwardsport Generating Station.
The number of species also paralleled the IBI
longitudinal trend with reductions in species
richness below urban areas and the Generating
Stations (Fig. 22b). Recovery down river from the
Generating Stations often required distances of 12
to 24 miles. Species richness was depressed for
50 miles below Muncie.
The number of darter species also was reduced
below cities and electric generating stations (Fig.
22c). A total of 9 darter species were collected
from the West Fork with 5 species commonly
being sympatric. Some initial recovery from
perturbations were usually observed at the next
downstream station, with the exception of the
Pritchard and Edwardsport Generating Stations.
Population Attributes: Population specific
longitudinal trends (CPUE) were examined for
sensitive and tolerant species (Fig. 23a-g). The
CPUE of tolerant species was very low (i.e.
buffalo, carpsuckers, channel catfish, and gizzard
shad) except for perturbed areas in the West Fork
White River (Fig. 23a-d). Sensitive species such as
darters, redhorse, and round-bodied suckers all
exhibited high CPUE in the West Fork White River
except in perturbed areas (Fig. 23e-g). Flathead
catfish were virtually absent from the upper West
Fork White River. Increases in this tolerant
species were only observed in the lower 120 RM
of the West Fork.
Reference Sites
Reference sites are localities which best represent
the regional framework under study. Reference
sites define the "reference condition" or "least
impacted" condition which define the Maximum
Species Richness line based on the 95th
percentile. Subsequent recalibration of the
individual IBI metrics can concentrate on these
sites during future monitoring efforts. Few natural
areas remain in the White River drainage. The list
of candidate sites are based on superior Index of
Biotic Integrity scores, typical habitat for the
ecoregion, and professional judgement (Table 14).
The reference sites listed are those which
achieved the highest biotic integrity based on
species composition, trophic and reproductive
guilds, catch per unit effort, and disease factors.
63
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Table 14. Reference sites determined using fish community biotic integrity for
the White River drainage, Indiana.
Lower White River
Drainage
East Fork
White River
Drainage
West Fork
White River
Drainage
Lower White River: Knox County: no bridge access, 4.5 mi upstream lona,
Harrison Twp.,T IN R 9W S 11 (site: 91-214).
Lower White River: Knox County, at CR 1300S Road acess, 1.25 mi SE
lona, Johnson Twp., T IN R 9W S 7 (site 91-215).
Driftwood River: Bartholomew County: at CR 650N bridge, 6.5 mi NW
Columbus, Ninevah Twp., T ION R 5E S 21. long. 86° 58' 22" lat. 39° 17' 24"
(site: 90-259).
Driftwood River: Bartholomew County: at CR 350N bridge, 3 mi NW Columbus,
Columbus Twp., T 9N R 5E S 10 (site: 90-279).
East Fork White River: Bartholomew County: at CR 800S bridge, Azalia, Sand
Creek Twp., T 8N R 6E S 33. long. 85° 51' 37" lat. 39° 05' 06" (site: 90-257).
East Fork White River: Lawrence County: at Palestine Road at B.R. Edwards
property, 1.25 mi SE Bedford, Shawswick Twp.,T4N R IE S 6. long. 86° 27'
33" lat. 38° 48' 26" (site: 90-249).
West Fork White River: Marion County: between Westfield Blvd. and College
Ave. bridges, Broad Ripple, Washington Twp., T 16N R 3E S 1/2.
long. 86° 09' 42" lat. 39° 51' 44" (site: 90-280).
West Fork White River: Randolph County: at SR 32/1 bridge, 1.25 mi S
Farmland, Stony Creek Twp.,T20N R 12E S 19. long. 85° 07' 27" lat. 40° 10' 19"
(site: 90-271).
West Fork White River: Morgan County: at CR 375E bridge, Henderson Ford
Boat Launch, 2.0 mi SE Centerton, Green Twp.,T 12N R 2E S 6/7. long. 86° 21'
20" lat. 39° 29' 58" (site: 90-242).
Predicted vs. Observed Faunas
Based on species thermal tolerances (Brungs
and Jones, 1977; EPRI, 1981; Gammon, 1983) it
is possible to correlate anticipated (predicted)
community composition based on thermal
loadings with actual community composition.
Gammon (1983) examined the ambient thermal
preferences of common Wabash River species
with thermal preferences determined in the
laboratory. Close agreements between the
predicted and observed species thermal
preferences were observed. Minor differences
were attributed to differences in life stage, since
the majority of species specific testing is
conducted with juveniles. The thermal
tolerances of many Indiana species are
unknown, however, a representative portion of
the White River fauna has been studied (Table
15).
Field and laboratory thermal preference studies
64
-------
Indiana Ecorecion
Table 15. Temperature tolerance of White River fish species determined by
laboratory experiments and field observation (EPRI, 1981; Gammon,
1983).
Scientific Name
Lepisosteidae
Lepisosteus oculatus
L. osseus
L. platostomus
Anguillidae
Anguilla rostrata
Clupeidae
Alosa chrvsochloris
Dorosoma cepedianum
D. petenense
Hiodontidae
Hiodon alosoides
H. tergisus
Field Preferred
Low Preferred
30-36
27-35
11.9
27.0
4.2 26-34
22-29
22-29
Temperature" C
Avoidance High
33-35
34.5 33-38
34.5 34-41
35
>30 30.5
30-34 34-38
33-35
_ _
Laboratory
Upper
Preferred
25.3-33.1
—
19-20.5
—
Temperature. "C
Upper Ultimate
Incipient Lethal
38.0
—
28.5-36.5
32-38
-
Esocidae
Esox americanus —
E. lucius 12.9
Cyprinidae
Campostoma anomalum 8.9
Cvprinella lutrensis —
C. spiloptera 2.2
Cvprinus carpio <12.6
Hvbognathus nuchalis —
Notemigonus crvsoleucas 6.7
Notropis atherinoides —
N. photogenis 15.5
N. rubellus 2.8
N. volucellus 4.4
Pimephales notatus 2.8
P. promelas 15.5
P. vigilax 6.0
Rhinichthvs atratulus 10.0
Semotilus atromaculatus 15.6
22.7-23.8 27.2
27.5-35
30-32
26.7-27
28.3-30
<26.7
<27
>34.5
22.0
33.8
34.4
35-42
33-38
35.5-42
30-35
31-42
35
35
35
31.1-35
25.6
37-42
34
34
33.0
26.2-28.8
21.8-25.1
29.4-31.9
32
—
16.8-23.7
6.0-23.0
21-33
39.0
24-36
35.7-40.6
38.0
33-39.5
30.7-37.7
26.0-28.4
26.7-29.3
26.0-28.5
21-33
21-33.3
32.4-34
29.3-31.9
30.3-33
65
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Table 15. Continued.
Field Preferred Temperature0 C
Scientific Name
Catostomidae
Caroiodes carpio
C. cvprinus
C. velifer
Catostomus commersoni
Hvpentelium nigricans
Ictiobus bubalus
Minvtrema melanops
Moxostoma anisurum
M. ervthurum
M. macrolepidotum
Ictaluridae
Ameiurus melas
A. natal is
Ictalurus punctatus
Pvlodictis olivaris
Fundulidae
Fundulus diaphanus
Moronidae
Morone chrvsops
M. mississippiensis
Centrarchidae
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis cvanellus
L. gibbosus
L. macrochirus
L. megalotis
Micropterus dolomieui
M. punctulatus
M. salmoides
Pomoxis annularis
P. nigromaculatus
Percidae
Etheostoma blennioides
E. flabellare
E. nigrum
Low
—
—
—
<10
2.2
—
—
—
11
7
—
—
<11.7
21.7
—
—
_
2.2
20.0
11.9
20.6
—
16.7
20.6
14.8
5.0
16.5
2.8
2.8
20.1
Preferred Avoidance Hich
24-34.5
26-32
—
16-27
26.6-27.7
22-32
25-27
—
22-27.5
22-27.5
—
—
26-35
24-36
-
22-29.5
31-31.5
27.5
—
24.4-31
22-34
—
—
27-28.5
27-29
26-31
23.8-28.3
—
19.4-20
—
>33 33.8-39
- 32.2-34.5
>33 33.9-41
25-27 27.7-30.6
>27.7 35
34-36
_ _
35
28-33
33-35
32.8
32.8
>36 28.5-41
33-36
35 37.8
29 34
34 30-35
30-41
- 32.8-35.6
33-38
- 33-37.8
35
27-35
28-35
31.1
- 26.6-35
35
30.6
28.8
Laboratory Temperature. °C
Upper Upper Ultimate
Preferred Incipient Lethal
—
22.1
—
27.0
26.6-29.8
—
—
_
—
—
—
27.6-28.8
29.0
—
21.0
30.0-32.0
29.0-30.2
28.2
23.8-27.7
30.3-32.3
—
28.0-29.0
30.0-32.0
27.0-32.0
10.4-19.8
20.5-24.6
—
—
35.2-36.5
37.2
—
29.3-30.0
27-33
—
>31.0
_
_
—
35.0-35.7
36.4
35.0-37.8
—
34.5
35.3-36.1
__
30-33
30.3-35.0
35.6-38.1
33.8-39.0
—
27-36.3
33-39
35.5-40.0
>32.8
30.0-34.9
32.2
32.1
31.4
66
-------
Indiana Ecorarion
Table 15. Continued.
Scientific Name
Pertidae (Continued)
Stizostedion canadense
S. vitreum
Cottidae
Cottus bairdi
C. caroliaae
Sciaenidae
Aplodinotus grunniens
Field Preferred Temperature" C
Low Preferred Avoidance High
26-28
15.6
15.6
20
22-30
30 29-33.6
30 27.4-30.6
28.3
23.3
29.4
28-38
Laboratory Temperature. °C
Upper Upper Ultimate
Preferred Incipient Lethal
30.4
31.6->34.4
30.9
31.3
34.0-36.0
were completed during the late 1970's as a part
of the Section 316 demonstrations required by
the Clean Water Act. It was anticipated that
species having a thermal preference for
temperatures below 29°C would disappear from
the vicinity of the mixing zone. Based on the
community composition determined by EA
Science and Technology (1992) and the current
study for the Lower White River, no deviations
were observed between predicted and observed
community response. This substantiates the
premise that the impact observed in the Lower
White River was a result of thermal loading and
was not habitat related. Based on the thermal
model, species present below each of the
generating stations should be comprised of
thermophilic species such as carp, channel
catfish, flathead catfish, carpsucker, and buffalo.
The absence of cooler water (e.g. redhorse,
sauger, walleye, northern pike) species would
be anticipated based on the thermal preferences
of these taxa. The reduction of gizzard shad
between the junction of the East and West
Forks of the White River and the SR 62 bridge
(downstream of Petersburg Generating Station)
may be due to the species upper critical thermal
maximum being exceeded. This may have
resulted in the observed population declines in
the portion of the River downstream of the
Petersburg and Ratts Generating Stations. The
presence of only carp, Mississippi silvery
minnow, and red shiner among the cyprinids,
would be anticipated since these three species
are reported as "tolerant" to high thermal
loadings. The lack of smallmouth bass would be
expected but occurrence of largemouth and
spotted bass was anticipated. The absence of
darters, with the exception of johnny darter, was
expected. However, it is important to note that
no information is available for the thermal
preferences of any species of Percina and
Ammocrvpta. and for many species of
Etheostoma. Further experimentation with these
sensitive species would need to be completed
before thermal sensitivity can be determined.
Gammon (1983) found a similar response with
Wabash River fish (Fig. 24). Based on an intake
control sample, several scenarios were
evaluated based on a model of the rivers
thermal changes along a spatial scale. All cases
assumed instantaneous mixing. Based on
temperature, the changes in community
composition observed after start-up were
attributed to temperature. The initial scenario
(case 1) predicts the thermal regime using
mean river discharge and overall mean monthly
ambient temperatures under maximum thermal
loadings by the generating stations. Case 2
67
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
assumes completely mixed temperatures using
mean river discharge and extreme high mean
monthly temperature. A final case assumes that
the entire flow of the Wabash River passes
through the Generating Station when operating
at maximum capacity. Superimposed on these
cases are the thermal preferences of common
species. Case 1 predicts the temperatures
would exceed the thermal preferences of
redhorses, sauger, walleye, would have their
thermal preferences exceeded for much of the
summer, while the temperatures would exceed
the preferences of smallmoutb bass, goldeye,
mooneye, and Pimephales spp. for a single
month. Other species would not experience
thermal stress. Assuming case 2, all of the
above species would be eliminated, as well as
white crappie, skipjack herring, and shiners, for
perhaps a single month each summer.
Theoretically, the Petersburg and Ratts
Generating Stations can take the entire flow of
the White River during low flow (Q7|IO)
conditions. This does not occur due to permit
constraints on these facilities. However, when
the model developed by Gammon (1983) in
which the entire river flow could be used by
facilities on the Wabash River was applied to
this situation, the predicted species composition
were very similar to what was found.
Finally, changes of the thermal regime of the
White River also influences reproduction,
competition, and trophic dynamics of the
community. These diffuse or direct competitive
interactions cannot be adequately modeled.
However, the lack of recovery of redhorse in the
Lower White River can possibly be attributed to
the competitive edge of carpsuckers once
temperatures have returned to acceptable
ranges.
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
a
75
80
70
60
30
40
30
20
10
0
\
\
\
Spotfin ihlnar
Whlta erappi*
Skipjack herring
Smallmovth ban
flan
pltolai «p.
