EPA 903/9-78-009
SUMMARY OF OHIO RIVER FISHERY
SURVEYS, 1968-76
Region III Library
Environmental Protection Agency
1. ,. ,,jL-.jn Resource
t.,.?r f ".-)
I*'! C ,-:.; >;,:. oi;eet
F;:-.^-:pf,!*, PA maj ,
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Region III
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
EPA Report Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA 19107
-------
Regional Center for b m ironmetit.il Ii
USEP<\ Kcyionlll
1650ArcliSt
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
EPA
EPA 903/9-78-009 June 1978
Summary of Ohio River Fishery Surveys, 1968-76
by
H. Ronald Preston
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wheeling Field Office, Wheeling, West Virginia
and
Glenn E. White
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
Cincinnati, Ohio
PA 19107
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Region III
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Surveillance arid Analysis
Division, Region III, U..S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. Approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency nor ORSANCO.
11
-------
FOREWARD
Evaluations of water pollution abatement programs must begin with
an adequate inventory of the biological resources affected. Future
trend analysis is dependent upon basic ambient biomonitoring information.
The collection of such biomonitoring data in a large river can be complex
and difficult to obtain and may be limited to certain biological com-
munities .
The primary mission of this biomonitoring activity is to provide a
baseline of data describing the kinds of fish and their relative abundance
in the Ohio River.
This report provides a valuable contribution to the knowledge of the
Ohio River and its aquatic life.
Jack J. Schramm
Regional Administrator
Region III
111
-------
ABSTRACT
The fish life community of the Ohio River was sampled annually 1968-1970
and 1975-1976 at selected locations. The objective of these investigations
was to establish a base line of data which can be used to compare past studies
and to identify water quality trends. The samples were collected from lock
chambers of navigation structures located throughout the length of the river.
In general, the results of these studies documented the existence of a more
abundant and desirable fish population than observed during investigations
performed in the 1950's. Shifts in species domination and composition were
observed in sections of the river and reflected water quality conditions. A
total of 181,000 fish weighing 11,569 kilograms, composed of 82 species, was
collected in this study.
For comparative purposes, the Ohio River fish fauna was separated into
related categories which provided a means of characterizing differences
between sections of the river. The upper Ohio River fish fauna was indicative
of improving water quality while the lower Ohio River fauna in general, reflected
stable water quality conditions. The most notable shifts in species composition
occurred in river sections affected by the metropolitan complexes and these
populations were composed of less desirable fishes.
Pollution abatement programs have resulted in improved water quality
conditions in the Ohio River and the fish populations have responded. The
construction of the higher navigation dams created additional favorable shore-
line habitats for several recreationally valuable fishes. These factors
contributed significantly to the increased recreational use of the river.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
Forward iii
Abstract iv
Contents v
Figures vi
Tables vii
Introduction 1
The Ohio River 2
Historical Review 3
Study Locations and Methods 4
Results 5
Conclusions 8
Literature Cited 10
Appendix 11
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Map, Ohio River and station locations A-2
2 Fish biomass estimates for 100 mile river segments A-3
VI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Ohio River fish sampling locations A-4
2 Distribution of fishes collected in Ohio River A-5
3 Relative abundance of Ohio River fishes A-14
4 Total weights and weight of fish per unit area,
station by station, year by year A-18
5 Ohio River fish category distribution at primary
locations, year by year A-19
6 Comparison, by percent, of fish categories at primary
locations, 1968-1976 A-22
7 Fish biomass estimates [Kg/ha) for 100 mile river
segments A-23
8 Comparison of most abundant Ohio River fishes,
1957-59 vs. 1968-76 A-24
9 Number of fish species and number of fishes collected
at primary locations, year by year A-25
VII
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
The assessment of water quality through examination of resident aquatic
life communities has been employed extensively by pollution investigators
during the past several decades. The science of water pollution biology is
not that recent, as its conception and practical application occurred in the
early 1900's. However, extensive use of biological data in water quality
evaluations was not employed with much understanding until the 1950's. The
degradation of water quality brought about by socioeconomic expansion in the
Twentieth Century resulted in state and federal legislation to slow down and
stop the environmental deterioration. Comprehensive laboratory and field
water quality investigations, including biological studies, have been a result
of these legislations. In performing these studies, aquatic scientists have
shown the relevancy of aquatic life observations in understanding causes and
impacts of environmental alterations. Biological assessments and evaluations
have become basic tools in predicting environmental conditions that may result
from varying degrees of pollution control. The current concerns for toxic
substances in the environment has further substantiated the relevancy of
aquatic life data in evaluating water quality, its significance and value to
man.
Biological water quality evaluations in streams have primarily concen-
trated on the collection of benthic organisms. The analyses of benthic
community structures and their ecological roles provide a basis for determining
pollutional impacts.
Dependent upon study scope and objectives, other communities, i.e.,
plankton and fish have also been utilized for these evaluations. Fish occupy
a unique position among aquatic communities. Their populations, diversity,
age, reproduction, and community structure reflect long term water quality
trends. Public interests in, and direct beneficial uses of fishery resources
(recreational and commercial), place the fish community in a position of high
recognition to society. It has been pointed out by aquatic scientists that
because of these uses fish parameters can be used as a direct economic measure
of the effects of pollution.
Beginning in the late 1960's cooperative fishery resource studies were
initiated for the entire length of the Ohio River. The cooperating agencies
involved were the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection, Indiana Stream Pollution
Control Board, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. In addition,
-------
personnel from universities and scientific institutions participated in
special aspects of the studies. Institutions represented were The Pennsyl-
vania State University, University of Pittsburgh, The Ohio State University,
Marshall University, University of Louisville, Auburn University and The
Smithsonian Institute.
The overall purpose of these studies is to evaluate past, present and
future water quality conditions of the Ohio River. Specifically, the data
obtained will provide: information describing trends developing in the
composition of the fishery resource and comparative data to evaluate changes
from the study conducted in 1957-59 by ORSANCO-University of Louisville;
information relative to determining sections of the Ohio River most severely
impacted by pollution; data on the quality and quantity of Ohio River fishes,
including those of recreational and commercial value; and a baseline of data
to evaluate effectiveness of pollution abatement programs.
THE OHIO RIVER
The basin of the Ohio River drains an area of 528,127 square kilometers
(203,910 square miles) and is formed by the confluence of the Allegheny River
from the north and the Monongahela River from the south at Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania. From Pittsburgh it flows in a generally southwest direction,
forming the western border of West Virginia, the northern border of Kentucky,
and the southern borders of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. It meets the Missis-
sippi River at Cairo, Illinois 1,580 kilometers (981 miles) downstream of
Pittsburgh. There are approximately 40,500 hectares (100,000 acres) of
surface area in the Ohio River.
