Ul ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Monongahela River Basin
Aquatic Biology
Fish Population Studies of the
Monongahela River
MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION- HI 6th and Wamut Streeis, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
-------
EPA 903/9-75-016
Monongahela River Basin
Aquatic Biology
Part I: Fish Population Studies of the
Monongahela River
by H. R. Preston, Aquatic Biologist
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III, S&A Division
Wheeling Field Office
Wheeling, West Virginia
October
-------
-------
EPA 903/9-75-016
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract 1
Introduction 2
Description of Monongahela River 2
Importance of Fishery Studies h
Methodology 6
Results and Discussion 7
Summary and Conclusion 11
References l6
Appendix
Scientific Names of Fishes l8
-------
-------
Figures
Page
Figure 1. Monongahela River Navigation Locks and
Dams and Fish Sampling Locations
-------
-------
Tables
Page
Table 1. Summary of Fish Sampling 13
Table 2. Composition of Fish Collections,
Maxwell Lock
Table 3. Composition of Fish Collections,
Lock and Dam No. 2 15
-------
-------
ABSTRACT
Fish population studies were conducted in the Monongahela River
during the period 1967-1973. The results of these studies were
evaluated in relation to trends in water quality. Comparative fish
population statistics obtained from the upper Monongahela River shows
zero fish in 1967 and 8,071 fish in 1973 at the same location. The
same type of data obtained in the lower Monongahela River reveals a
change of 20 fish in 1967 to 869 fish in 1973 at the same location.
Intermediate data obtained in 1968, 1969 and in 1970 substantiates
the gradual increase in the fishery resource. The data indicates
significant improvement of water quality in the upper portions of the
Monongahela River and less improvement in the lower portions of the
river.
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
Description of Monongahela River
The Monongahela River basin includes approximately 7»380 square
miles in northern West Virginia, southwestern Pennsylvania and north-
western Maryland.
The Monongahela River is formed by the confluence of the West Fork
and Tygart Valley Rivers at Fairmont, West Virginia. The river flows
in a northerly direction for 128 miles and joins the Allegheny River at
Pittsburgh to form the Ohio River. The Youghiogheny and Cheat Rivers
are major tributaries of the Monongahela.
The Monongahela River basin is located in the Appalachian Plateaus
province. The terrain is rugged and the valleys are deep and narrow.
Flat areas are limited to narrow flood plains and some terraces and flat-
topped hills. The elevations of the basin range from a high of approxi-
mately U,600 feet above sea level in the headwaters of the Cheat River
to about 700 feet at Pittsburgh.
Most of the agriculture, manufacturing, mining and urban and in-
dustrial centers are located in the western half of the basin with much
of the basic steel industry in the basin located in the lower reach of the
Monongahela River. Forested lands are more concentrated in the eastern
half. Much coal mining has occurred in the basin, and coal extraction
continues to be important in the general vicinity of the West Fork River
and the main stem of the Monongahela River. Industries are concentrated
along the West Fork and main stem Monongahela.
Most of the principal communities in the basin are a part of the
Pittsburgh urban area. Other large communities are Clarksburg, Morgan-
town and Fairmont, West Virginia.
There are four existing reservoirs in the basin. These are Tygart
Reservoir on the Tygart Valley River, Youghiogheny Reservoir on the
Youghiogheny River, Lake Lynn on the Cheat River, and Deep Creek Reservoir
in the Youghiogheny River basin.
The main stem Monongahela is navigable for commercial traffic through-
out its 128 mile length. Eleven lock and dam structures are located on
the Monongahela River for navigation regulation.
The Monongahela River basin has been severely polluted by drainage
from coal mining activity. The main stem of the Monongahela River has
been acidic, until very recently, throughout its length.
Historically, the Monongahela River once supported an abundant and
valuable fishery resource. Lachner (l), in his general overview of the
-------
-------
3
changing fish fauna of the upper Ohio River basin, referred to an early
investigation by Evermann and Bollman in l886. These investigators
recorded ^0 species of fishes from the Monongahela River near the
Pennsylvania-West Virginia border. Many pollution sensitive fishes such
as the walleye and muskellunge vere among the inhabitants of the river.
During the first half of the 20th century, the intense mining in the
watershed, the heavy industrial development in the lower river and the
associated severe environmental degradation all but totally eliminated
any species of fish from the Monongahela.
This void of fish life did not encourage fish population examination
by appropriate agencies and hence, very little scientific data exists
describing the fish life of the Monongahela in recent times.
The Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission (ORSAWCO) and the
University of Louisville conducted fish resources studies of the Ohio
River and some of the major tributaries during the period 1957 to 1959•
Among the tributaries sampled was one station on the Monongahela River
near Elizabeth, Pennsylvania, approximately 50 miles downstream of the
West Virginia border. The results of this sampling produced only two
small bluegill sunfish weighing 0.1 pound. The final report of this
investigation, Aquatic Life Resources of the Ohio River (2) mentions
the unusual "pale chartreuse" color of the Monongahela River and recorded
a pH value of 3.8.