Goldtyt
Radhorta
Wallow*
woiieya
Saugar
v
\
4\
%v
Vs
\
\
o\
»
*
1
I
\
'\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
'
V
\
\
S\
5 \
N'I
i
i
\
\
\
»
wnita D«
Gtnard •
Drum
Channel
i
lod
catfish
Flathacd catflah
i
"
UA.T. > S3* C
Largamauth bait
BlutgiM
Carp / Gar
t R. carptackar
\
B>ffalefUh
\H !
i * \
i
1
t-i\
*\
\
\
\
\
\
\
V
80 85 90
Tampcratura - *F
95
Figure 24. Ambient temperature of the
middle Wabash River and thermal changes
from heated effluents in relation to the
thermal preferenda of some resident fishes
(after Gammon 1983).
68
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
LITERATURE CITED
Allison, L.N..J.G. Hnath, and W.G.Yoder. 1977.
Manual of common diseases, parasites, and
anomalies of Michigan fishes. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Lansing.
Fisheries Management Report No. 8. 132 pp.
Anderson, M.A.,R.A.Ulrich, and R.L.Reising.
1973. Thermal discharge and its effect on
macroinvertebrates and periphyton in the
Wabash and White Rivers, Indiana. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Indiana
District Office, Evansville, IN. EPA 905/74/001.
Angermeier, P.L. and J.R. Karr. 1986. Applying
an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish
communities: considerations in sampling and
interpretation. N. Am. J. Fish. Man. 6: 418-429.
Arihood, L.D.and W.W.Lapham. 1982. Ground-
water resources of the White River basin,
Delaware County, Indiana. U.S. Geological
Survey, Indianapolis, IN. Water Resources
Investigations 82-47. 69 pp.
Arvin,D.V.1989. Statistical summary of
streamflow data for Indiana. U.S. Geological
Survey, Indianapolis, IN. Open File Report 89-
62. 964 pp.
Balon, E.K. 1975. Reproductive guilds of fishes:
a proposal and definition. J. Fish. Res. Board
Can. 32: 821-864.
Bauman, P.C..W.D. Smith, and W.K.Parland.
1987. Tumor frequencies and contaminant
concentrations in brown bullhead from an
industrialized river and a recreational lake.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 116: 79-86.
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin.
University of Wisconsin Press: Madison. 1052 p.
Berkman, H.E. and C.F. Rabeni. 1987. Effect of
siltation on stream fish communities. Env. Biol.
Fishes 18: 285-294.
Berra, T.M.and R. Au. 1981. Incidence of
teratological fishes from Cedar fork Creek, Ohio.
Ohio J. Sci. 81: 225.
Braun, E.R. 1984. A fisheries investigation of the
West Fork of the White River in Randolph,
Delaware, and Madison Counties. Indiana Dept.
Nat. Resources, Fisheries Section, Division of
Fish and Wildlife.Indianapolis, IN. 54 pp.
Braun, E.R. 1988. Fish population recovery at a
portion of the West Fork of the White River after
a fish kill. Indiana Dept. Nat. Resources,
Fisheries Section, Div. Fish and Wildl.,
Indianapolis, IN. 32 pp.
Brinley, FJ. 1942. The effect of pollution upon
the plankton population of the White River,
Indiana. Inv. Ind. Lakes and Streams 2; 137-142.
Brown, H.W. 1976. Handbook of the effects of
temperature on some North American fishes.
American Electric Power Corporation, Canton,
OH. 524 pp. + appendicies.
Brungs, W.A.and B.R.Jones. 1977.
Temperature Criteria for freshwater fish:
protocol and procedures. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Env. Res. Lab- Duluth, MN.
EPA 600/3-77/061. 130pp.
Burr, B.M.and M.L.Warren, Jr. 1986. A
distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Kentucky
Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and
Technical Series No. 4. Frankfort.
Bybee, H.P.and C.A.Malott. 1914. The flood of
1913 in the lower White River region of Indiana.
Indiana Univ. Bull. 12: 105-223.
Calvert, C.K. 1932. The hourly variation of
Indianapolis sewage. Sewage Works Jour. 4:
815-820.
Calvert, C.K. 1933. Effects of sunlight on
dissolved oxygen in White River. Sewage Works
Jour. 5: 685-694.
69
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Christensen, D. 1968. The distribution of fishes
throughout the White River system and the
effects of various environmental factors upon
the commercial fishery. Indiana Dept. Nat.
Resources, Fisheries Section, Div. Fish and
Wildl.,Indianapolis, IN. 39pp.
Crawford, C.G. and D.J. Wangsness. 1991.
Effects of advanced treatment of municipal
wastewater on the White River near
Indianapolis, Indiana: trends in water quality,
1978-86. U.S. Geological Survey, Indianapolis,
IN. Open File Report 88-335. 40 pp.
Davis, W.S. (ed.) 1990. Proceedings of the 1990
Midwest Pollution Control Biologists Meeting.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
V, Environmental Sciences Division, Chicago, IL.
EPA 905/9-90/005.
Davis, W.S. and A. Lubin. 1989. Statistical
validation of Ohio EPA's invertebrate community
index, p. 23-32. In W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon
(eds). Proceedings of the 1989 Midwest
Pollution Control Biologists Meeting, Chicago,
Illinois. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V.Chicago, IL.EPA905/9-89-007.
Denham, S.C. 1938. A limnological investigation
of the West Fork and common branch of White
River. Inv. Ind. Lakes and Streams 1: 17-71.
Duwelius, R.F. 1990. Water Resources and
hydrologic-information needs, Marion County,
Indiana, 1987. U.S. Geological Survey,
Indianapolis, IN. Open File Report 90-0159. 24
pp.
Duwelius, R.F. and T.K.Greeman. 1989.
Geohydrology, simulation of ground-water flow,
and ground-water quality at two landfills, Marion
County, Indiana. U.S. Geological Survey,
Indianapolis, IN. Water Resources Investigations
Report 89-4100. 135 pp.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology.
1992. Fish studies of the White River in Indiana
near the Frank E. Ratts Power Plant, September
1991. EA Engineering, Science, and
Technology, Deerfield, IL.EA Report 60307.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1981.
Literature review: response of fish to thermal
discharges. EPRI, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. EPRI EEA-1840.
ORN/EIS-193.
Environmental Science and Engineering. 1987.
1986 survey of the communities and water
quality of the lower 200 miles of the West Fork
and main stem White River. ESE, Inc., St. Louis,
MO. 90 pp. + appendicies.
Fausch, K.D..J.R. Karr, and P.R. Yant. 1984.
Regional application of an index of biotic
integrity based on stream-fish communities.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 113: 39-55.
Fausch, K.D..J. Lyons, J.R. Karr, and P.L.
Angermeier. 1990. Fish communities as
indicators of environmental degradation. Am
Fish. Soc. Symposium 8: 123-144.
Fenneman, N.M. 1946. Physical division of the
United States: Washington D.C.,U.S. Geological
Survey Special Map.
Forbes, S.A and R.E. Richardson. 1920. The
fishes of Illinois. (2nd edition). State Natural
History Survey of Illinois 3: 1-357.
Gammon, J.R. 1973. The effects of thermal input
on the populations of fish and macroinverte-
brates in the Wabash River. Purdue University
Water Resources Research Center Tech. Rept.
32. 106 pp.
Gammon, J.R. 1976. The fish populations of the
middle 340 km of the Wabash River. Purdue
Univ. Water Resources Research Center
Technical Report 86. 73 pp.
Gammon, J.R. 1983. Changes in the fish
community of the Wabash River following power
plant start-up: projected and observed, pp. 350-
366. in W.E. Bishop, R.D. Cardwell, and B.B.
Heidolph (eds). Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard
Assessment: Sixth Symposium. ASTMSTP 802.
70
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
Gammon, J.R., A. Spacie, J.L. Hamelink, and
R.L. Kaesler. 1981. Role of electrofishing in
assessing environmental quality of the Wabash
River, p. 307-324. In J.M. Bates and C.I.Weber
(eds.). Ecological Assessments of Effluent
Impacts on Communities of Indigenous Aquatic
Organisms. Am. Soc. Test. Materials, STP 730,
Phil., PA.
Gerking, S.D. 1945. Distribution of the fishes of
Indiana. Inv. Ind. Lakes and Streams 3: 1-137.
Gerking, S.D. 1955. Key to the fishes of Indiana.
Inv. Ind. Lakes and Streams 4: 49-86.
Hocutt, C.H. and E.G. Wiley. 1986.
Zoogeography of North American freshwater
fishes. John Wiley and Sons Press: New York.
Hoggatt, R.E. 1975. Drainage Areas of Indiana
Streams. U.S. Geological Survey, Indianapolis,
IN. 231 pp.
Hokanson, K.E.F.and K.E. Biesinger. 1980. A
national compendium of freshwater fish and
water temperature data Vol. II. Field validation of
freshwater fish temperature requirements. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Env. Res.
Lab. Duluth, MN. 142 pp.
Homoya, M.A..D.B. Abrell, J.R. Aldrich, and
T.W.Post. 1985. The natural regions of Indiana.
Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 94: 245-268.
Hughes, R.M.J.H. Gakstatter, M.A.Shirazi, and
J.M. Omemik. 1982. An approach for
determining biological integrity in flowing
waters, pp. 877-888. In T.B. Braun (ed.). Inplace
resource inventories: principles and practices, a
National Workshop. Soc. Am. Foresters,
Bethesda, MD.
Hughes, R.M.,D.P.Larsen, and J.M. Omernik.
1986. Regional reference sites: a method for
assessing stream pollution. Env. Mgmt. 10: 629-
635.
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM). 1990. Indiana 305(b)
report 1988-89. Indiana Department of
Environmental Management, Indianapolis.
Indianapolis Power and Light. 1977. West Fork
White River (River Mile238.0 to 39.7).
Indianapolis Power and Light Company,
Indianapolis, IN.
Jordan, D.S. 1877. On the fishes of northern
Indiana. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phil. 29: 42-104.
Jordan, D.S. 1890. Report of explorations made
during the summer and autumn of 1888, in the
Allegheny region of Virginia, North Carolina, and
Tennessee, and in western Indiana, with an
account of the fishes found in each of the river
basins of those regions. Bull. U.S. Fish. Comm.
1888, 8:97-173.
Jung, C.O. and J. Libovarsky. 1965. Effect of
size selectivity on population estimates based
on successive removals with electrofishing gear.
Zoologicke Listy 14: 171-178.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment ofbiotic integrity
using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-
neglected aspect of water resource
management. Ecological Applications 1: 66-84.
Karr, J.R. and D.R.Dudley. 1981. Ecological
perspective on water quality goals. Env. Mgmt.
5: 55-68.
Karr, J.R., K.D.Fausch, P.L. Angenneier, P.R.
Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running waters: a method
and its rationale. 111. Nat. Hist. Surv. Sp. Publ. 5.
28pp.
Kingsley, D.G. 1983. Fisheries survey of the
West Fork of White River and tributaries in
Marion County. 1982 stream survey report.
Fisheries Section. Indiana DNR, Division of
Fisheries, Indianapolis, IN. 178 pp.
71
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
Kostka, D.M.,R.K.Cox, and R.C. Steele. 1986.
Fish population analysis near the Cayuga
Generating Station. Public Service of Indiana,
Plainfield, IN. EPW-027.
Krumholz, L. A. 1946. Repopulation of the West
Fork. Outdoor Indiana 13(2): 12.
Kuehne, R.A.and R.W.Barbour. 1983. The
American darters. University of Kentucky Press:
Lexington.
Lapham, W.W. 1981. Ground-water resources of
the White River basin, Madison County, Indiana.
U.S. Geological Survey, Indianapolis, IN. Water
Resources Investigations 81-35. 112 pp.
Lapham, W.W. and L.D.Arihood. 1984. Ground-
water resources of the White River basin,
Randolph County, Indiana. U.S. Geological
Survey, Indianapolis, IN. Water Resources
Investigations Rept. 83-4267. 86 pp.
Larsen, D.P., J.M. Omernik, R.M.Hughes, C.M.
Rohm, T.R.Whittier,A.J. Kinney, A.L.Gallant,
and D.R.Dudley. 1986. Correspondence
between spatial patterns in fish assemblages in
Ohio streams and aquatic ecoregions. Env.
Man. 10: 815-828.
Leonard, P.M. and DJ. Orth. 1986. Application
and testing of an Index of Biotic Integrity in
small, cool water streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
115: 401-414.
Leopold, L.B.,M.G.Woolman, and J.P. Miller.
1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. W.H.
Freeman, San Francisco, CA.
Martin, J.D. and R.A.Craig. 1990. Effects of
storm runoff on water quality in the White River
and Fall Creek, Indianapolis, Indiana, June
through October 1986 and 1987. U.S.
Geological Survey, Indianapolis, IN. Water
Resources Investigations Report 89-4185. 114
pp.
Mayden, R.L. 1989. Phylogenetic studies of
North American minnows, with emphasis on the
genus Cvprinella (Teleostei: Cypriniformes).
Misc. Publ. Univ. Kans. Mus. Nat. Hist. No. 80.
189 pp.
McCormick, J.H.,M.J.Ross, and D.B.Siniff.
1981. Where do yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
go in winter when given the option between ice
covered waters or a heated discharge. Can.
Tech. Rept. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 990: 33-45.