The Ohio is the eleventh largest river in the United States in length
and has the greatest discharge of the six Mississippi tributaries. The
average flows in cubic feet per second for the period 1946-1975 were: South
Heights, Pennsylvania, mile point 15.2, low of 10,000 cfs in September and
high of 70,000 cfs in March; Cincinnati, Ohio, mile point 462.4, low of
30,000 cfs in September and high of 200,000 cfs in March; and Evansville,
Indiana, mile point 791.5, low of 40,000 cfs in September and a high of
300,000 cfs in March.
The Ohio has relatively steep banks and flows in a narrow valley for
most of its length, therefore having few shallow wetland areas which are
conducive to fish reproduction. It has a gravelly bottom for most of its
upper reaches and is dotted with about 130 islands. The U. S. Corps of
Engineers maintains a 3 meters (nine feet) channel for navigation; however,
the depth varies up to 14 meters(45 feet) in areas upstream of the navi-
gation dams. Geologically, the Ohio River basin is composed principally
of sedimentary rock which varies from siltstone and shales to limestone and
sandstone. The prototype of the Ohio was the Teays River system which existed
in pre-glacial times. While there are few natural lakes in the Ohio River
-------
drainage basin, many of the tributary streams have been impounded for flood
control, water supplies and recreational use. In 1824 the Corps of Engineers
began modification of the river through rock removal and construction of dikes.
Eventually this lead to 46 wicket dams, completed by 1929 (Butz, et al., 1974).
In the mid 1950's work began on the present day 19 higher lift structures that
have turned the Ohio into a series of slack water navigation lakes and have
effected changes in aquatic life habitats.
HISTORICAL REVIEW
There have been numerous studies of the fishes of the Ohio River, gener-
ally localized in their scope. Many were designed to study fish populations
in specific habitats or areas affected by specific sources of pollution.
Lachner (1956) summarized early Ohio River fishery studies by C. A.
LeSueur and J. P. Kirkland. C. S. Rafinesque (1820) reported 113 species of
fish in the Ohio River. While there are some inaccuracies in this data, it
shows the well developed fish fauna before the Ohio became a great industrial
waterway. Jackson (1962) reviewed early fish studies of the Ohio River and
described habitat changes of the river and the general effects of these changes
on the fish fauna. Trautman (1963) summarized early travels down the Ohio and
reported that one observer in 1972-73 saw a great abundance of fishes.
Trautman also described the changing land use and its effect on the fish life.
After about 1900, increased siltation caused changes in the fish popu-
lations with bullhead catfish, goldeye, skipjack herring, gizzard shad, and
spotted bass increasing in numbers. Through the late 1800's and the early
1900's the greatest effect on fish populations took place. This was due in
large part to land use and subsequent runoff from deforestation, agriculture
and mining. In the 1920's mining took the largest toll and in the 1930's it
was industrial expansion that contributed most to water degradation.
In 1933, an observer in Ashland, Kentucky reported a fish kill which
took better than two days to pass and completely covered the river (Jackson
1962). By mid-century, 24 species of fish, found in earlier studies, were
reported to be either missing in the upper river or in very low numbers
(Lachner 1956) .
Industrial discharges have also affected aquatic populations in recent
tines. In the study by Krumholz and Minckley (1964) referring to the 1957-59
data, the authors stated: "on the basis of these findings there is little
doubt that the abatement of pollution in the upper Ohio River during the
steel strike of 1959 provided a marked change in water quality that led to a
reinvasion of the main channel of the river by fishes from nearby unpolluted
waters. There was a marked resurgence in the fish populations of the river,
both in species composition and in numbers of individuals."
By 1968, with the reduced effects of acid mine drainage, urban and
industrial wastes and siltation,subtle changes in the fish populations were
-------
observed (Preston 1969). Carp and bullhead catfish were predominant in the
upper river. Other species found included channel catfish, sunfishes, fresh-
water drum and shiners. The sunfishes increased in the middle third of the
river and the commercial forms were more abundant in the lower half of the
river.
The modernization of the navigation structures also affected aquatic
populations in the river. The construction of higher dams has created
additional shoreline habitats which contributed to the increased numbers
of several fish species, especially those in the sunfish family.
The recent report prepared for the National Commission on Water Quality
by Dames and Moore, Inc. (1975) outlines an excellent historical review of
fishery investigations conducted since the early 1800's. Further, the Dames
and Moore report describes past water quality problems and future trends and
impacts of pollution abatement programs.
STUDY LOCATIONS AND METHODS
During the years 1968, 1969, 1970, 1975, and 1976 fishery resource studies
on the Ohio River were conducted at 20 different lock chambers operated by the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Table 1 lists the sampling locations and year
sampled. Figure 1 is a map of the Ohio River with primary stations located
and their river mile point. Due to the construction of new higher-lift dams,
a portion of these sampling locations have been removed and the sites inundated.
The upper river was sampled in 1977, but, because data is lacking for the lower
river, comparative analysis is not possible and therefore these data are not
discussed in this report. During the study period, 59 separate fish samplings
were conducted. However, only eight locations (considered primary stations)
were sampled for each of the five year studies for a total of 40 samples. The
data from these primary sites are compared in this report. The lower river
stations (Locks and Dams No. 50, No. 52, Smithland Locks and Dam) are close
together and are treated as one river section. The navigation higher lift
structures have two lock chambers, 110 X 600 feet and 110 X 1200 feet. The
smaller auxiliary chamber was selected for sampling because of its size and
it presented a minimum of interference with barge traffic. Surface areas of
the locks varied from 0.2025 to 1.2150 hectares and 5 of the ten sites are
0.6075 hectares.
Dashields Lock and Dam was selected because it is located below the
Pittsburgh and upper river metropolitan area which is heavily indusrialized;
Pike Island Lock and Dam is situated at Wheeling, a partial recovery zone
from upstream industry; Belleville Lock and Dam is located just below
Parkersburg, West Virginia, and was selected because it is situated below
a series of upstream industries and is above the influence of the Kanawha
River; Gallipolis Lock and Dam was chosen since it is immediately downstream
of the Kanawha. Meldahl Lock and Dam is above Cincinnati, and Markland Lock
and Dam is below Cincinnati. These locations show the effects of urban
-------
pollution. Channelton Lock and Dam wa^, chosen because it is below the
Louisville industrial complex; and the last three sites, Lock and Dam
No. 50, 52, and Smithland Lock and Dam (a distance of 62 miles) were
combined for reflecting fish populations in the lower end of the Ohio
River.
Fish population studies are difficult to conduct in large deep rivers.
Several methods are available, such as nets, trawls, electrofishing, and
ichthyocides. All of these methods have their advantages and disadvantages.
Rotenone, a toxicant, is relatively non-selective and is semi-effective in
sampling deeper waters. However, certain requirements must be met in its
use. In a river situation with lock chambers at navigable dams, rotenone
has the advantage of sampling a confined area where it is concentrated and
cannot be diluted.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers personnel were notified of the planned
study well in advance and localized schedules were arranged. The day prior
to the lock study, the lock personnel were again contacted and requested to
leave the lower gates of the auxiliary chamber open for at least 2 hours prior
to entry and preferably from midnight on if possible. At eight o'clock in the
morning, the crews, usually 5 boats and 12-15 persons, entered the lock on
the downriver side. The gates were closed and the water level maintained at
the lower pool level throughout the sampling period. On rare occasions there
were some problems with leaky upper gates and the lock chamber would gradually
fill. Five percent rotenone emulsion was applied with a surface pump and a
submerged, perforated 25 foot hose, to a concentration of 0.5 to 1 part per
mi LI ion.
