&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)

-------