Mills,H.B.,W.C. Starrett, and F.C. Bellrose.
1966. Man's effect on the fish and wildlife of the
Illinois River. Ill.Nat. Hist. Surv. Biol. Notes 57.
27pp.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA).
1987. Water Quality implementation manual. QA
Manual (3rd update). Fish. Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, Columbus.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA).
1987. Biological criteria for the protection of
aquatic life. Volume II. Users Manual for
Biological field assessment of Ohio surface
waters. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
Columbus.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA).
1989. Biological criteria for the protection of
aquatic life: Volume HI. Standardized biological
field sampling and laboratory methods for
assessing fish and macroinvertebrate
communities. Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Columbus.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the
conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc. Am.
Geo. 77:118-125.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L.Gallant. 1988.
Ecoregions of the upper Midwest States.
USEPA, ERL,Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-88/037.
Page, L.M.1983. Handbook of Darters. TFH
Publications, Neptune, NJ.
Pearson, J. 1978. Upper stretches of the White
River, West Fork. Indiana Dept. Nat. Resources,
Fisheries Section, Div.Fish and Wildlife,
Indianapolis, IN. 21 pp.
72
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
Pflieger, W.L. 1971. A distributional study of
Missouri fishes. University Kansas Mus. Nat.
Hist. 20, pp. 225-570, 15 figs. + 193 maps.
Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The Fishes of Missouri. Mo.
Dept. Conserv.: Columbia. 343 pp.
Phillips, G.L. and J.C. Underbill. 1971.
Distribution and variation of the Catostomidae of
Minnesota. Bell Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Minn., Occ.
Pap. No. 10. 45 pp.
Plafkin,J.L.,M.T.Barbour, K.D.Porter, S.K.
Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid
bioassessment protocols for use in streams and
rivers: bentbic macroinvertebrates. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Monitoring
and Data Support Division, Washington, D.C.
EPA 444/4-89-001.
Post, G. 1983. Textbook of fish health. TFH
Publications, Neptune, NJ.
Profitt, M.A.and R.S. Benda. 1971. Growth and
movement of fishes and distribution of
invertebrates related to a heated discharge into
the White River at Petersburg, Indiana. Indiana
University Water Resources Res. Center,
Bloomington, IN. Rept. No. 5. 94 pp.
Raney, E.C.and B.W.Menzel. 1969. Heated
effluents and effects on aquatic life with
emphasis on fishes. Ichthyological Associates
Bulletin No. 2, 468 pp.
Rankin, E.T. 1989. The use of the qualitative
habitat evaluation index for use attainability
studies in streams and rivers in Ohio. Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Division of
Water Quality Planning and Assessments,
Columbus, Ohio.
Seaber, P.R..S.P. Kapinost, and G.L.Knapp.
1984. State hydrologic unit maps. U.S. Geol.
Survey Open-file report. 84-708. 198 pp.
Schneider, A.F. 1966. Physiography, pp. 40-56,
In A.A.Lindsey (ed). Natural Features of
Indiana. Univ. Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame,
IN.
Simon, T.P. 1989. Rationale for a family-level
ichthyoplankton index for use in evaluating
water quality, pp. 41-65 + appendix. In Davis,
W.S. and T.P. Simon. Proceedings of the 1989
Midwest Pollution Control Biologists Meeting,
Chicago, Illinois,February 14-17, 1989. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL.
EPA 905/9-89-007.
Simon, T.P. 1991. Development of Index of
Biotic Integrity expectations for the ecoregions
of Indiana. I. Central Com Belt Plain. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region V,
Chicago, IL. EPA 905/9-91/025.
Simon, T.P.,L.L.Holst, and L.J. Shepard. 1988.
Proceedings of the First National Workshop on
Biological Criteria, Lincolnwood, Illinois,
December 2-4, 1987. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region V.Chicago. EPA
905/9-89/003.
Smith, P.W. 1979. The Fishes of Illinois.
University of Illinois Press: Champaign, IL.
Tolentino, S.A. and R.L.Ball. 1988. Fisheries
survey of the lower East Fork of White River.
Indiana Dept. Nat. Resources, Fisheries Section,
Div.Fish and Wildl.,Indianapolis, IN. 74pp.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. The
Ohio State University Press: Columbus, OH. 782
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). undated.
Indiana State 208 Water Quality Management
Planning Maps. Region IB. U.S. Geological
Survey, Indianapolis, IN.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1990. National
Water Summary. U.S. Geological Survey,
Resnick, VA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1980. Spatial distribution and temperature
selection of fish near the thermal outfall of a
power plant during fall, winter, and spring.
USEPA, Env. Res. Lab.-Duluth, MN. EA 600/3-
80/009.
73
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1988. Standard Operating Procedures for
conducting rapid assessment of ambient
surface water quality using fish. USEPA, Region
V, Central Regional Laboratory, Chicago, IL.
Wallus, R.,T.P.Simon, and B.L.Yeager. 1990.
Reproductive Biology and Early life History
Stages of fishes from the Ohio River drainage.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga,
Tennessee.
WAPORA.1976. The effect of the H.T.Pritchard
generating station thermal effluent on the biota
of the West Fork of the White River. Report to
Indianapolis Power and Light, Indianapolis, IN.
Proj. No. 183E. 312 pp.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr., J.R. Gammon, and D.W.
Kingsley. 1987. Fishes of Marion County,
Indiana. Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 97: 583-597.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr., R.A.Schlueter, and G.A.
Tieben. 1977. Effects of heated water on fish
and invertebrates of White River at Petersburg,
Indiana. Indiana University Water Resources
Res. Center, Bloomington, IN, Rept. No. 8. 198
pp.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. and R.A.Schlueter. 1973.
Effects of heated discharge on fish and
invertebrates of White River at Petersburg,
Indiana. Indiana University Water Resources
Res. Center, Bloomington, IN. Rept. No. 6. 123
pp.
Whittier,T.R.,D.P. Larsen, R.M.Hughes, C.M.
Rohm, A.L.Gallant, and J.M. Omemik. 1987.
The Ohio Stream Regionalization Project: A
compendium of results. USEPA, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
74
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
APPENDICES
A. Adjacent State comparisons of tolerance classifications for computing the Index of Biotic Integrity for
Indiana taxa.
B. Adjacent State comparisons of feeding guilds for computing the Index of Biotic Integrity for Indiana
taxa.
C. Adjacent State comparisons of Reproductive guilds for computing the Index of Biotic Integrity for
Indiana taxa.
D. Site Specific Index of Biotic Integrity scores for each of the stations sampled in the White River
drainage.
E. Fish nomenclature changes for the species of fish occurring within the political boundaries of
Indiana.
75
-------
Appendix A. Adjacent State comparisons of tolerance classifications1 for computing the Index
of Biotic Integrity for Indiana taxa.
Petromyzoptlfotmes-laiiyreys
Petrotnyzontidae - lamprey IN OH IL
Ichthvcmvzon bdellium (Jordan) , Ohio lamprey S S
J. casteneus Girard, chestnut lamprey -
I., fossor Reighard and Cummins, northern brook lamprey S R
JE.. unicuspis Hubbs and Trautman, silver lamprey
Lampetra aeovptera (Abbott), least brook lamprey R
L.. appendix (DeKay) , American brook lamprey R S
Petromvzon marinus Linnaeus, sea lamprey
flClPCTlgftt*l'Fr*TTT>^ff ~ r^iMI ftf \ ffa StUXQBOQS
Polvodontidae - paddlef ish
Polvodon spatula (Walbaum), paddlef ish S S
Acipens'Ti i^a
-------
Urcbridae - nudninnows
IMara limi rKirtland), central mudminnnow
Esocida; - pikes
Esox americanus Gknelin, grass pickerel
E. lucius Linnaeus, northern pike
E. masouinonav Mitchill, muskellunge
Cyprinifbmes - carps and minnows
Cvprinidae - carps and minnows
Campostctna anonulum (Rafinesque), stoneroller
£. oliaolepis Hubbs and Greene, largescale stoneroller - I
Carassius auratus (Linneaus), goldfish T T
Clinostomus elonaatus (Kirtland), redside dace R I
Oouesius plumbeus (Agassiz), lake chub
Ctenopnarvnoodon idella Valenciennes, grass carp T
Cvprinella lutrensis (Baird and Girard), red shiner T
C. spjloptera Oope, spotfin shiner - - I
C. whipplei (Girard), steelcolor shiner -PI
Cvprinus canjio Linneaus, carp T T
Ericvtnba buccata Oope, silverjaw minnow - -
Erimvstax dissimilis Kirtland, streamline chub R R
E. x-punctata Hubbs and Crowe, gravel chub M M
Extrarius aestivalis Girard, speckled chub R S
Hvboanathus havi Jordan, cypress minnow - -
H. nuchal is Agassiz, Mississippi silvery minnow I
Hvbopsis amblops (Rafinesque), bigeye chub III
H. amnis Hubbs and Greene, pallid shiner R I
Hvpophthalmichthvs molitrix Valenciennes, silver carp T
Luxilus chrvsocephalus (Rafinesque), striped shiner
L. cornutus (Mitchell), cannon shiner
Lvthrurus ardens (Oope), rosefin shiner M M
L.. fumeus Evermann, ribbon shiner -
L.. umbratilis (Girard), redfin shiner
MacrhvboDsis storeriana (Kirtland), silver chub
Nocomis biouttatus (Kirtland), homyhead chub I I
N. micropooon (Oope), river chub III
Notemidonus crvsoleucus (Mitchell), golden shiner T T
Notropis anoaenus Forbes, pugnose shiner SSI
N. atherinoides Rafinesgue, emerald shiner
N. ariomus (Oope), popeye shiner S S
N. blennius (Girard), river shiner - I
N. boope Gilbert, bigeye shiner I I
N. buchanani Meek, ghost shiner - -
N. chalvbaeus (Oope), ironcolor shiner I I
N. dorsalis (Agassiz), bigmouth shiner - -
N. heterodon (Oope), blacknose shiner R R I
N. heterolepis Eigenmann and Eigenmann, blackchin shiner SSI
N. hudsonius (Clinton), spottail shiner p P
N. ludibundus Oope, sand shiner M M
N. photcoenis (Oope), silver shiner R I
N. rubellus (Agassiz), rosyface shiner III
N. shumardi (Girard), silverband shiner I
N. texanus (Girard), weed shiner R I
N. volucellus (Oope), mimic shiner III
N. wickliffi. channel shiner I
Qpsopoeodus emiliae Hay, pugnose minnow R R I
Phenacobius mirabilis (Girard), suckermouth minnow
Phoxinus ervthroqaster (Rafinesgue), southern redbelly dace - - I
Pimephales notatus (Rafinesque), bluntnose minnow T T
P. pronelas Rafinesgue, fathead minnow T T
P. viqilax (Baird and Girard), bullhead minnow - - I
Rhinichthvs atratulus Agassiz, blacknose dace T T I
R. cataractae (Valenciennes), longnose dace R R
-------
Seroptilus atrctnaculatus (Mitchill), creek chub
Catostcmidae - suckers and buffalo
Cvclentus elonaatus (Lesueur), blue sucker
Car-Diodes carpio (Rafinesque), river carpsucker
C. cvprinus (Lesueur), quillback
C. velifer (Rafinesque), highfin carpsucker
Catostcmus catostcmus (Forster), longnose sucker
C. cgmersoni Lacepede, white sucker
Erirovzon oblonous (MitchillJ, creek chubsucker
£. sucetta (Lacepede), lake chubsucker
Hvpentelium nioricans (Lesueur), northern hogsucker
Ictiobua bubalus (Rafinesque), smallrrouth buffalo
1. cvprinellus (Valenciennes), bigmouth buffalo
1. nioer (Rafinesque), black buffalo
Minvtretna melanops (Rafinesque), spotted sucker
Moxostoma anisurum (Rafinesque), silver redhorse
M. carinatum (Oppe), river redhorse
M. duouesnei (Lesueur), black redhorse
M. ervthurum (Rafinesque), golden redhorse
M. rtacrolepidotum (Lesueur), shorthead redhorse
M. valenciennesi Jordan, greater redhorse
Silurif ornes - bullhead and catfish
Ictalurjd^e - bullhead and catfish
Atneiurus catus (Linnaeus), white catfish
A. melas (Rafinesque), black bullhead
A. natalis (Lesueur), yellow bullhead
A. nebulosus (Lesueur), brown bullhead
Ictalurus furcatus (Lesueur), blue catfish
I., punctatus (Rafinesque), channel catfish
Noturus eleutherus Jordan, mountain rnadton
N. exilis Nelson, slender madtcrn
N. flavus Rafinesque, stonecat
N. Orvrinus (Mitchill), tadpole madton