Minnows and shad began to surface almost immediately since they are the
more rotenone sensitive species. Last to come up are the hardier species such
as carp, catfish and gar. Fish were dipped up in long handled nets until
there was a definite tapering off of fish surfacing. Then the lock personnel
were instructed to fill the lock chamber 2-3 feet. This tended to wash larger
specimens from the bottom that either surfaced and sunk or did not surface the
first time. In most instances the fish collection was finished by 12:00 noon.
Following the collection, the fish were sorted, identified, measured and weighed.
AlL fish were placed in length classes of 3 centimeter increments and weighted
in grams. The smaller fish were preserved in 10 percent formalin for later
laboratory processing. In the sampling sessions, professional fishery biologists
from state and federal agencies assisted in the operation.
RESULTS
A total of 82 species of fish were identified from the 1968-77 collections.
Table 2 lists the fishes collected and their Ohio River distribution. Table 3
lists these fishes by common name, along with relative abundance estimates.
For gross comparative purposes of species distribution, the Ohio River was
subdivided into three sections and the subjective relative abundance designations
were based on frequency of occurrence in the collections, distribution patterns
(Table 2) and known geographic range of these species. Thirty four of the
-------
82 species are distributed throughout the length of the Ohio River. These
species are identified by an asterisk in Table 2. With few exceptions,
distinct distribution patterns for the remaining species cannot be determined
with data that is now available. The exceptions include the blue catfish,
threadfin shad, and paddlefish which are limited to the lower Ohio River and
the white catfish which has only been collected in the upper river. The
Dames and Moore (1975) review indicates that the lake sturgeon, Acipenser
fulvescens, and the striped shiner Notropis chrysocephalus are still found in
the Ohio River. These two species were not reported in the 1957-59 study nor
in the 1968-76 surveys. However, this statement may have been based on
commercial fisherman catches or private industry studies referred to in the
report.
Eight species were collected in this study that were not reported in the
1957-59 study. These are alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus; northern pike, Esox
lucius; bigeye shiner, Notropis boops; pugnose minnow, Notropis emiliae;
white catfish, Ictalurus catus; striped bass, Morone saxatilis and channel
darter, Percina copelandi. There were several species listed in the 1957-59
study that were not collected in this study. However, the earlier study
report included many Ohio River tributary collections, whereas the 1968-76
collections were confined to the mainstem Ohio River.
The black bullhead was rarely collected in the 1968-76 collections;
whereas, it was listed in the 1957-59 collections. The field biologists
participating in the 1968-76 collections recognized the lack of definitive
characteristics in the bullhead (yellow excepted) and submitted samples to
several experts (personal communications, Reeve Bailey, Branley Branson,
Ted Cavender and Milton Trautman). These taxonomists agreed that all samples
were brown bullheads with intermediate characteristics between black and
brown bullheads.
A review of the individual sample tabulations suggest some notable
observations concerning shifts in species distributions. For the period
of study, species that appear to be extending their range from downstream
to upstream include the sauger and freshwater drum. Species that appear to
be increasing in abundance in the upper 100 miles of the river include the
channel catfish, skipjack herring and spotted bass. Also, individual sample
collections indicate that the paddlefish and buffalofish may be extending
their range and/or increasing from the lower Ohio into the middle section
of the river. Recreationally valuable fishes, i.e. largemouth bass, spotted
bass, white and black crappies, sauger, and channel catfish have occurred
in the samples with regularity. However, fisherman catch reports (corre-
spondence with state agencies) show that increasingly larger numbers of bass
and sauger have been taken in recent years, indicating an increasing abundance
of these fishes.
The total number of species collected at the eight primary stations in
the 1968-76 period were: Dashields, 31; Pike Island, 38; Belleville, 48;
Gallipolis, 37; Meldahl, 41; Markland 36; Cannelton, 45; and the farthest
downstream station (No. 40, No. 52, Smithland), 46 (see Table 9).
-------
Biomass Distribution and Trends
The 40 samples collected from the eight primary stations during 1968
through 1976 yielded a combined total of 181,000 fish weighing 11,569
kilograms (25,452) pounds. Total weight of fishes collected annually are
listed below.
Year Total Kilograms (pounds)
1968 2390 (5258)
1969 1985 (4367)
1970 1549 (3408)
1975 2211 (4864)
1976 3434 (7555)
For comparative purposes, the fish biomass collected at each location
was converted to a weight per unit area sampled (kilograms/hectare) and is
given in Table 4. These data show a greater fish biomass in all the down-
stream stations (mile points 436 to 939) in both subperiods of the study
(1968-70 and 1975-76) .
Table 5 is a station by station comparison of fish categories and their
relative abundance (kg/ha) that were obtained from the Ohio River fish samples
conducted in each of the sample years. The categories were arbitrarily created
to best describe the Ohio River fish association. The criteria used to develop
these categories were based on phylogentic relationships, ecologic and eco-
nomic factors. Table 6 compares these fish categories (on a percent basis,
kg/ha) between the primary stations for the study period 1968-1976.
These categories are:
Category Forms included
Forage A All minnows, shiners and chubs
Forage B Shad and herrings
Sport A All sunfishes and basses
Sport B Walleye, sauger and perches
Commercial Channel catfish, blue catfish,
buffalofishes, freshwater drum
Rough Carp, bullhead catfish and suckers
Miscellaneous All others
Table 7 is a comparison of fishery biomass data obtained from the
1957-59 aquatic-life study (Krumholz, et al. 1962) and the 1968-76 data.
The 1968-76 data have been rearranged from other presentations in this
report to fit the river section designations used in the 1957-59 study.
Figure 2 graphically shows these data and reflects the fish biomass trend
in the Ohio River. The 1968-76 data estimates compared to the 1957-59 data
-------
show less of a biomass change in the river segments 100-300 miles and 700-
800 miles than in the other river segments. The greater biomass changes
between these studies occurred in river segment 0-100 miles, segment 300-700
miles and segment 800 miles to the mouth of the river (981 miles).
Table 8 is a species abundance comparison between the 1957-59 study
and the 1968-76 study based on number and weight rankings. The abundance,
by number, comparison reflected little change in the order of species
dominance. A commercially important form, the blue catfish did not appear
in the 1968-76 rankings (number of weight). The abundance, by weight, of
the first four fish did not change in the two study periods. The rankings
show a change in the positions 6 through 10. The disappearance of the skip-
jack from 1968-76 rankings is a puzzling phenomenon. The buffalofishes (big-
mouth, smallmouth, and black) have displaced the skipjack, flathead catfish
and blue catfish in the abundance, by weight, in 1968-76 data.