N. miurus Jordan, brindled madton
N. nocturnus Jordan and Gilbert, freckled madton
N. Btiojnosus Taylor, northern madton
Pvlodictis olivaris (Rafinesque), flathead catfish
Percopsifozmes - cavefish, pirate perch, trout-perch
Aniblvopsidae — cavefish
flmblvopsis spelaea OeKay, northern cavefish
Tvphalichthvs subterraneus Girard, southern cavefish
Aphrerioderidae - pirate perch
Aphredoderus savanus (Gilliams), pirate perch
Percopsidae - trout-perch
Perropsis cmisconavcus (Walbaum), trout-perch
Gadif omes - cod
Gadidae - cod
Lota lota (Linnaeus), burbot
SL_
T
Atherinif oxmes - topmi
silversides
Fundulidae - topminnows
Fundulus catenatus (Storer), northern studfish
F. diaphanus (Lesueur), banded killifish
F. dispar (Agassiz), northern starhead topminnow
F. notatus (Rafinesque), blackstripe topminnow
Poeciliidae - live-bearing fishes
Gambusia affinis (Baird and Girard), mosquitofish
Atherinidae - silversides
Labidesthes sicculus (Oppe), brook silverside
S
T
M
M
R
R
M
M
R
T
P
P
R
R
I
R
R
R
S
S
R
R
M
I
M I
M
I
I
M
M
R
P
T
T
R
I
I
R
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
M
-------
Oastezostelformes - sticklebacks
Culaea inconstans (Kirtland), brook stickleback
Punaitius punaitius (Linnaeus) , ninespine stickleback
Percifomes - basses, sunfish, perch, darters
Moronidae - temperate basses
Morons chrvsops (Raf inesque) , white bass
M. mississippiensis Jordan and Eigermann, yellow bass
M. saxatilis (Walbaum) , striped bass
Oentrarchidae - black bass and sunfish
Ambloplites rupestris (Raf inesque) , rock bass
Oentrarchus tnacropterus (Lacepede) , flier
Lepcmis cvanellus Raf inesque, green sunfish
Jj. oibbosus (Linnaeus), pumpkinseed
L. oulosus (CXivier), warmouth
£. humilis (Girard), orangespotted sunfish
L.. macrochirus Raf inesque, bluegill
L.. meaalotis (Raf inesque) , longear sunfish
£,. microlophus (Gunther), redear sunfish
L.. punctatus (Valenciennes), spotted sunfish
L.. svmmetricus Forbes, bantam sunfish
Micropterus dolcmieui Lacepede, smallmouth bass
M. punctulatus Raf inesque, spotted bass
M. salmpides (Lacepede), largemouth bass
Pomoxis annularis Raf inesque, white crappie
P. nioranaculatus (Lesueur), black crappie
sunfish
IN OH IL
M
T
P
P
M
M
Elassoma zonatum Jordan, banded pygmy sunfish
Percidae - perch and darters
Annocrvpta clara Jordan and Meek, western sand darter
A. pellucida (Agassiz), eastern sand darter
Etheostctna asprioene (Forbes) , mud darter
E. blennioides (Raf inesque) , greenside darter
E. caeruleum Storer, rainbow darter
E. canurum (Oope), bluebreast darter
E. chlorosotna (Hay), bluntnose darter
E. exile (Girard), Iowa darter
E. flabellare Raf inesque, fantail darter
E. oracile (Girard), slough darter
E. histrio (Jordan and Gilbert), harlequin darter
E. maculatum Kirtland, spotted darter
E. microperca Jordan and Gilbert, least darter
E. niorum Raf inesque, johnny darter
E. spectabile (Agassiz), orangethroat darter
E. squamiceps Jordan, spottail darter
E. tippecanoe Jordan and Evermann, tippecanoe darter
E. variatum Kirtland, variegate darter
E. zonale (Oope), banded darter
Perca flavescens (Mitchill) , yellow perch
Percina caprodes (Raf inesque) , logperch
P. copelandi (Jordan), channel darter
P. evides (Jordan and Oopeland), gilt darter
P. maculata (Girard), blackside darter
P. phoxocephala (Nelson), slenderhead darter
P. sciera (Swain), dusky darter
P. shumardi (Girard), river darter
Stizostedion canadense (Smith), sauger
£. vitreum (Mitchill), walleye
Sciaenjriap - drum
Aplodinotus orunniens Raf inesque, freshwater drum
Oottidae - sculpins
Cottus bairdi Girard, mottled sculpin
R
R
M
M
R
S
R
R
R
I
M
S
R
I
M
T
P
P
M
M
M
M
R
R
R
R
I
I
M
S
S
R
M
-------
_BL__OH
C. carolinae (Gill), banded sculpin -
C. coqnatus Richardson, slimy sculpin
MvoxocephaluB thonosoni (Girard), deepwater sculpin
Hypothetical;
Fundulua olivaceus (Storer), blackspotted topminnow
Hvboanathus hankinsoni Hubbs, brassy minnow
Percina viail Hay, yellow saddleback darter M
Scardinius ervthropthalmus (Linneaus), rudd T
Extirpated;
Alosa alabamae Jordan and Evermann, Alabama shad
OoreoonuB nioripinnis (Gill), blackfin Cisco S
C. reiohardi (Koelz), shortnose Cisco S
Crvstallaria asprella Jordan, crystal darter S S
Esox masouinonav Mitchill, Great Lakes Muskellunge - -
Laoochila lacera Jordan and Brayton, harelip sucker S
Percina uranidea (Jordan and Gilbert), stargazing darter S
^Tolerance Categories; (See text for explanation)
R - Rare Intolerant
S - Special Intolerant
I - Cdcmion Intolerant
M - Moderately Intolerant
T - Highly Tolerant
P - Moderately Tolerant
Tolerance classification moderate
-------
Appendix B. Adjacent State comparisons of feeding guilds1 for computing the Index of Biotic
Integrity for Indiana taxa.
Petronyzontifonnes— laupreys
PeLtmiyzonti^ao - lamprey IN QH IL
Ichthvomvzon bdellium (Jordan) , Ohio lamprey P P
I., casteneus Girard, chestnut lamprey P
I. fossor Reighard and Cummins, northern brook lamprey F F
I.. unicuBPJs Hubbs and Trautnan, silver lamprey P P
Lancetra aeovptera (Abbott) , least brook lamprey F F
L. appendix (OeKay), American brook lamprey F F
Petronyzon marinas Linnaeus, sea lamprey P P
a^p^nc^pj fffrmw — pa'^1afiirhj sturgeons
Polvodontidae - paddlef ish
Polvodon spatula (Walbaum) , paddlef ish F F
Acioenser fulvescens Raf inesque, lake sturgeon V V
seaphirhvnchus platorvnchus (Raf inesque) , shovelnose
sturgeon I I
Lepisosteidae - gars
Atractosteus spatula (Lacepede) , alligator gar P P
Lepisosteus oculatus Winchell, spatted gar P P C
L. osseus Linnaeus, longnose gar P P C
L. platostonus Raf inesque, shortnose gar P P C
- bowf in
Amiidae - bowfin
Amia calva Linnaeus, bowf in P P
AnguillifonoBS - eels
Anouilla rostrata (Lesueur), American eel C C
Clupeifbrmes - herring, shad
Alosa chrvsochloris (Rafinesgue), skipjack herring P P
A. pseudoharenaus (Wilson), alewife F
Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur), gizzard shad O O
D. petenense (Gunther), threadfin shad O O
Osteoglosslfomes - mooneye
Hiodontidae - mooneye
Hiodon alosoides (Rafinesgue), goldeye I I
H. terqisus Lesueur, mooneye I I
Salmnni formes - trout, salmon, whitefish
Salmonidae - salmon and whitefish
Ooreoonus artedii Lesueur, Cisco or lake herring F
C. clupeaformis (Mitchill), lake whitefish V V
C. hovi (Gill), bloater
C. zenithicus (Jordan and Evermann), shortjaw cisco
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss Walbaum, rainbow trout P
O. kisutch (Walbaum), coho salmon P
O. tshawvtscha (Walbaum), Chinook salmon P
Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchell), brook trout P
S. namavcush (Walbaum), lake trout P P
Salmo salar (Walbaum), Atlantic salmon P
S. trutta Linneaus, brown trout P
Osmeridae - smelt
Osmerus mordax (Mitchill), rainbow smelt V -
-------
IN OH IL
- mudrninnows
Urcbra limi (Kirtland), central mudminnnow O I O
Esocidae - pikes
Esox americanus Gknelin, grass pickerel P P C
E. lucius Linnaeus, northern pike P P C
E. masduinonay Mitchill, tnuskellunge P P
Cyprinif oxmes - carps and minnows
Cvprinidae - carps and minnows
Camnostoma ancmalum (Rafinesque), stoneroller H H
C. oliqolepis Hubbs and Greene, largescale stoneroller H
Carassius auratus (Linneaus), goldfish O O O
Clinostomus elonaatus (Kirtland), redside dace I I
Oouesius pluntoeus (Agassiz), lake chub I
Ctenooharvnqodon idella Valenciennes, grass carp O
Cvprinella lutrensis (Baird and Girard), red shiner III
C. spiloptera Cape, spotfin shiner III
C. whipplei (Girard), steelcolor shiner III
Cvprinus carpio Linneaus, carp O O O
Ericvtnba buccata Cope, silverjaw minnow III
Erijwstax dissimilis Kirtland, streamline chub I I
E. x-punctata Hubbs and Crowe, gravel chub I I
Extrarius aestivalis Girard, speckled chub I I
Hvboanathus havi Jordan, cypress minnow O
H. nuchal is Agassiz, Mississippi silvery minnow O
Hvbopsis amblops (Rafinesque), bigeye chub I I
H. amnis Hubbs and Greene, pallid shiner I
Hvpophthalmichthvs molitrix Valenciennes, silver carp O
Luxilus chrvsocephalus (Rafinesque), striped shiner III
L. cornutus (Mitchell), common shiner III
Lvthrurus ardens (Cope), rosefin shiner I I
L. fumeus Evermann, ribbon shiner I
L. umbratilis (Girard), redfin shiner III
Macrhvbopsis storeriana (Kirtland), silver chub I I
Noconis biouttatus (Kirtland), hornyhead chub III
N. micropoqon (Cope), river chub I I
Notemiqonus crvsoleucus (Mitchell), golden shiner I I O
Notropis anoqenus Forbes, pugnose shiner I I
N. atherinoides Rafinesque, emerald shiner III
N. arionnus (Oope), popeye shiner I I
N. blennius (Girard), river shiner III
N. boons Gilbert, bigeye shiner I I
N. buchanani Meek, ghost shiner I I
N. chalvbaeus (Oope), ironcolor shiner I I
N. dorsalis (Agassiz), bigroouth shiner I I O
N. heterodon (Cope), blacknose shiner III
N. heterolepis Eigenmann and Eigenmann, blackchin shiner I I O
N. hudsonius (Clinton), spottail shiner III
N. ludibundus Cope, sand shiner III
N. photooenis (Cope), silver shiner I I
N. rubellus (Agassiz), rosyface shiner III
N. texanus (Girard), weed shiner I
N. volucellus (Cope), mimic shiner I I O
N. wickliffi. channel shiner I
Qpsopoeodus emiliae Hay, pugnose minnow III
Phenacobius mirabilis (Girard), suckermouth minnow III
Phoxinus ervthroaaster (Rafinesque), southern redbelly dace H H
Pimephales notatus (Rafinesque), bluntnose minnow O O O
P. prcmelas Rafinesque, fathead minnow O O O
P. viailax (Baird and Girard), bullhead minnow O O O
Rhinichthvs atratulus Agassiz, blacknose dace G G O
R. cataractae (Valenciennes), longnose dace I I
Senotilus atrcmaculatus (Mitchill), creek chub G G I
-------
- suckers and buffalo
Cvcleptus elonoatus (Lesueur), blue sucker
Carpiodes carpio (Rafinesque), river carpsucker
C. cvnrinus (Lesueur), quillback
C. velifer (Rafinesque), highfin carpsucker
Catostomus catostcmus (Forster), longnose sucker
C. commersoni Lacepede, white sucker
Erimyzon oblonous (Mitchill), creek chubsucker
E. sucetta (Lacepede), lake chubsucker
Hvpsntelium nioricans (Lesueur), northern hogsucker
Ictiobus bubalus (Rafinesque), smallmouth buffalo
1. cyprinellus (Valenciennes), bigmouth buffalo
J. nioer (Rafinesque), black buffalo
Minvtrema melanops (Raf inesque), spotted sucker
Moxostcma anisurum (Rafinesque), silver redhorse
M. carinatum (Cope), river redhorse
M- duquesnei (Lesueur), black redhorse
M.. ervthururo (Rafinesque), golden redhorse
M. macrolepidotum (Lesueur), shorthead redhorse
M. valenciennesi Jordan, greater redhorse
Silurifbones - bullhead and catfish
Ictaluridae - bullhead and catfish
Ameirus catus (Linnaeus), white catfish
A. melas (Rafinesque), black bullhead
A. natalis (Lesueur), yellow bullhead
A. nebulosus (Lesueur), brown bullhead
Ictalurus furcatus (Lesueur), blue catfish
I. punctatus (Rafinesque), channel catfish
Noturus eleutherus Jordan, mountain madtcm
N. exilis Nelson, slender madtcm
N. flavus Rafinesque, stonecat
N. ovrinus (Mitchill), tadpole madtom
N. miurus Jordan, brindled madtcm
N. nocturnus Jordan and Gilbert, freckled madtom
N. Btianosus Taylor, northern madtcm
Pvlodictis olivaris (Rafinesque), flathead catfish
Percopsiformes - cavefish, pirate perch, trout-perch
AmblvopBidae - cavefish
Amblvopsis spelaea DeKay, northern cavefish
Tvphalichthvs subterraneus Girard, southern cavefish
Apherododeridae - pirate perch
Aphredoderus savanus (Gilliams), pirate perch
Percopsidae - trout-perch
Percopsis omisccmavcus (Walbaum), trout-perch
Gadif ormes - cod
Gadidae - cod
Lota lota (Linnaeus), burbot
Atheriniformes - topnimmws, silversides
Fundulidae - topminnows
Fundulus catenatus (Storer), northern studfish
F. diaphanus (Lesueur), banded killifish
F. dispar (Agassiz), northern starhead topmnnow
F. notatus (Rafinesque), blackstripe topmnnow
Poeciliidae - live-bearing fishes
Gambusia affinis (Baird and Girard), mosquitofish
Atherinidae - silversides
Labidesthes sicculus (Cope), brook silverside
IN OH
I
O
o
O
I
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
p
G
G
I
I
I
O
o
o
I
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
p
o
o
o
o
I
I
-------
GastarosteifoxMS - stickleback*
Gaaterosteidae - sticklebacks
Culaea inconstans (Kirtland), brook stickleback
Punaitius punaitius (Linnaeus), ninespine stickleback
PercifoxMS - basses, sunfish, perch, darters
Maronidae - temperate basses
Morone chrvsopB (Rafinesque), white bass
M. p^ nni aaj.PDiensi8 Jordan and Eigenmarm, yellow bass
JJ. saxatilis (Walbaum), striped bass
OentrarcH'*'"* - black bass and sunfish
flmbloplites ruuestris (Rafinesque), rock bass
Oentrarchus macropterus (Lacepede), flier
Lepcmis cvanellus Raf inesque, green sunfish
It. aibbosuB (Linnaeus), pumpkinseed
oulosus (Cuvier), warmouth
humilis (Girard), orangespt
id sunfish
_ macrochiruB Raf inesque, bluegill
Jj. meaalotis (Rafinesque), longear sunfish
L.. microlophus (Gunther), redear sunfish
L. punctatus (Valenciennes), spotted sunfish
Micropterus dolcmieui Lacepede, smallraouth bass
M.. punctulatus Raf inesque, spotted bass
JJ. salmoides (Lacepede), largenouth bass
Pcmoxis annularis Rafinesque, white crappie
£. niorotnaculatus (Lesueur), black crappie
Elassomatidae - pygmy sunfish
Elassona zonatum Jordan, banded pygmy sunfish
Percidae - perch and darters
Ammocrvpta clara Jordan and Meek, western sand darter
A. pellucida (Agassiz), eastern sand darter
Etheostoma asprioene (Forbes), mud darter
£. blennioides (Rafinesque), greenside darter
E. caeruleum Storer, rainbow darter
E. camurum (Cope), bluebreast darter
E. chlorosoma (Hay), bluntnose darter
£. exile (Girard), Iowa darter
E. flabellare Rafinesque, fantail darter
E. oracile (Girard), slough darter
E. histrio (Jordan and Gilbert), harlequin darter
E. kennicotti (Putnam), stripetail darter
E. maculatum Kirtland, spotted darter
E. micropBrca Jordan and Gilbert, least darter
E' niorum Rafinesque, johnny darter
E. spectabile (Agassiz), orangethroat darter
E. sauamicepB Jordan, spottail darter
E. tippecanoe Jordan and Evermann, tippecanoe darter
E. variatum Kirtland, variegate darter
E. zonale (Cope), banded darter
Perca flavescens (Mitchill), yellow perch
Percina canrodes (Rafinesque), logperch
P. copBlandi (Jordan), channel darter
P. evides (Jordan and Oopeland), gilt darter
£. maculata (Girard), blackside darter
£. phoxooBphala (Nelson), slenderhead darter
£. sciera (Swain), dusky darter
£. shumardi (Girard), river darter
Stizostedion canyfr*""** (Smith), sauger
S. vitreum (Mitchill), walleye
Aplodinotus orunniens Rafinesque, freshwater drum
Oottidae - sculpins
Oottus bairdi Girard, mottled sculpin
I
I
P
P
P
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
P
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
P
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-------
P* -SB
C. carolinae (GUI), banded sculpin I
C. coonatus Richardson, sliiny sculpin - -
thanoeoni (Girard) , deepwater sculpin - -
Hypothetical;
Fundulus olivaceus (Storer) , blackspottad topminnow I
Hvboanathua hankinaoni Hubbs, brassy minnow O
Percina vigil Hay, yellow saddleback HaTt-or- i
gnarri^niua cryt-hnophha 1 miB (LinneauS), mdd O
Extirpated;
Alosa alabamae Jordan and Evermann, Alabama shad
Ooreoonus nioripinnis (Gill) , blackf in Cisco
C. reiohardi (Koelz), shortnose Cisco
Crvstallaria asprella Jordan, crystal darter I S
Eeox roasoAiinonav Hitchill, Great Lakes Muskellunge P P
Laoochila lacera Jordan and Brayton, harelip sucker
Lepotnis svninetricus Forbes, bantam sunfish I
Percina uranidea (Jordan and Gilbert) , stargazing darter I
(See text for explanation)
P - Piscivore
F - Filter Feeder
V - Invertivore
I - Specialist Insectivore
O - Omivore
G - Generalist
H ~ Herbivore
C - Carnivore
-- Functional Feeding Guild behaviorally plastic
-------
Appendix C. Adjacent State comparisons of reproductive guilds for computing the Index of
Biotic Integrity for Indiana taxa.
Petranyzontiformes-lainpreys
Petrcmvzontidae - lamprey IN OH IL2
Ichthvorwzon bdellium (Jordan) , Ohio lamprey N N
I., casteneus Girard, chestnut lamprey N
I. fossor Reighard and Cummins, northern brook lamprey N N
I., unicuspis Hubbs and Trautman, silver lamprey N N
Lampetra aepvptera (Abbott), least brook lamprey N N
L. appendix (DeKay), American brook lamprey N N
Petrcmvzon marinus Linnaeus, sea lamprey N N
AcipenserifonnBS - paddlefish, sturgeons
Polvodonti'^ao - paddlefish
Polvodon spatula (Walbaum) , paddlefish S S
AcJpenseridae - sturgeon
Acipenser fulvescens Raf inesque, lake sturgeon S S
Scaphirhvnchus platorvnchus (Raf inesque) , shovelnose
sturgeon S S
Lepisostcif omes — gars
Lepisosteidae - gars
Atractosteus spatula (Lacepede) , alligator gar M M
Lepisosteus oculatus Winchell, spotted gar M M
L.. osseus Linnaeus, longnose gar M M
L. Platostomus Raf inesque, shortnose gar M H
Amiif onnes - bowf in
Amiidae - bowf in
Amia calva Linnaeus, bcwfin C C
Anguillifonnes - eels
— eel
Anouilla rostrata (Lesueur) , American eel
Clupeifoxmes - herring, shad
Clupeidae - herring
Alosa chrvsochloris (Raf inesque) , skipjack herring M M
A. pseudoharenous (Wilson), alewife M M
Dorosona cepedianum (Lesueur) , gizzard shad M M
D. petenense (Gunther), threadfin shad M M
Osteoglossiformes - mooneye
Hiodontidae - mooneye
Hiodon aloaoides (Raf inesque) , goldeye M M
H. teroisus Lesueur, mooneye M M
Salmonifoones - trout, salmon, wbitefish
Saimonidae - salmon and whitef ish
Coreoonus artedii Lesueur, cisco or lake herring M M
C. clupeaformis (Mitchill), lake whitef ish M M
C. hoyi (Gill), bloater M
C. zenithicus (Jordan and Evermann) , short jaw cisco M
Oncorhvnchus mykiss Walbaum, rainbow trout N N
O. kisutch (Walbaum), coho salmon N N
O. tshawvtscha (Walbaum) , Chinook salmon N N
Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchell), brook trout N N
§. namavcush (Walbaum), lake trout N N
Salno salar (Walbaum) , Atlantic salmon N
S. trutta Linneaus, brown trout N N
Oaneridae - smelt
Osmerus mordax (Mitchill), rainbow snelt M M
-------
IL
Urcbridae - mudminnows
Unbra limi (Kirtland), central mudminnnow
Esocidae - pikes
Esox americanus Qrtelin, grass pickerel M M
E. lucius Linnaeus, northern pike M M
E. maaouinoncrv Mitchill, nuskellunge M M
Cyprinifbmes ~ carps and minnows
Cvprinidae - carps and minnows
Campostona anomulum (Rafinesque), stoneroller N N
C. olioolepis Hubbs and Greene, largescale stoneroller N
Carassius auratus (Linneaus), goldfish M M
ClinostotnuB elonoatus (Kirtland), redside dace S S
Oouesius plumbeus (Agassiz), lake chub S
Ctenopharvnopdon idella Valenciennes, grass carp M
Cvorinella lutrensis (Baird and Girard), red shiner N N
C. spiloptera Cope, spotfin shiner M M
C. whjpplei (Girard), steelcolor shiner M M
Cvorinus caroio Linneaus, carp M M
Ericvmba buccata Oope, silverjaw minnow M M
Eriinvstax dissimilis Kirtland, streamline chub S S
E. x-punctata Hubbs and Crowe, gravel chub S S
Extrarius aestivalis Girard, speckled chub M M
Hvboonathus havi Jordan, cypress minnow M
H. nuchalis Agassiz, Mississippi silvery minnow S
Hyfaopsis amblops (Rafinesque), bigeye chub S S
H. amnis Hubbs and Greene, pallid shiner S
Hvpophthalmichtnvs molitrix Valenciennes, silver carp M
Luxilus chrvBocephalus (Rafinesque), striped shiner S S
L. cornutus (Mitchell), caiman shiner S S
Lvthrurus ardens (Oope), rosefin shiner S S
L.. fumeus Evermann, ribbon shiner M
L.. umbratilis (Girard), redfin shiner N N
Macrhvbopsis storeriana (Kirtland), silver chub M M
Nocomis biouttatus (Kirtland), homyhead chub N N
£. micropoaon (Oope), river chub N N
Notemiaonus crvsoleucus (Mitchell), golden shiner M M
Notropis anoaenus Forbes, pugnose shiner M M
N. atherinoides Rafinesque, emerald shiner M M
N. ariommus (Oope), popeye shiner S S
N. blennius (Girard), river shiner S S
N. boops Gilbert, bigeye shiner S S
N. buchanani Meek, ghost shiner M M
N. chalvbaeus (Oope), ironcolor shiner M
N. dorsalis (Agassiz), bigmouth shiner M M
N. heterodon (Oope), blacknose shiner M M
N. heteroleois Eigenmann and Eigenmann, blackchin shiner M M
N. hudsonius (Clinton), spottail shiner M M
N. ludibundus Oope, sand shiner M M
N. photocienis (Oope), silver shiner S S
N. rubellus (Agassiz), rosyface shiner S S
N. shumardi (Girard), silverband shiner S
N. texanus (Girard), weed shiner M
N. volucellus (Oope), mimic shiner M M
N. wickliffi. channel shiner M
QpeopoBodus emiliae Hay, pugnose minnow M M
Phenacobius mirabilis (Girard), suckermouth minnow S S
Phoxinus ervthrooaster (Rafinesque), southern redbelly dace S S
Pimephales notatus (Rafinesque), bluntnose minnow C C
P. prcmelas Rafinesque, fathead minnow C C
P. vioilax (Baird and Girard), bullhead minnow C C
Rhinichthvs atratulus Agassiz, blacknose dace S S
R. cataractae (Valenciennes), longnose dace S S
-------
IN OH _n-_
Serotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill), creek chub N N
Catostcmidae - suckers and buffalo
Cvcleptua elonaatus (Lesueur) , blue sucker S S
Carpiodes carpio (Raf inesque) , river carpeucker M M
C. cvnrinus (Lesueur), quillback M M
£• velifer (Raf inesgue) , highfin carpeucker M M
Catostomus catostottus (Forster) , longnose sucker S S
C. ccntnersoni Lacepede, white sucker S S
Erimyzon oblonous (Mitchill), creek chubsucker M H
£. sucetta (Lacepede), lake chubsucker M H
Hvpentelium nioricans (Lesueur) , northern hogsucker S S
Ictiobus bubalus (Raf inesque) , smallmouth buffalo M M
I. cvprinellus (Valenciennes) , bigrcouth buffalo M M
I. nioer (Raf inesgue) , black buffalo H M
Minvtrena melanops (Raf inesgue) , spotted sucker S S
MoxoBtoma anisurum (Raf inesque) , silver redhorse S S
M. carinatum (Cope), river redhorse S S
M. duouesnei (Lesueur), black redhorse S S
M.. ervthurum (Raf inesgue) , golden redhorse S S
H. macrolepidotum (Lesueur), shorthead redhorse S S
M. valenciennesi Jordan, greater redhorse S S
Silurif omiBS - bullhead and catfish
Ic*~g 1 "i*i'j*ig> ~ bullhead and catfish
Ameiurus catus (Linnaeus), white catfish C C
A. melas (Raf inesgue) , black bullhead C C
A. natalis (Lesueur) , yellow bullhead C C
A. nebulosus (Lesueur), brown bullhead C C
Ictalurus furcatus (Lesueur) , blue catfish C C
I. punctatus (Raf inesgue) , channel catfish C C
Noturus eleutherus Jordan, mountain madton C C
N. exilis Nelson, slender tnadtom C
fi. flavus Raf inesgue, stonecat C C
N. ovrinus (Mitchill), tadpole madton C C
N. miurus Jordan, brindled madton C C
N. nocturnus Jordan and Gilbert, freckled tnadton C
N. stionosus Taylor, northern madton C C
Pvlodictis olivaris (Raf inesque) , f lathead catfish C C
Percopsifoxmes - cavefish, pirate perch, trout-perch
— cavefish
Aflblvopsis spelaea DeKay, northern cavefish C
Tvphalichthvs subterraneus Girard, southern cavefish C
Aphredoderidae - pirate perch
Aphredoderus savanus (Gilliams) , pirate perch M M
Percopsirtee — trout-^jerch
Percopsis oniscanavcus (Walbaum) , trout-perch M M
Gadidae - cod
Lota lota (Linnaeus) , burbot S S
Atberiniformes — topninnows/ silversides
Fundulidae - topmnnows
Fundulus catenatus (Storer) , northern studfish M
F. diaphanus (Lesueur), banded killifish M M
F. dispar (Agassiz), northern starhead topminnow M
F. notatus (Raf inesque) , blackstripe topmnnow M M
Poeciliidae - live-bearing fishes
Gambusia affinis (Baird and Girard) , mosquitofish N N
— silversides
Labidesthes sicculus (Cope) , brook silverside M M
-------
Gasterosteirlap - sticklebacks
Culaea inconstans (Kirtland) , brook stickleback C C
Ponaitius punaitius (Linnaeus) , ninespine stickleback C
PercifbxBBS - basses, sunfish, perch, darter*
Moronidae - temperate basses
Morone chrvsopB (Raf inesque) , white bass M M
M. mississippiensis Jordan and Eigenmaim, yellow bass M
M. saxatilis (Walbaun) , striped bass M M
— black *»«» and sunf ish
flmbloplites rupestris (Raf inesque) , rock bass C C
Oentrarchus macropterus (Lacepede) , flier C
Lepomis cvanellus Raf inesque, green sunf ish C C
L. oibbosus (Linnaeus), pumpkinseed C C
L. Qulosus (Cuvier), warmouth C C
L.. bumilis (Girard), orangespotted sunf ish C c
L_. macrochirus Rafinesque, bluegill C C
L. meaalotis (Rafinesque), longear sunf ish C C
It. microlophus (Gunther), redear sunf ish C C
L.. punctatus (Valenciennes), spotted sunf ish C
Microoterus dolomieui Lacepede, smallmouth bass C C
M. punctulatus Rafinesque, spotted bass C C
M. salmoides (Lacepede) , largetnouth bass C C
Ponoxis annular is Rafinesque, white crappie C C