CONCLUSIONS
Because of the manner by which the data collected in the ORSANCO-
University of Louisville study of 1957-59 was composited, it is difficult
to outline specific comparisons. However, certain generalized conclusions
can be drawn:
The fish biomass estimates for the 1968-1976 period were greater than
the estimates derived from the 1957-59 study. Throughout the length of the
river there was approximately five times greater abundance of fish during
the recent study than there were in the earlier study. The sections of the
river with the most significant increases occurred in the sections 0-100 miles;
500-600 miles and 900-981.
The general species composition was about the same and little difference^
were observed in the predominant species of both studies. Certain forms
(basses, sauger, drum) appeared to be extending their upstream distribution
in the more recent study.
Differences that were observed between the 1968-70 subperiod and the
1975-76 subperiod were:
The data indicated a decrease in total biomass in the upstream portion
of the river (0-280 miles) from the 1968-70 subperiod to the 1975-76 subperiod;
an exception being the Belleville (mile point 204) samples. Although no major
shift of species occurrence was detectable, it was apparent that these decreases
were due almost entirely to a reduction in the numbers of carp and bullhead
catfish in the samples. It was assumed that there has been a reduction in
biodegradable organic loads to the upper Ohio River in recent years due to
pollution abatement pro'grams and this may have produced an environment less
conducive to domination by these species.
Concurrent with the decline of the "rough" species, the "commercially"
valuable fishes, i.e. channel catfish and freshwater drum, increased in the
-------
1975-76 subperiod over that observed in the 1968-70 subperiod in the upper
portion of the river.
In the upstream third of the Ohio River, minnows and shiners appeared in
greater numbers than at downstream stations. Many of the same species occurred
in the lower river but in fewer numbers.
Forage B and Commercial categories increased from upstream to downstream.
'The commercially valuable fishes increased significantly in the fishery
composition at the Gallipolis location and were a dominant form in the down-
stiearn half of the river.
The Sport A and B categories were less abundant in the upper Ohio River
(0-200 miles) than in the downstream sections.
The proportion of the biomass contributed by "rough fish" decreased in
th-,. downstream samples.
The miscellaneous forms, as a composite group, were more numerous in
the middle and lower sections of the river. This correlated with increased
species diversity in the downstream sections.
-------
LITERATURE CITED
1. Butz, B. P., D. R. Schregardus, B. A. Lewis, A. J. Polichstro, and
J. J. Reisa, Jr. 1974. Ohio River Cooling Water Study, 905/9-74-004.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
2. Dames and Moore, Inc. 1975. Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.
Regional Impacts, Ohio River Basin, Vol. I & II, PB 249 680-01 f, 02.
The National Commission on Water Quality, The National Technical
Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce, Springfield,
Virginia.
3. Jackson, D. F. 1962. Historical notes on fish fauna, pp. 1-19.
In: Aquatic-Life Resources of the Ohio River. Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission, Cincinnati, Ohio.
4. Krumholz, L. A., J. R. Charles and W. L. Minckley. 1962. The fish
population of the Ohio River, pp. 49-89. In: Aquatic-Life
Resources of the Ohio River. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission, Cincinnati, Ohio.
5. Krumholz, L. A.,and W. L. Minckley. 1964. Changes in the fish
populations in the Upper Ohio River following temporary pollution
abatement. Trans, of Am. Fish Soc., 93 (]): 1-5.
6. Lachner, E. A. 1956. The changing fish fauna of the Upper Ohio
Basin, pp. 64-78. In: Man and the Waters of the Upper Ohio Basin.
Special Publication Number 1, Pymatuning Laboratory of Field Biology,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
7. Preston, H. R. 1969. Fishery Composition Studies - Ohio River Basin.
FWPCA Presentations. September 10, 1969. Minutes of the Engineering
Committee, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
8. Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Icthyologia Ohiensis. American Environmental
Studies. 1970. Reprinted by Arno Press, New York.
9. Trautman, M. B. 1963. Fishes of Ohio. The Ohio State University
Press, Columbus.
10
-------
APPENDIX
11
-------
A-2
C
H
o
0.
t/> DO
C -i-f
O *->
3
bO'
0
W
-------
A-3
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
-------
A-4
Table 1. Ohio River Fish Sampling Locations
Lock & Dam Locations, Mile Point 1968 1969 1970 1975. 1976 1977
* Dashield
Montgomery
New Cumberland
* Pike Island
Hannibal
No. 15
* Belleville
No. 23
at
Gallipolis
Greenup
* Meldahl
Mar kl and
McAlpine
No. h3
Channelton
Newburgh
Uniontown
(No. 50
*( Smithland
( No. 52
13
31
^
8k
126
129
20U
231
279
3M
1+36
531
607
633
720
778
8U6
876
918
938
.3
7
.*
.3
.U
.1
.0
.0
.2
.0
.4
5
.0
.2
.7
.7
.0
.8
,5
,9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
XXX
X X
XXX
XXX
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
*Primary evaluation stations.
-------
# Q 9
A-5
a 5 i
os # a §
a § 7
XX
a 5 a
a:
tu
a 5 a
XXX
a:
o
hH
X
o
la
X
H
XXX
o
CJ
t/>
tu
a 5 a
o.
CO
0)
x x
OS
h-1
H
a §
a 5 a
0)
g-
in
C
a)
p.
CO
C
X 3
h C I
P. O
S c
O
X i
.H a
co
rt
p.
in
H C
4M O
a) -a
i-H O
a x
-a -H
a o
d- CL
a) t
SO ,'
0) 4
to to
O O
C i
M.
c
o
-J ]
C nj
ctf -H
h o
h o
-------
A-6
zs # a L i
o>
to
a § T «
PUBHIITIHS o>|
os # a L i °o
3
C
-H
<->
§
u
tie.
m
35
o
ta
o
tu
o
u
CO
UJ
33
00
a
UB
a §
a 5
X X
x x
o:
la
x x
a 5
3 / i
/-^ ^ cr -a
|L< ^ 1> '-, l« C
4->
c
H
O
ex
CO
H
S
3^3
in +-> co M -H is 3 M-i IH
cocc 3 ilciUca.H
JS-H co/->ocaia:i^
v^^e)4-i 3in*->-HC^-^^-^
^-^ rt in 3 'H J c
c
W
H
13
in
CO
H
O
P.
C/}
-0 p.
nl CO
.e o
in
oi
TJ E
^ 0
rt in
N O
H O
CJ3 Q
in
m (U
P<
C
.H rt
a 1
aj in
CO O
43 o
H a
ai co co s vj .H s
^ J. c«
' ' c w
in
CO
T3
-H
O
in
O
(-H
Cli
CO
> c
CO O
o -a
i-l O
O -H
U X
in
3
M
i-t
^
CO
CO
(D O
c -a
0 0
O -rj
S X
C X
H M
IB ^ 0
H V)
pt 3
H
c o
h 5
rC
4-> X
fH O
O VI
z: w
ttJ 'H
W) 3
c CT
^H IS
rH g
0
in o
3 in
S PJ
3
d)
3
IS
V)
in .H
4-i v^
^ cd
0 CS
tj U
i i
O
.H
&
ai
O
in
3
H
Pt ^1
al X
[_J u
cS
e
0
c
(U CT3
i I g
O -p
ID O
C P.