P. ninranaculatus (Lesueur), black crappie C C
Elassomatidae - pygmy sunf ish
Elassoma zonatum Jordan, banded pygmy sunf ish C
Percidae - perch and darters
aimocrvuLa clara Jordan and Maek, western sand darter S
A. pellucida (Agassiz), eastern sand darter S S
Etheostcma asprioene (Forbes) , mud darter M
£. blennioidee (Rafinesque), greenside darter M S
E. caeruleum Storer, rainbow darter S S
E. camurum (Oope), bluebreast darter S S
E. chlorosoma (Hay), bluntnose darter M
E. exile (Girard), Iowa n»»-»-or M M
E. flabellare Rafinesque, fantail Har+or- c C
E. oracile (Girard), slough darter N
E. histrio (Jordan and Gilbert), harlequin darter M
E_. kennicotti (Putnam), stripetail darter C
E. maculatum Kirtland, spotted Harlot- S S
E. microperca Jordan and Gilbert, least *»r+m- N N
E. niorum Raf inesque, johnny Har4w C C
E. spectabile (Agassiz), orangethroat Hai-t-or- s S
E. SQuamiceps Jordan, spottail rfar*"*»r C
E. tippecanoe Jordan and Evennann, tippecanoe darter S S
E. variatum Kirtland, variegate darter S S
E. zonale (Oope), banded <*«i-tw M S
Perca flavescens (Mitchill) , yellow perch M M
Percina caprcdes (Rafinesque) , logperch S S
P. copelandi (Jordan), channel A*r+air s S
P. evides (Jordan and Oopeland), gilt darter S S
P. maculata (Girard), blackside darter S S
P. phoxocephala (Nelson), slenderhead darter S S
P. sciera (Swain), dusky darter S S
P. shutnardi (Girard), river darter S S
Stizostedion canadense (Smith) , sauger S S
S. vitreum (Mitchill), walleye S S
Sciaenidae - drum
Aplodinotus orunniens Rafinesque, freshwater drum M M
Oottictae - sculpins
Cottus bairdi Girard, mottled sculpin C C
-------
OH JO*..
C. carolinae (Gill), banded sculpin
C. coonatus Richardson/ slimy sculpin
Mvoxocephalus thornpeoni (Girard), deepwater sculpin
Hypothetical;
Fundulus olivaceuB (Storer), blackspotted topminnow N
Hvboanathus hankinsoni Hubbs, brassy minnow -
Percina vigil Hay, yellow saddleback darter S
fi/^arrtfflius ervthropthaljnus (Linneaus), rudd M
Extirpated;
Alosa alabamae Jordan and Evermann, Alabama shad N
Coreoonus nioripirmis (Gill), blackfin Cisco N
£• reiohardi (Koelz), shortnose Cisco N
Crvstallaria asprella Jordan, crystal darter S S
EBOX masauinonov Mitchill, Great Lakes Muskellunge M M
Laojochila lacera Jordan and Brayton, harelip sucker
Lepomis svnroBtricus Forbes, bantam sunfish C
Percina nt-an
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
Appendix D. Site Specific Index of Biotic Integrity scores for each of the stations sampled in the White
River drainage.
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-230 Drainage Area: 11,295 mi2 Date: DC: 5:90
Site: IN: Knox/Gibson Co: White River, at SR 56, Hazelton, Decker Twp. T IN R 10W S 29.
Long: 87° 32' 45" Lat: 35° 30' 06".
ACTUAL IBI
METRIC OBSERVATION SCORE
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES 21 3
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA 51.2 % 5
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES 3 3
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES 0 1
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES 1 1
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES 2.4% 5
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES 47.2% 1
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES 49.2% 3
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES 4.2% 1
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT 740 3
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS 2.4% 1
12. PERCENT DELT 0 5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 32
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-231 Drainage Area: 11,192 mi2
Site: IN: Knox/Pike Co: White River, at CR 1350S, 1 mi SE lona,
Long: 87° 27'47"Lat: 38° 31'53".
Johnson
ACTUAL
METRIC OBSERVATION
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
22
13.8%
—
3
0
0
13.9%
14.1%
76.8%
7.4%
538
3.5%
0
Date: DC: 5:90
Twp. T IN R 9W S 7.
IBI
SCORE
3
2
—
3
1
1
5
5
5
2
3
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 36
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-232 Drainage Area: 11,125 mi2 Date: DC: 5:90
Site: IN: Knox/Pike Co: White River, at SR 61 bridge,
Long: 87° IT 19" Lat: 38° 30' 42".
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
Petersburg, Harrison Twp. T IN R 8W S 15.
ACTUAL IBI
OBSERVATION SCORE
13 1
19.7% 3
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNTVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
3 3
0 1
1 1
51.7% 1
57.156 1
33.3% 1
29.9% 5
147 1
18.4% 5
0 5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 28
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-233 Drainage Area: 5,243 mi2
Site: IN: Knox/Daviess Co: West Fork White River, at SR 50/150
T 3N R 8W S 36. Long: 87° 14' 21" Lat: 38° 38' 18".
bridge,
ACTUAL
METRIC OBSERVATION
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
19
42.2%
—
2
0
3
41.0%
31.3%
39.8%
28.9%
83
0
0
Date: IX: 5:90
3.5 mi E Wheatland, Steen Twp.
IBI
SCORE
3
5
—
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TOTAL IBI SCORE 19
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-234 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Daviess/Dubois Co: East Fork White
5W S 21. Long: 86° 58' 34" Lat: 38° 30' 08".
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
5,600 mi2
River, at CR 1125E bridge,
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
29
26.4%
Date: IX: 6:90
Portersville, Reeve Twp. T IN R
IBI
SCORE
5
3
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECnVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
5
SPECIES 2
4
23.6%
29.4%
63.5%
7.4%
326
10.4%
0
5
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
3
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 37
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-235 Drainage Area
Site: IN: Morgan Co: West Fork White River,
S 32. Long: 86° 27' 03" Lat: 39° 26' 02".
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
: 2,486 mi2
Date: IX: 13:90
at SR 39 bridge, Martinsville, Jefferson Twp. T 12N R IE
ACTUAL
OBSERATION
21
2.2%
IBI
SCORE
3
1
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
3
SPECIES 0
0
62.4%
53.8%
44.0%
2.2%
450
4.9%
0
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 24
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-236 Drainage Area: 4,793
Site: IN: Knox/Daviess Co: West Fork White River,
R 6W S 7/18. Long: 87° 07' 23" Lat: 38° 52' 34".
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
mi2
at SR 58 bridge, 2 mi
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
30
4.3%
Date: IX: 6:90
W Elnora, Vigo Twp. T 5N
IBI
SCORE
5
1
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
3
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES 1
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
5
25.9%
15.2%
75.8%
9.0%
467
2.1%
0
3
1
3
3
4
5
3
3
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 37
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-237 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Owen Co: West Fork White River, at
21. Long: 86° 51' 58" Lat: 39° 12' 16".
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
3,343 mi2
Main Street bridge, Freedom,
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
18
9.8%
Date: DC: 13:90
Franklin Twp. T 9N R 3W S
IBI
SCORE
3
1
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECnVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
1
SPECIES 0
1
19.7%
28.3%
45.1%
4.0%
173
4.0%
0
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 24
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-238 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Owen Co: West Fork White River, at
S 29. Long: 86° 45' 43' Lat: 39° 16' 48".
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
2,988 mi2
SR 46 bridge, Spencer, Washington
Date: DC: 13:90
Twp. T ION R 3W
ACTUAL IBI
OBSERVATION SCORE
17
3.6%
3
1
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTTVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
0
SPECIES 1
1
21.4%
24.6%
73.3%
1.8%
439
16.9%
0
1
1
1
3
3
5
1
3
5
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 32
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-240 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Knox/Daviess Co: West Fork White
T4N R 7/8W S 12/7. Long: 87° 14' 29" Lat:
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
5,071 mi2
River, at SR 358 bridge, 1 mi
38° 47' 42".
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
25
44.9%
Date: IX: 16:90
SE Edwardsport, Vigo Twp.
IBI
SCORE
5
5
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNTVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE UTHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
2
SPECIES 0
3
15.7%
24.4%
69.0%
6.6%
287
4.9%
0
2
1
1
4
3
5
1
1
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 34
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-241 Drainage Area
Site: IN: Morgan Co: West Fork White River,
R 1W S 19. Long: 86° 33' 32' Lat: 39° 22' 23'
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
: 2,658 mi2
at Border Street bridge, 2 mi S
it
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
21
2.5%
Date: IX: 13:90
Paragon, Baker Twp. T UN
IBI
SCORE
3
1
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LTTHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
2
SPECIES 0
4
33.3%
31.3%
58.8%
4.2%
240
21.3%
0
2
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
5
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 26
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-242 Drainage Area: 2,123 mi2
Site: IN: Morgan Co: West Fork White River, at CR 375E bridge,
Centerton, Green Twp. T 12N R 2E S 6/7. Long: 86° 21' 20" Lat:
Henderson
39° 29' 58
ACTUAL
METRIC OBSERVATION
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNTVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTTVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
31
3.7%
—
5
5
7
17.5%
18.3%
53.9%
8.8%
464
8.6%
0
Date: DC: 13:90
Ford boat launch, 2 mi SE
H
IBI
SCORE
5
1
—
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 43
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-245 Drainage Area: 5,
672 mi2
Site: IN: Daviess/Pike Co: East Fork White River, at SR 257 bridge, 8-1/8
Twp. T IN R 6W S 8. Long: 87° 06' 34" Lat: 38° 32*17".
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
14
14.9%
SPECIES
1
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES 0
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECnVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
1
21.5%
28.9%
65.3%
6.6%
121
2.5%
0
Date: IX: 6:90
mi S Washington, Harrison
IBI
SCORE
1
3
—
1
1
1
3
3
4
1
1
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 25
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-246 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Martin Co: East Fork White River, at
Long: 86° 47' 33" Lat: 38° 40' 02".
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
4,927 mi2
SR 50/150S, Shoals, Halbert
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
19
15.1%
Date: IX: 12:90
Twp. T 3N R 3W S 19/30.
IBI
SCORE
3
3
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
3
SPECIES 1
3
15.5%
11.2%
72.4%
15.5%
232
7.8%
0
3
1
1
4
5
5
5
1
3
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 39
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-247 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Lawrence Co: East Fork White River,
Twp. T 4N R 2W S 8/9. Long: 86° 38' 47" Lat:
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
4,720 mi2
at SR 450 bridge, Spicer
38° 47' 56".
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
18
17.9%
Date: K: 18:90
Launch, Williams, Spice Valley
IBI
SCORE
3
3
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECnVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
4
SPECIES 0
1
26.7%
25.3%
73.3%
1.4%
809
4.2%
0
4
1
1
3
3
5
1
5
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 35
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-248 Drainage Area: 4,004 mi2
Site: IN: Lawrence Co: East Fork White River, at SR 37 bridge, 3
R 1W S 34. Long: 86° 30' 48" Lat: 38° 49' 33".
Date: DC: 18:90
mi S Bedford, Shawswick Twp. T 5N
ACTUAL
METRIC OBSERVATION
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
24
23.4%
-
2
2
4
6.9%
26.2%
61.3%
4.1%
764
6.9%
0
IBI
SCORE
5
3
—
2
2
2
5
3
3
1
5
3
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 39
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-249 Drainage Area: 3,988 mi2
Site: IN: Lawrence Co: East Fork White River, at Palestine Road,
Bedford, T4N R IE S 6. Long: 86° 27' 33" Lat: 38° 48' 26".
Date: TX:20:90
at B.R.Edwards Property, 1-1/4 mi SE
ACTUAL IBI
METRIC OBSERVATION SCORE
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTTVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
28 5
19.2% 3
_ _
2 2
1 1
6 3
7.8% 5
14.7% 5
75.4% 5
9.4% 3
798 5
1.1% 1
0 5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 43
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-250 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Lawrence Co: East Fork White River,
T 4N R IE S 26/23. Long: 86" 22' 50" Lat: 38°
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
3,848 mi2
at Lawrenceport boat launch,
45' 16".
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
28
6.0%
Date: DC: 18:90
Lawrenceport, Bono Twp.
IBI
SCORE
5
1
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNTVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTTVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LTTHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
3
SPECIES 1
5
7.2%
14.0%
8.4%
8.9%
850
5.1%
0
3
1
3
5
5
1
3
5
2
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 39
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-251 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Lawrence Co: East Fork White River,
R 2E S 19. Long: 86° 20' 10" Lat: 38° 45' 48".
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
3,829 mi2
at Tunnelton Road bridge,
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
21
30.5%
Date: IX: 18:90
Tunnelton, Guthrie Twp. T 4N
IBI
SCORE
3
5
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
5
SPECIES 1
3
0.5%
29.1%
65.4%
3.4%
817
0.6%
0
5
1
1
5
3
4
1
5
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 39
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-252 Drainage Area: 2,564 mi2
Site: IN: Jackson Co: East Fork White River, at SR 235 bridge, 1
S 36/35. Long: 86° 08' 51"Lat: 38° 49' 13".
Date: IX: 19:90
mi E Medora, Carr Twp. T 5N R 3E
ACTUAL IBI
METRIC OBSERVATION SCORE
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTTVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
22 3
13.8% 2
_ _
3 3
0 1
0 1
13.9% 5
14.1% 5
76.8% 5
7.4% 2
538 3
3.5% 1
0 5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 36
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-253 Drainage Area
Site: IN: Jackson Co: East Fork White River,
T 5N R 4E S 9/10. Long: 86° 04' 51" Lat: 38°
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
: 2,516 mi2
Date: DC: 19:90
at SR 50 bridge, 2 mi NW Brownstown, Brownstown Twp.
52' 46".
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
27
1.3%
IBI
SCORE
5
1
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNTVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTTVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
5
SPECIES 1
7
20.5%
18.7%
72.6%
6.0%
635
2.7%
0
5
1
4
3
3
5
1
4
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 38
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-254 Drainage Area: 3,731 mi2
Site: IN: Jackson Co: East Fork White River, at CR 360S bridge,
R 3E S 18/17. Long: 86° 13' 38' Lat: 38° 46' 39".
3/4 mi
ACTUAL
METRIC OBSERVATION
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNTVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
19
15.0%
-
2
0
3
26.2%
23.1%
54.0%
5.6%
359
1.4%
0
Date: K: 19:90
E Sparksville, Carr Twp. T 4N
IBI
SCORE
3
3
—
2
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 29
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-255 Drainage Area
Site: IN: Jackson Co: East Fork White River,
R 5E S 11/12. Long: 85° 55' 46" Lat: 38° 58'
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
: 2,342 mi2
at SR 258 bridge, 2 mi W
25".
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
17
2.7%
Date: IX:20:90
Seymour, Jackson Twp. T 6N
IBI
SCORE
3
1
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECITVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
2
SPECIES 3
6
27.0%
35.1%
29.7%
27.0%
37
10.8%
0
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TOTAL IBI SCORE 19
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-257 Drainage Area: 2,053
Site: IN: Bartholomew Co: East Fork White River, at
R 6E S 33. Long: 85° 51' 37" Lat: 39° 05' 06".
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
mi2 Date: DC: 17:90
CR 800S bridge, Azalia, Sand Creek Twp. T 8N
ACTUAL IBI
OBSERVATION SCORE
36 5
2.0% 1
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4 4
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES 6 5
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
13 5
10.0% 5
8.4% 5
52.9% 3
5.9% 1
558 3
16.3% 5
0 5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 51
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-258 Drainage Area: 1,707
Site: IN: Bartholomew Co: East Fork White River, at
R 5E S 23. Lat: unknown Long: unknown.
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
mi2 Date: DC: 17:90
SR 46/11 bridge, Columbus, Columbus Twp. T9N
ACTUAL IBI
OBSERVATION SCORE
19 3
- —
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES 1 1
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4 4
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES 3 3
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LTTHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
7 4
41.5% 1
3.4% 5
49.0% 3
13.6% 3
147 1
8.2% 3
0 5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 36
-------
White River Drainact Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-259 Drainage Area
: 1,126 mi2
Site: IN: Bartholomew Co: Driftwood River, at CR 650N bridge, 6-1/2 mi
T ION R 5E S 21. Long: 86° 58' 22" Lat: 39° 17' 24".
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
32
—
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES 6
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
6
SPECIES 4
13
22.2%
19.3%
66.3%
13.6%
243
14.4%
0
Date: DC: 17:90
NW Columbus, Nineveh Twp.
IBI
SCORE
5
—
5
5
4
5
3
3
5
3
3
5
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 51
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-260 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Martin Co: East Fork White River, at
R 4W S 32. Long: 86° 53' 11" Lat: 38° 38' 50"
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
5,104 mi2
SR 550 bridge, 2 mi SE Loogootee,
Date: IX: 12:90
Center Twp. T 3N
ACTUAL IBI
OBSERVATION SCORE
26
22.5%
5
3
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNTVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
1 1 . PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
2
SPECIES 3
6
40.8%
13.3%
35.8%
30.8%
120
11.7%
0
2
3
3
1
5
1
5
1
3
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 37
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-265 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Marion Co: West Fork White River, at
T 16N R 3E S 28/33/27/34. Long: 86° 11' 54"
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
1,294 mi2
Date: K:24:90
Martin Luther King Drive bridge, Indianapolis, Center Twp.
Lat: 39° 47' 18".
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
16
-
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES 0
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
5
SPECIES 1
2
70.3%
12.4%
49.8%
4.9%
283
0.7%
0
IBI
SCORE
2
—
1
5
1
1
1
5
3
1
1
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 27
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRUERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-266 Drainage Area:
1,925 mi2
Site: IN: Marion Co: West Fork White River, at Southport Road bridge, 7
T 14N R 3E S 7/8. Long: 86° 14' 11" Lat: 39° 39' 47".
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
34
-
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES 2
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
1 1 . PERCENT SIMPLE LTTHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
4
SPECIES 2
8
33.2%
25.1%
67.7%
1.5*
1125
1.4%
0
Date: IX:24:90
mi S Indianapolis, Decatur Twp.
IBI
SCORE
5
—
2
4
2
5
1
3
5
1
5
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 39
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-267 Drainage Area: 1,
Site: IN: Hamilton Co: West Fork White River, at
R 4E S 13. Long: 86° 01' 22" Lat: 40° 00' 01".
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
147 mi2
SR 234 bridge, 3 mi N
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
21
-
SPECIES 2
6
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES 2
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
5
30.7%
28.8%
63.8%
6.7%
163
0.6%
0
Date: DC:25:90
Fishers, Noblesville Twp. T 18N
IBI
SCORE
3
—
2
5
2
3
1
3
3
1
1
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 30
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-268 Drainage Area: 858 mi2 Date: IX:26:90
Site: IN: Hamilton Co: West Fork White River, at SR 19/32 bridge, Noblesville, at Schmidt's Bait and
Tackle, Noblesville Twp. T 19N R 4/5E S 36/31. Long: 86° 00' 55" Lat: 40° 02' 53".
ACTUAL IBI
METRIC OBSERVATION SCORE
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES 18 3
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES 3 3
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES 4 4
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES 2 2
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES 4 2
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES 57.2% 1
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES 56.4% 1
8. PERCENT INSECnVORES 38.7% 1
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES 5.8% 1
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT 243 3
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS 4.9% 1
12. PERCENT DELT 0 5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 27
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-269 Drainage Area: 828 mi2
Site: IN: Hamilton Co: West Fork White River, at Strawtown
White River Twp. T 20/19N R 5E S 4/33/34. Long: 86° 57'
Date: K:26:90
bridge or 234th Street, 1 mi W Strawtown,
51"Lat:400 07' 42".
ACTUAL ffil
METRIC OBSERVATION SCORE
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
19 3
— —
5 5
4 4
0 1
4 2
19.9% 3
16.0% 4
72.3% 5
10.6% 3
282 3
1.1% 1
0 5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 39
-------
Indiana Ecorcsion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-271 Drainage Area: 85.5 mi2
Site: IN: Randolph Co: West Fork White River, at SR 1/32
Twp. T20N R 12E S 19. Long: 85° 07' 27" Lat: 40° 10' 19"
Date: K:27:90
bridge, 1-1/4 mi S Farmland, Stony Creek
ACTUAL IBI
METRIC OBSERVATION SCORE
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
27 5
- —
5 5
3 3
4 4
11 5
37.6% 1
37.3% 1
63.7% 3
4.2% 1
311 5
32.2% 5
0 5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 43
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-272 Drainage Area: 25
Site: IN: Randolph Co: West Fork White River, at
T 17N R 14E S 13. Long: 84° 55' 06" Lat: 40° 11'
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
.6 mi2
CR 300E bridge, 3 mi
19".
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
16
—
SPECIES 6
2
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES 0
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNTVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
3
76.9%
60.1%
33.6%
0.7%
143
3.5%
0
Date: K:27:90
E Winchester, White River Twp.
IBI
SCORE
2
—
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 26
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-274 Drainage Area: 555 mi2
Site: IN: Madison Co: West Fork White River, at SR 13 bridge,
T20N R 6E S 33. Long: 85° 51' 47" Lat: 40° 08' 31".
Date: K:27:90
Perkinsville, Jackson Twp.
ACTUAL IBI
METRIC OBSERVATION SCORE
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECnVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
21 3
- —
2 2
4 4
1 1
6 3
36.5% 1
33.598 1
60.4% 3
5.6% 1
197 3
1.5% 1
0.5 5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 28
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-276 Drainage Area: 1174 mi2 Date: IX:25:90
Site: IN: Hamilton Co: West Fork White River, at River Road bridge, Carmel^Fisher, Delaware Twp.
T 18N R 4E S 34. Long: 86° 03' 48" Lat: 39° 57' 28".
ACTUAL IBI
METRIC OBSERVATION SCORE
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES 16 2
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES 1 1
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES 6 5
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES 1 1
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES 3 1
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES 23.3% 3
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES 15.3% 4
8. PERCENT INSECnVORES 79.0% 5
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES 6.3% 1
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT 176 1
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS 1.7% 1
12. PERCENT DELT 0 5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 30
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-277 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Martin Co: East Fork White River, at
T IN R 4/5W S 24/19. Long: 86° 54' 48" Lat:
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
5532 mi2
SR 231 bridge, 11-3/4 mi
38° 29' 46".
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
25
19.7
Date: IX: 12:90
S Loogootee, Rutherford Twp.
IBI
SCORE
5
3
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
3
SPECIES 0
4
37.4%
49.9%
40.9%
9.7%
401
3.5%
0
3
1
2
1
1
3
3
3
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 33
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-279 Drainage Area: 1136 mi2
Site: IN: Bartholomew Co: Driftwood River, at CR 350N bridge, 3
T 9N R 5E S 10. Lat: unavailable Long: unavailable.
miNW
ACTUAL
METRIC OBSERVATION
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNTVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
30
—
6
4
4
14
15.9%
22.1%
59.7%
17.1%
258
27.9%
0
Date: DC: 17:90
Columbus, Columbus Twp.
IBI
SCORE
5
—
5
4
4
5
4
3
3
5
3
5
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 51
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 90-280 Drainage Area: 1261 mi2
Site: IN: Marion Co: West Fork White River, between Westfield
Ripple, Washington Twp. T 16N R 3E S 1/2. Long: 86° 09' 42"
Date: K:25:90
Blvd. and College Ave. bridges, Broad
Lat: 39° 51* 44".
ACTUAL IBI
METRIC OBSERVATION SCORE
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNTVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
28 5
- —
3 3
6 5
4 4
9 5
19.5% 3
15.1% 4
75.3% 5
9.6% 3
405 3
4.4% 1
0 5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 46
-------
White River Drainaee Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 91-210 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Knox Co: Lower White River, 0.5 mi
N of SR 61 bridge, Harrison Twp. T IN R 8W
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
11,118 mi2
d/s junction of East and West
S 1/12.
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
26
18.7%
Date: VIH:27:91
Forks at Power lines, 3.5 mi
IBI
SCORE
5
3
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
5
SPECIES 0
3
38.8%
50.3%
44.9%
4.8%
1682
1.8%
0
5
1
1
1
1
3
1
5
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 32
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 91-211 Drainage Area: 11125 mi2 Date: VHI:27:91
Site: IN:Knox Co: Lower White River, at SR 61 bridge, 1-1/4 mi N Petersburg, Harrison Twp.