0 B
c/3 U
cS
g
H
(D
O
3 W
O w
H
f-i in
o p
> 0
H X
CO 35
-------
A-7
.0
n)
zs # a
a 5
os # a
3
c
H
P
c
o
o
a
w
>
OS
O
a 9 i
IHT3PT3W
H
cj
XXX
en
II
B,
tu
O
O
ca
3
H
CO
Q
a 5
PUEJSI
r-^ 0)
-I 3
H cr
H V)
j^ d)
O C >
P .H rH < N , N
P
c
H
O
o,
^ N
21 ni 13 -H -H ft 0)
< ' OS f-H < < ,X -C VI O ft
V)
01
o
3
0>
I-H
o
VI
X
rH
rH o
!/l
D
H
O
"a
H
o
c
H
H ^
D
P
H O
OS Z
0 C
^ ai
C
V)
H ft
tp o
c o
r< JD
X
V) V)
H
0) ft
X 0
JH 1-1
0) rH
C 01
.H ,n
-C 3
VJ ^
rH
C -H
H ft
x; vi
VI
V)
C -H
rH P
4n O
P fH
O -P
ft, 0
CO Z
V)
3
d)
fH
H
f~t
rH P
d) VI
f.
H vi
X -H
V) ft
O
-a h
c P
ai o
CO Z
-------
zs # a 9 i
A-8
os # a
M
oo|
X X
o
o
3
P
g
O
a;
UJ
rH
a:
o
rH
§
U4
a 9 i
a 9 i
X X
X X
a
BJ
3
_i
o
to
u.
g
a;
o
091
CO
rH
Q
pUBTSJ
a 9 i
00
LO
Csl
tt
2
XX X XXX X
XX X
X X
X X -> X
rH
rH ,-^
'-> d) 'H <"
TJ -J 3 O / 1 0 0
rH cr s *J 0/^3 a.
c
H
o
a.
rH
H
&
a) tn "' .H 3 h cr 0
r . --, r< 0 2 IS IT 3 « O
o -a -H s F "~ ' in 0 0 cD
O.r
O >H
0 x
H O
s z
h -H
0 0
C rH
H P.
X P,
U) -H
X
o
rH in
O -H
o p.
rH O
0 r<
0 +-*
4-> O
to z
3 -H
O ^
C o)
g -g
x: «
+-> 3
3 -H
0 JO
C u
0 CtJ
o 0
3 X
to ex
Ǥ <2 3
^ ' rt
tn
3
3 +J
o rt
C *->
C 0
rt C
B
in
0 0
in rH
o cd
C X
+-> P.
C 0
rH-H
CQ CX
crl
0
0 °
G P.
C
H in
e B
ca .H
u. ex
rH
3
O
rt
g
M
4-»
rt
3 W
X 3
tj rH
H
^ 4-»
(U O
JH 0
U CO
e t/> .H t-^
H a> (^
M-I J nt .H
Oj v_/ o- C
C^ v ~* O
3
rH 0 C
M 'P. >H
Or! P.
3 rt X
in o o
ri in .* in
CD 0 u 0
O 13 rt 13
O f, O
fH -H rH -H
0 PH rH P
> rH .H iH
H CT) 3 tti
Q; u cyu
0 fH
X 0
O
rt
o tn
0
13
X P.
00 rH
H ffl
S U
in
U
0
1
ri O
X tn
0 3
3 E
0 tn
*-> o
H -(->
S CJ
-------
A-9
a 5 T «
pireimiuis S
CO
f-
os # a s
X X
XX
XX
051
x x
a 5
a 5
O
s
O
H
(J
U4
Q 5
x x
x x
XX
u.
O
z
O
to
a
E-
X X
Q 5 T
CD 03
C /. 3 C 02 -_->_ o
CO to
a: 3
O - ' .-H
co to
tH ^3
to
CD
O
CD
p.
3 CO
JO J3
3
X J3
3 to
0 3
H JO
rH O
f-H -H
CO P
C/3 1 1
i-H
O CD
^H C
CO -H
UH in
3 X
JO O
X to
P 3
3 .0
0 0
S 'rt
M P
H CJ
ca H- i
H ^-'
CO w
a: o-
^ o
C
^
O CD
-H 00
CO -H
t4-4
3 co
JO 3
JO
rX O
O -H
tO P
nH O
oa I-H
^ CO
CD »-H
^ CD
0 B
3
to CO
6
a CD
a> ^
p P
P X
o c
O.-H
af'Z
3
P
cO
C
CD -H
to JH
Jn cO
O O
x
"O cO
CD S
p
(H to
CD O
> X
H O
a: s
H
CD
C
to
CD
CD 3
to tT
h 3
0 13
"^ rt
CD B
^ 0
p
^ !O
O O
cO X
^ O
oa s
|
f^
2
CD X
to -p
O h
X CD
T3
CD CO
^ S
O
C P
CD to
T3 O
I X
o o
CJ S
-o
H
CD P.
Ul CD
h -H
0 0
Tj O
CD CO
fn E
T3 CO
CO S
CD O
X P
p to
f« O
O X
X O
35 s
3 3
CD to
CO CD
C -J
-H
i-3 en
-' 3
to
3
X P
to cO
-H o
p to
cO 3
O li
3
P cO
H p
X CJ
S i <
CO
O
h
X 3
(O t4_(
H
t4H CO
+J 3
cO f-i
0 3
» 1
CD CO
^H O
CQ 1 1
-------
A-10
# a
a s
(N
* >-,
in
o
rH
-O 3
B Xi
0
M O
CQ rH
tn
3
a
X P
tn o
H C
P P-
rt
O to
3
0 3
C rH
c a
X 0
U rH
a
vZ
tn
3
a)
P
aJ tn
0 3
0 rH
C 3
O 4-J
P O
X
X X
^ C-
3 'i/T 3
CT g rt
in 3 Xi f*
C in "id 3 V
t4H ."rH ^ 3 O^
C^ \ / |/J
tn
in
H
rH
X B
in >
H -H
P O
IS
o in
H
-a P
rt o
0 -rH
x -a
P O
rH 'X
n, a.
3
c
ni
a!
tn
x in
u 3
rH rH
O
ID -O
P 0
tt) ^H
rH X
H P.
Q. <
O
X
ra
Q
O
in
H
e
X 0
o
rH W
0 -rH
a. in
1 p.
P O
3 t->
0 in
rH 0
t- a-
0 *_'
^ in
3
tn
3
X C
in ttf
H X
tp, P.
H i?