T IN R 8W S 15.
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
17
7.1%
SPECIES
2
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES 0
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LJTHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
2
2.9%
8.7%
89.7%
1.7%
1501
0.3%
0
IBI
SCORE
3
1
—
2
1
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 35
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 91-212 Drainage Area: 11
Site: IN: Knox Co: Lower White River, 1.5 mi d/s
T IN R 8W S 16/17.
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/M ADTOM/SCULPIN
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
,126.5 mi2
SR 61 bridge, 2-1/4 mi
ACTUAL
OBSERATION
24
20.0%
SPECIES
4
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES 0
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
2
7.7%
21.8%
73.5%
5.2%
878
1.6%
0
Date: VIH:27:91
NW Petersburg, Harrison Twp.
IBI
SCORE
5
3
—
4
1
1
5
3
5
1
3
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 37
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 91-213 Drainage Area:
11,129 mi2
Date: Vm:28:91
Site: IN:Knox Co: Lower White River, 1-1/4 mi S Willis.Harrison Twp.
T IN R 8/9W S 1/6.
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
19
8.9%
IBI
SCORE
3
1
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNTVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
1
SPECIES 0
2
6.1%
12.0%
85.9%
2.1%
1647
0.1%
0
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 34
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 91-214 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Knox Co: Lower White River, 4-1/2
T IN R 9W S 11.
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
11,134 mi2
mi u/s lona, Harrison Twp.
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
25
12.8%
Date: Vm:28:91
IBI
SCORE
5
1
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECnVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
4
SPECIES 0
2
7.3%
6.3%
81.5%
3.4%
1160
6.9%
0
4
1
1
5
5
5
1
5
3
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 41
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 91-215 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Knox Co: Lower White River, at CR
T IN R 9W S 7.
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
11,193 mi2
1300S bridge, 1-1/4 mi SE
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
28
12.8%
Date: VIII:29:91
lona, Johnson Twp.
IBI
SCORE
5
1
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
4
SPECIES 0
4
7.3%
14.9%
92.0%
3.3%
1157
0.3%
0
4
1
2
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 40
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 91-216 Drainage Area: 11,
Site: IN: Knox Co: Lower White River, 0.5 mi d/s
T IN R 10W S 23.
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
195 mi2
Giro, Johnson Twp.
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
31
16.7%
SPECIES
4
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES 0
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
7
6.4%
14.0%
80.8%
5.1%
1638
0.7%
0
Date: VIH:29:91
IBI
SCORE
5
3
—
4
1
4
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 44
-------
Indiana Ecoregion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 91-217 Drainage Area: 11,295 mi2
Site: IN: Knox Co: Lower White River, at old 41 bridge, Hazelton,
T IN R 10W S 27.
Johnson
ACTUAL
METRIC OBSERVATION
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNTVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
29
47.8%
—
3
0
3
13.5%
38.2%
51.3%
10.5%
1051
0.6%
0
Date: K:4:91
Twp.
IBI
SCORE
5
5
—
3
1
1
5
1
3
3
5
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 38
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 91-218 Drainage Area: 11,309 mi2
Site: IN: Knox Co: Lower White River, 1-1/2 mi W SR 41 bridge,
T1NR11WS 36.
2miSW
ACTUAL
METRIC OBSERVATION
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER SPECIES
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
27
20.6%
-
5
0
2
8.3%
19.6%
73.9%
6.2%
1044
0.5%
0
Date: K:4:91
Hazelton, Decker Twp.
IBI
SCORE
5
3
—
5
1
1
5
3
5
1
5
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 40
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 91-219 Drainage Area:
Site: IN: Knox Co: Lower White River, 2 mi S
T1SR11WS2.
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
11,312 mi2
Decker Chapel, Decker Twp.
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
18
20.5%
Date: DC:4:91
IBI
SCORE
3
3
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
4
SPECIES 0
1
3.2%
18.3%
78.1%
3.5%
2407
0.1%
0
4
1
1
5
3
5
1
5
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 37
-------
White River Drainage Biocriteria
WHITE RIVER BIOCRITERIA STUDY
Station Number: 91-220 Drainage Area:
11 ,340 mi2
Site: IN: Knox Co: Lower White River, 6 mi SW Hazelton, Dick Ryder's
T IS R 11W S 3/4.
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
22
12.596
Date: IX:5:91
Camp, Decker Twp.
IBI
SCORE
3
1
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
4
SPECIES 0
2
7.7%
15.3%
82.0%
2.6%
1454
0.6%
0
4
1
1
5
4
5
1
5
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 36
-------
Indiana Ecoresion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 91-221 Drainage Area:
11,345 mi2
Date: DC:5:91
Site: IN:Knox Co: Lower White River, 6-1/2 mi SW Hazelton, Decker Twp.
T IN R 11W S 16/17.
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
ACTUAL
OBSERVATION
27
17.396
mi
SCORE
5
3
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNTVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LTTHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
6
SPECIES 0
2
14.6%
21.0%
74.1%
4.7%
804
1.1%
0
5
1
1
5
3
5
1
4
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 43
-------
Indiana Ecoreeion
WHITE RIVER BIOCRTTERIA STUDY
Station Number: 91-222 Drainage Area:
11, 348 mi2
Site: IN: Knox Co: Lower White River, 1-1/2 mi u/s Wabash River, 2 mi
T IS R 12W S 24.
METRIC
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
2. PERCENT LARGE RIVER TAXA
ACTl .L
OBSERATION
20
52.1%
Date: IX:5:91
NE Mt. Carmel, Illinois.
IBI
SCORE
3
5
NUMBER OF DARTER/MADTOM/SCULPIN SPECIES
3. NUMBER OF SUNFISH SPECIES
4. NUMBER OF ROUND-BODIED SUCKER
5. NUMBER OF SENSITIVE SPECIES
6. PERCENT TOLERANT SPECIES
7. PERCENT OMNIVORES
8. PERCENT INSECTIVORES
9. PERCENT CARNIVORES
10. CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFORT
11. PERCENT SIMPLE LITHOPHILS
12. PERCENT DELT
1
SPECIES 2
2
39.4%
24.7%
42.5%
34.4%
518
1.5%
0
1
2
1
1
3
1
5
3
1
5
TOTAL IBI SCORE 31
-------
Appendix E. Fish nomenclature changes for the species of fish occurring within the
political boundaries of Indiana.
Previous
~ lamprey
Lanpetra appendix (DeKay), American brook lamprey
Lepisteifonws - gars
Lepisosteidae - gars
Atractosteus spatula (Lacepade), alligator gar
•es - trout, salsm, Mhitefish
Salsionidae — salmon and whitef ish
Onoarhynehua nykiss Walbaum, rainbow trout
Cvprinifomes - carps and
Cypxinidae - carps and minnows
Canpostona oligolepia Hubbs and Greene,
largescale stoneroller
Cyprinella lutrensis (Baird and Girard) , red shiner
C. spiloptera Cope, spotfin shiner
C. ft&ipplei (Girard), steelcolor shiner
Erimystax Hieajm-n-ia Kirtland/ streamline chub
E. x-punctata Hubbs and Crowe, gravel chub
flctrarius aestavalis Girard, speckled chub
Hybopsia amis Hubbs and Greene, pallid shiner
Ltoeilua chryaocephalus (Raf inesque) , striped shiner
L. comutus (Mitchell), common shiner
Lythrums anfens (Cope), roeefin shiner
L. rumeus Evermann, ribbon shiner
L. umhratilis (Girard), redfin shiner
HacrnyJbopsis storeriana (Kirtland), silver chub
Notrppis ludUxmdus Cope, sand shiner
Gpsqpoeocfus emiliae Hay, pugnoae minnow
Silurif omes - bullhead and catfish
Ictaluridae - bullhead and catfish
Aaaiurus catus (Linnaeus), white catfish
A. jn&Zas (Raf inesque) , black bullhead
A. natalis (Lesueur) , yellow bullhead
A. nebulosus (Lesueur) , brown bullhead
Atherinifomes - topninnows,
Fundulidae - topmnnows
silv
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this ourden to Washington Headquarters Services. Directorate for information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)
2. REPORT DATE
November 1992
3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
Final
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Biological criteria development for large rivers with
an emphasis on an assessment of the White River drainage,
Indiana
6. AUTHOR(S)
Thomas P. Simon
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
Water Division
Water Quality Standards
77 West Jackson Boulevard, WQS-16J
Chicago. Illinois 60604
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
EPA 905/R-92/006
I. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
same as // 7
10. SPONSORING /MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Prepared in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management,
Surveillance and Standards Branch
123. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
3. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
The White River drainage was investigated during 1990-1991 to determine water
resource expectations for large rivers. A total of 49 sites were sampled within
three watersheds to develop and calibrate an Index of Biotic Integrity for use in
Indiana large rivers. Maximum species richness lines were developed for large
rivers (less than 2000 mi2) and great rivers (greater than 2000 mi2 drainage areas).
A few metrics are original to this study including the number of centrarchid species,
an all benthic insectivore metric incorporating darters, madtoms, and sculpins in
large rivers, and the proportion of large river species. The proportion of large
river species is based on the typical expectations of large river faunal composit-
ion based on Pflieger (1975). The lower White River showed a highly skewed IBI
indicating lower extremes in water resource integrity. The trend in the East and
West Forks was toward declining biological integrity with increasing drainage area.
Site specific data including an evaluation of fishery community trends, tolerance
classifications, trophic and reproductive guilds are included.
4. SUBJECT TERMS
White River, Biological criteria, Index of Biotic Integrity,
fish community structure, Indiana
15. NUMBER OF PAGES
131
16. PRICE CODE
7. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
UNCLASSIFIED
18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF THIS PAGE
UNCLASSIFIED
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED
20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED
Standard Form 298 (Rev
Prescribed by ANSI sta Z39-18
298-J02
2-89)
-------
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SF 298
The Report Documentation Page (RDP) is used in announcing and cataloging reports. It is important
that this information be consistent with the rest of the report, particularly the cover and title page.
Instructions for filling in each block of the form follow. It is important to stay within the lines to meet
optical scanning requirements.
Block 1. Agency Use Only (leave blank).
Block 2. Report Date. Full publication date
including day, month, and year, if available (e.g. 1
Jan 88). Must cite at least the year.
Block 3. Type of Report and Dates Covered.
State whether report is interim, final, etc. If
applicable, enter inclusive report dates (e.g. 10
Jun87-30Jun88).
Block 4. Title and Subtitle. A title is taken from
the part of the report that provides the most
meaningful and complete information. When a
report is prepared in more than one volume,
repeat the primary title, add volume number, and
include subtitle for the specific volume. On
classified documents enter the title classification
in parentheses.
Blocks. Funding Numbers. To include contract
and grant numbers; may include program
element number(s), project number(s), task
number(s), and work unit number(s). Use the
following labels:
C -
G -
PE -
Contract
Grant
Program
Element
PR
TA
WU
Project
Task
Work Unit
Accession No.
Block6. Author(s). Name(s) of person(s)
responsible for writing the report, performing
the research, or credited with the content of the
report. If editor or compiler, this should follow
the name(s).
Block?. Performing Organization Name(s) and
Address(es). Self-explanatory.
Block 8. Performing Organization Report
Number. Enter the unique alphanumeric report
number(s) assigned by the organization
performing the report.
Block 9. Sponsoring/Monitoring Agency Name(s)
and Address(es). Self-explanatory.
Block 10. Sponsoring/Monitoring Agency
Report Number. (If known)
Block 11. Supplementary Notes. Enter
information not included elsewhere such as:
Prepared in cooperation with...; Trans, of...; To be
published in.... When a report is revised, include
a statement whether the new report supersedes
or supplements the older report
Stock 12a. Distribution/Availability Statement.
Denotes public availability or limitations. Cite any
availability to the public. Enter additional
limitations or special markings in all capitals (e.g.
NOFORN, REL, ITAR).
DOD - See DoDD 5230.24, "Distribution
Statements on Technical
Documents."
DOE - See authorities.
NASA- See Handbook NHB 2200.2.
NTIS - Leave blank.
Block 12b. Distribution Code.
DOD - Leave blank.
DOE - Enter DOE distribution categories
from the Standard Distribution for
Unclassified Scientific and Technical
Reports.
NASA- Leave blank.
NTIS - Leave blank.
Block 13. Abstract. Include a brief (Maximum
200 words) factual summary of the most
significant information contained in the report.
Block 14. Subject Terms. Keywords or phrases
identifying major subjects in the report.
Block 15. Number of Pages. Enter the total
number of pages.
Block 16. Price Code. Enter appropriate price
code (NTIS only).
Blocks 17. -19. Security Classifications. Self-
explanatory. Enter U.S. Security Classification in
accordance with U.S. Security Regulations (i.e.,
UNCLASSIFIED). If form contains classified
information, stamp classification on the top and
bottom of the page.
Block 20. Limitation of Abstract. This block must
be completed to assign a limitation to the
abstract. Enter either UL (unlimited) or SAR (same
as report). An entry in this block is necessary if
the abstract is to be limited. If blank, the abstract
is assumed to be unlimited.
Standard Form 298 Back (Rev 2-89)
------- |