-H -H
rH TJ
H
j*; in
3
0 3
a -a
§ §
CQ tLi
i-H
fl> U
13 O
H -H
tn in
SH
0 in
i X
i-f -t-J
in in
O -H
O JD
*-i rt
ca j
-------
zs # a
a S
os # a /.
a s
a
r-H
cn
CM
i 1
\D
CM
rf
CO
X X
XX XX
X XXX
^1
LJ^I XX
04
ro
to
T 1
XXX
X XX
3
cr
0 (D
^ c 3
c
H
O
a.
(D
i (
H
S
e ^i ^ -J
v ' ft (D Wl t/1
ifl CL, be ft) 3 t/1
(/) -i-t -H -H P- 1 ^
p. T-I t/1 U4 ^ -< CO a>DO
cjo m^Eb tn-H 3 v)
r^ *O ^B Cti f 1 C/l VI Ci V)
ID (DO S U> >^ .O P. -H -H -r-t
o -HO --HO^ ^;^-t (uo cuo
Hfn fnfn i i H ^ CJJ^ (UPn §^-
;£:§ Ss >2S^" i§^ S2 CLJ
X
XXX
X X X X
XXX
X X X X
X X
X
(D
a* h os «-i
H X rt rt
> c/i ^ o:
3 -H -H t/1 v '
>_/ c >-> ti in
3 -H -rt
t/1 t/1 t/) X 42 4J
3 -H O « O
l/l T3 i 1 O -H i 1
O S
4->t/l trtt/1 !-<(/) S^tft
3 -H ID .H -H .H CS -H
OB ^E ooe tDg
BO CO i ID OflJ
SJ O-J mj JJ
-------
zs # a
A-12
a 5
00
CN
os # a
X X
X X
X X
a 5 i -H
uoajauiretp P!
a
CD
3
c
H
p
c
o
u
OS
o
I
o
Cl
PJ
E-
a 5
o
u
c/j
tt.
Pu
O
OS
H
in
00 X X X X X X
LO| X XXX
CM
to
3
XX X
X X X X X XX
V
3
cr
a c "3 3
/ \ CD -H CO CD CD / i
p
C
H
O
CU
CD
H
S
CD a> cd cj a' io 3 / v 3
C i-1 "J C ^ ?> -H CD
3 «
CJ3 3
'3
to
3
p.
o
to o
to
H
O
c/}
H ^H
14H O
C -H
3 6
10
to
^ -H
a) 6
0 o
a &
CD CD
OS h-3
CD
H
6
O
to f-H
to o
r>
1O
X 3
3 CO
O P
6 CM
-I 0
cd o
c/5 IS
p
ctf
nH
3
0
C
3
p.
to to
cd 3
XI i-i
CO
a p
p o
P H
o o
CVH
C/3 S
^^ -H C X C
IP. CO
10
CD
T3
H
O
tO r-t
to ai
cd to
X
x; 3
p h
3 CD
O *J
S p.
CD O
60 fn
^i O
cd .H
J S
cd 3
OS 4J
cd
t-H
10 3
-H CJ
^ cd
cd S
CD ^H CD O
H 3 -H !-<
a, c P. oo
P. C P<-H
cd cd cd c
o to o to
H -H
CO X M X
p O O O
H 6 cd e
x; o .-H o
S CL co a.
:« o .H
M-l p tp
* -H cd
''So;
3 to to
f-t C CD
^H -H O O
P 0 CO P.
^ cd h > cd
cd E CD cd X cj
a o CX-H o
p - CX i-J CX
c
n)
O
H
a
c
fH Cd
CD <
+J CD
^ P,
ni o
0 0
r-i cd
CD C
C -H
C o
cd h
X CO
CJ CX
-------
A-13
ZS # d 5 1
a 5 ri
os # a
X X
X X
X X
X X
o
o
a § a
x x
X X
J
o
X X
X X
E-
X X
X X
X X
e
H
O
a.
X
H U
/ > £ 4-J
T3 CO -H
r-l ^- S
rt 0
JH !/)
H C
O 0
ai
rt
+J
^H
3
U
c
nJ
u
C
o
gl ^
CL)
p^
H
O
CL-
J_j - /
p
3
0
p
H
a
o
rH
0
0) 4-)
X i/l
0 O
I I t-J
rH H
3:
-------
A-14
Table 3. Relative Abundance of Ohio River Fishes
Species
Silver lamprey
Paddlefish
Longnose gar
Shortnose gar
Bowfin
American eel
*
Skipjack herring
Alevife
Gizzard shad
Threadfin shad
Goldeye
Mooneye
Northern pike
Goldfish
*
Carp
Stoneroller
* Silver chub
Golden shiner
* Emerald shiner
,YT
River shiner
Bigeye shiner
Ghost shiner
A - Abundant C - Common 0 - Occasional R - Rare
* Distributed throughout Ohio River
Upper
R
R
0
R
R
0
C
R
A
R
R
R
R
0
A
R
0
0
A
C
R
0
Middle
R
0
C
R
R
0
C
R
A
0
0
0
R
0
A
R
0
R
A
C
R
0
Lower
R
C
C
0
R
0
C
R
A
0
0
0
R
0
A
R
0
R
A
0
R
R
-------
A-15
Table 3. Relative Abundance of Ohio River Fishes
(continued)
Species
Common shiner
Pugnose shiner
Rosyface shiner
Spotfin shiner
Sand shiner
Mimic shiner
Steelcolor shiner
Suckermouth minnow
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Creek chub
River carpsucker
Quillback carpsucker
Highfin carpsucker
White sucker
Smallmouth buffalo
Bigmouth buffalo
Black buffalo
Spotted sucker
River redhorse sucker
Golden redhorse sucker
Shorthead redhorse sucker R
Black redhorse sucker
Upper
0
R
R
C
A
A
0
R
A
R
R
C
C
0
0
R
R
R
0
0
C
;r R
C
Middle
0
R
R
C
C
C
R
R
A
0
R
C
C
C
0
C
C
0
0
0
C
R
0
Lower
0
R
R
0
0
0
R
R
C
0
R
C
C
C
0
C
C
0
0
0
C
R
R
*Distributed throughout Ohio River.
-------
A-16
Table 3 Relative Abundance of Ohio River Fishes
(continued)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Species
Blue catfish
Channel catfish
White catfish
Black bullhead catfish
Yellow bullhead catfish
Brown bullhead catfish
Flat head catfish
Stonecat
Trout-Perch
Banded killifish
Pirate perch
White bass
Striped bass
Yellow bass
Rock bass
Smallmouth bass
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
Warmouth sunfish
Green sunfish
Pumpkinseed sunfish
Orangespotted sunfish
Upper
R
A
C
R
C
A
C
R
R
0
R
0
R
R
R
0
C
C
R
C
0
0
Middle
0
A
0
R
C
A
C
R
R
R
R
0
R
R
R
0
C
C
0
0
0
R
Lower
C
A
R
R
C
C
C
R
0
R
R
0
R
0
R
0
C
C
0
0
0
R
*Distributed throughout Ohio River.
-------
A-17
Table 3. Relative Abundance of Ohio River Fishes
(contined)
Species
Bluegill sunfish
Longear sunfish
Redear sunfish
White crappie
Black crappie
Johnny darter
Yellow perch
Log perch
Channel darter
Blackside darter
Sauger
Walleye
Freshwater drum
Brook silverside
Upper
C
0
0
C
C
R
0
0
R
R
0
0
C
R
Middle
C
0
0
C
C
R
R
0
R
R
C
0
A
R
Lower
C
0
0
C
C
R
R
0
R
R
C
0
A
R
*Distributed throughout Ohio River.
-------
A-18
o
Ol
tNl
o
Ol
to
vD
Ol
LO
I
§8
LO O t~- t
tO CN CN CN
to
LO
00 h~
vO O
f-H tO
CN LO
00 rH
rH tO
O rH
CN tO
LO
00
S<2£
H U. Q
£§
a: i
o -
3
to
LO r-
to CN
CTI r^ ^o ^~
t*) *$ *& Gt I
CN CN tO
cN^-LOooTtencn o
t--cN\or-.-HCNcn i to
rH rH Tf LO tO ^J"
tO CN CN LO rH O O
CO O rH LO O LO 00 I I
CN r-t rH rH Tt CN rH
to rH en to CN LO
r-- en ( o \o oo
rH LO CO
vD
to
a
T3
1
o
t^
01
en
vO
en
oo LO en
vO t-- «-*
en en
^^"g
*O *T^ i-H
0) o> O,
rH rH S
ex, OH rt
e e co
rt nJ
(/) i/)
g
cU
O CN l-H
LO LO X
t-J
Q O -H
US u!T g
J J 10
X
4->
H
O
r^
01
"O
C
a
LO
Q
r-J
rl
-------
A-19
Table S Ohio River Fish Category Distribution
at Selected Locations.
KILOGRAMS/HECTARE
Sample
Location
DASHIELDS
Forage A
Forage B
Sport A
Sport B
Commerc ial
Rough
Miscellaneous
PIKE ISLAND
Forage A
For B
Sport A
Sport B
Commercial
Rough
Misc .
BELLEVILLE
For A
For B
Sport A
Sport B
Comm.
Rough
Misc .
GALLIPOLIS
For A
For B
1968
20.99
6.1*7
3.21
3.60
529.58
0.05
2.09
13-1*1
9-71
2.93
ll*.86
251.90
0.38
2.93
9.53
0.1*8
33.61
133. 51*
1.1*2
5.76
39-^2
1969
17. lU
16.1*9
1.63
2.72
2.22
l*93.lU
l*.5l*
9-25
21.53
5-15
10.62
190.62
0.51
27.65
7.52
3.7l*
32.31
38.88
0.31
3-1*0
21.0U
1970
9.1*8
20.1*1*
0.61*
10.81
277-93
3-70
30.65
1*8.61*
6.09
11.19
361*. 15
U.67
10.39
25.19
15.00
15.1*9
97.07
5.10
2.00
11.77
1975
11*6.1*7
116. Jk
O.Ik
1.09
39-1*1
1*1*. 20
7-70
3.1*9
36.97
17.27
O.Ik
21.00
122.21*
2.50
1.91
89.58
17.09
8.07
51.13
98.52
6.02
0.55
81.95
1976
8.15
1.78
31.56
22U.25
1.1*8
1*.1*3
7.69
1.86
28.7!*
112.25
6.19
29.30
8.72
1.05
55-1*1
139-33
3-93
3l+. 90
-------
A-20
Table 5. Ohio River Fish Category Distribution
at Selected Locations (cont'd.)
KILOGRAMS/HECTARE
Sample
Location
GALLIPOLIS
Sport A
Sport B
Comm.
Rough
Misc .
MELDAHL
For A
For B
Sport A
Sport B
Comm.
Rough
Misc .
MARKLAND
For A
For B
Sport A
Sport B
Comm.
Rough
Misc.
CAMELTON
For A
For B
Sport A
Sport B
1968
3.62
1.65
78.82
184.38
1.45
0.16
63.69
6.09
8.13
118 AT
221.03
3-23
0.10
315.05
2.02
0.38
123.36
339-77
13.61
0.49
9.23
28.33
1.05
1969
1.21
2.00
83.87
136.87
0.63
0.69
16. Bk
6.30
6.88
67.27
97-40
0.10
0.05
274.63
1.79
203.28
342.55
5.60
0.12
1192.20
22.17
1.96
1970
8.83
5-71
124.36
153.06
1.1*5
0.48
31.03
7.72
6.60
84.92
98.0)1
26.02
7^.22
2.62
0.74
107 37
467.41
7-03
47.29
30.22
0.15
1975
5.16
9-49
83.02
17.59
15-17
239.69
23.65
22.78
113.56
252.34
28.67
210.55
27.46
45-33
92.35
2.77
2.86
90.42
30.63
26.67
1976
0.80
8.31
57-45
3.21
217.10
5-27
1.10
96.43
64.44
21.79
0.23
92.74
7.16
0.08
61.73
222.50
16.02
2.83
266.37
9-32
4.6i
-------
A-21
Table 5. Ohio River Fish Category Distribution
at Selected Locations (cont'd.).
KILOGRAMS/HECTARE
Sample
Location
CANNELTOH
Comm.
Rough
Misc.
L & D #50.52
SMITHLAND
1968
1969
1970
50.60
78.88
10.62
52.51
11+6.93
3-90
11+7.10
170.81
13.1+0
21+9.22
21+9.88
10.31+
181.63
171+.06
9-70
For A
For B
Sport A
Sport B
Comm.
Rough
Misc.
0.02
11*03.09
33.35
2.67
190.17
105-35
0.32
0.06
1+7.25
26.71
0.11+
27.69
18.81+
10.39
55 A8
27.22
1.82
132.69
55-77
5.U8
1.50
1+38.58
9-88
3.91
297 08
113-17
21.23
161+5.03
10.67
0.63
50.70
32.1+1+
53.65
-------
A-22
r-.
CTi
i i
00
CT>
rH
V
c
o
H
4->
rt
CO
X
fn
rt
6
'^
(X
4_>
rt
(A
,_J
O
bO
^_>
rt
CJ
r*]
(/i
H
M-l
O
C
O
(/)
H
SM
rt
Pi
o
U
vO
o
i i
rt
H
3
O
CD
s
i-H
0)
O
H
S
bo
3
O
OS
rH
rt
H
o
£_l
0)
2
o
oo o r~- oo
O r-l rH i 1
CM t-^ t~- CM
*O LO i 1 I 1
r^ t^^ LO ^^
to to CM oo
^f ^o o^ in
i-H tO
OQ
4J
O
PH
CO
vO to to to
O O r-l CM
^
+J
O
PL
LO CT> O vO
O CM LO i-H
CQ
0)
rt
rt o
X UH
CT) to vD C7i
OO CD vo LO
i-H i-H
bo
C <
o
0)
T3 bO
0) rt
(/) fn
rt o
rQ U,
V 1
vO vO ^f ^^
oo to -3- t-i
+->
A
bO
H
0)
s
~ &
rt O
+J bo
O O
C -H
0) 4->
o rt
fH U
0 O
OH J
Q
Q Q
Q off
air uir
u3* i 3
13 t 3
J Q
Z W CO
CO <^ >-3 rH
O nj t-J i-J
J CO rH O
W rH >» OH
rH OJ rH
X W J J
CO ^ I-J 1-J
<; rH 04 «<
Q OH PQ U
rH
*
'S'
t^.
to
LO
^~
CM
to
CM
LO
CM
O
CTl
CM
rH
O
V
Q
air
, i
, i
|T*
^^
Q
W
1§
LO
rH
0)
*H^
^f
CM
Q^
i 1
LO
rH
to
rH
vO
.
rH
to
rH
O
V
Q
u£T
, 1
Q
^
t-J
OH
s
oo
CM
o
CM
\0
to
LO
00
o
H
W
U
00
vO
LO
CM
O
CM
CM
O
V
SMITHL
CM
LO
o
LO
-------
A-23
Table 7. Fish Biomass Estimates (Kg/ha)
for 100 Mile River Segments
Number of Number of Number of
River Section
0
100
200
300
1+00
500
600
TOO
800
900
- 100
- 200
- 300
- 1+00
- 500
- 600
- TOO
- 800
- 900
- 981
195T-59
1+2.8
ll+O.T
103.3
90.9
9U.T
T8.6
258.9
535-3
lte.7
136.2
Samples
11
9
6
15
13
T
31+
11
9
9
1968-TO
1+01+.8
156.3
290.6
-
290.1+
T59-5
-
6T0.3
)
) 71^-9
)
Samples
6
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
3
1975-76
251.3
255-7
160.5
-
5^3-5
638.1+
-
652.9
)
)!339-3
)
Samples
1+
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
-------
A-24
Table 8. Comparison of Most Abundant Ohio River Fishes 1957-59 vs. 1968-76.
Species Abundance (based on number)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1957-59
emerald shiner
gizzard shad
freshwater drum
mimic shiner
channel catfish
silver chub
black bullhead
threadfin shad
blue catfish
sand shiner
Species Abundance (based on weight)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1957-59
gizzard shad
carp
channel catfish
freshwater drum
emerald shiner
skipjack
flathead catfish
blue catfish
black bullhead
river carpsucker
1968-76
emerald shiner
gizzard shad
channel catfish
freshwater drum
brown bullhead
mimic shiner
bluntnose minnow
sand shiner
threadfin shad
silver chub
1968-76
gizzard shad
carp
channel catfish
freshwater drum
brown bullhead
bigmouth buffalo
emerald shiner
smallmouth buffalo
river carpsucker
black buffalo
*most likely brown bullhead
-------
\-25
'S
O -H
2 tt.
CD
H
O
CD
0 P.
2 CO
.C
2 Pu
t/J
CD
O
CD
O P.
2 CO
t/)
O -H
2 [' i
O
CD
O p.
2 CO
O rH
& 00
^- O
\O OO
rH CXI
to to
CTI v£)
to to
to ^r
t-H to
tO tH
r-H i-H
CNt tO
r-H 00
CM rH
LO Tt
Tt tO
CM tO
CM
CTi
CN
CM
CM
00
f^
LO
00
to
rH
rt
LO
to
CO
rH
LO
(0
cn
o
CM
00
r~-
to
CM
Tt
CM
CM
CM
r-
to
r--
LO
to
CM
to
o
to
rH
rH
^j-
t--
to
o
CTl
CM
CM
LO
CTi
CTl
to
00
to
5
CO
r-x
rH
^O
to
,_l-
^o
rt
r-^
r^.
CM
o
OO
to
o
rH
r--.
CM
rH
CM
O
00
rH
LO
Tt
to
to
t^.
o
to
00
^o
o
CTi
to
to
CTl
0
to
^
^J-
LO
LO
rH
O
CM
[x.
CM
00
to
CTi
\O
rH
to
rt
^o
r-
cn
rH
1
00
~*D
Cn
rH
n
O
r-H
CTl O
CD iJ
r-H *J
J2 0
a cj
E-
33
HH
[i
OS
w
r-H
Pi
O
33
O
tfi
CD
(/)
H
LL.
(^
O
H
CD
g
3
2
*X3
C
CTJ
CD
H
CD
CO
<4H
CD
r°
g
Z
CTl
^
LO
CTl
o
CTl
^
CTi
CTl
^
CO
10
CTi
1-1
O
Z
o
Z
o
2
O
Z
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
2
2
O
Z
r;
c/1
H
CL,
CD
CJ
CD
p.
,C
tfl
H
B.
ryj
CD
H
U
CD
CO
^
m
CI-.
0
o
CD
eu
CO
(-*
w
H
Lt,
CD
CJ
CD
P.
CO
JZ
PL,
to
CD
CJ
CD
PJ
CO
t->
G
H
O
0.
cu
to oo o ^f
I-H rsi r-- t-H
^ r^ ^ tH
^O i I LO LO
rH CM CM rH
CM t^ O LO
O h^ LO CM
CM rH rH IO
O ^ CM rH
to
[-. tO rH O
rH tO IO CM
Tt to cn o
CO CO \D Tt
CN rH CTl CM
r-H CO \D '
^O CTi r- \D
rH CM CM CM
H r-- to LO
oo LO to r-
r-H tO O i-H
CM to r-- rH
CTi Tt [-- CTi
rH CM CN rH
O OO tO CM
LO t^ tO CM
vJD O Trt tO
rH tO ^t tO
\O 'iD CM tO
rH CM CM CM
tO tO O CM
tO Tt rt CTl
rH CO O l^-
to
rH
0
OO
rH
f^,
O
CTl
CM
CTl
, 4
cn
CM
,H
cn
CM
CTl
^j-
[^
CM
CM
CM
LO
CTi
^
r^
CM
Tt
\Q
to
CM
Oi
r-H
to
CM
O
Tt
LO
LO
CTl
rH
f-^
f-
Tt
00
LO
THj-
CM
CO
LO
LO
to
CM
CM
LO
r-H
to
CM
LO
to
CTl
CM
rH
LO
00
to
CM
OO
H
rH
,_,
CM
LO
CTi
O
OO
00
CM
CM
to
rH
CM
to
[^.
0
CM
LO
LO
S
to
CM
rH
O
\O
CM
rH
o
1 I
LO
rH
0
CM
CT*
CTl
rH
LO
to
rH
to
Tt
to
rH
to
to
O
Tt
O
to
LO
t^.
^j-
LO
CM
to
Tt
\o
CN
rH
T-j-
0
r-.
CM
CTi
CTi
to
CM
to
p-
cd
r^
O
o
" '
"d
rH
-------
-------
-------
------- |