The Division of Water Supply, U. S. Public Health Service, one of
EPA's predecessor agencies conducted water quality studies of the Monon-
gahela in 1963. The biological examinations conducted during the study
concluded that the combined effects of acidity and the deposition of
sediments caused by mine drainage resulted in a drastic decrease in both
the kinds and number of benthic macroinvertebrates (3).
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration further documented
the condition of the Monongahela basin during comprehensive investigations
during 1965 and 1966. A synoptic benthic survey conducted as a part of
this investigation reflected the severe impact of acid mine drainage on
the Monongahela River basin (U).
Further studies by USEPA located and documented the major sources
of acid mine drainage (5).
Long term monitoring of water quality as reflected by aquatic life
has been conducted by EPA and its predecessor agencies since 1968. These
monitoring studies consist of synoptic benthic biology surveys and collection
of macroinvertebrates inhabitating artificial substrates placed in the major
rivers and sampled periodically. The results of these studies are in Part II
of this publication and document gradual improvement of water quality
in the upper portion of the Monongahela basin.
-------
-------
In 196T> the FWPCA formulated fishery resource studies designed
to establish conditions occurring in the river and provide a measure
of water quality trends. The study was planned to "be a comparison
with the earlier 1957-59 ORSANCO-University of Louisville study. The
study was implemented by the Wheeling Field Office and was conducted
in cooperation with ORSANCO, the states of West Virginia and Pennsyl-
vania and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The study, proposed mainly for the Ohio River proper had the
following objectives:
1. To measure the effect of pollution on a beneficial and
legitimate use of interstate waters.
2. To provide an accumulation of baseline data to evaluate
the effects of future changes in the pollutional loads
carried in the waterways.
3. To evaluate the palatability of sport and commercial
food fishes.
k. To compare the results of the 1957-59 ORSANCO-University of
Louisville study with current data and evaluate the discernable
difference in relation to water quality changes.
5. To evaluate the effectiveness of pollution control measures
as related to the fishery resources.
Importance of Fishery Studies
The intent of this study was not solely to indicate the presence
of pollution, but rather to reveal the effects of pollution upon a
beneficial use.
Doudoroff and Warren ( ) pointed out that fish, because of their
beneficial uses, can be used as a direct measure of pollution.
Tebo (7) in describing the value of fish studies and pollution
surveillance activities,stated:
"in this respect, fish are unique in that they are the only
parameter measured by the Water Pollution Surveillance System
which provide a direct measurement of the impact of changing
pollutional loads on a beneficial use."
During the performance of a pollution survey in which the objective
is to determine the presence or absence of pollution, it is usually
-------
-------
most efficient to examine sessile and sedentary forms of aquatic
life.
It has been argued that fish, "because of their mobility, are
less desirable for pollution studies than other aquatic forms. An
individual fish itself i_s_ mobile. A school of fish is_ mobile. A fish
population consisting of incremental age (or size) groups of different
species is not mobile. The presence of such an age and species dis-
tributed population is significant and can be related to water quality.
If an imbalanced population structure exists and/or persists over a
period of time, the causative environmental stress can be related to
water quality.
The quality of the condition (condition coefficient) of fishes
and the presence or absence of disease and parasitism are also indica-
tive of environmental stress.
The imbalance of a fish population in its species composition can
be related to known tolerance limits of a particular species. Doudoroff
and Warren (6) point out that:
"there is much more published information on the environmental
requirements of fish than on the requirements of species of any
other group of aquatic organisms excepting perhaps a few inver-
tebrate species of outstanding economic importance."
Tarzwell and Gaufin (8), in discussing pollution surveys, state:
"Data on fish population are especially valuable for indicating
pollutional conditions because fish are the chief end product
of the aquatic cycle. Data on the qualitative and quantitative
composition of fish populations, rate of growth, average size,
and catch per unit effort of sport and commercial fishery are
especially valuable for denoting the suitability of water
conditions and the economic and recreational losses due to
pollution. In fact the suitability of a water for fish life
is best defined by its productivity."
In specifically discussing fish studies related to pollution
surveys, Tarzwell and Gaufin further state:
"Although extensive areas of streams are often made fishless
the effects of pollution are not always on an all-or-none
basis. The complete absence of fish is usually common infor-
mation, but deteriorations in the quality of the population is
not generally apparent without some sampling studies. In
polluted streams the game fishes may be reduced in number or
-------
-------
eliminated while the coarse species or those most tolerant of
low oxygen concentration comprise the remaining population.
It has been the senior author's experience that when coarse
fishes become abundant, they crowd out the game fishes which
results in a marked decline in the sport fishery because the
coarse fishes are not desired by the sportsmen and are inferior
as food fishes."
The value of sampling fish populations in lock chambers and
relating the results to water quality was aptly described in a study
conducted by Krumholz and Minckley (9). After presentation of the
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 population of the river, both
in species composition and in numbers of individuals."
Without adequate data, these conclusions reached could not have
been possible. The fact that sampling in lock chambers in the upper
Ohio had been conducted in the previous years made the data comparable
in describing the effects of pollution on the fish populations.
Methodology
Fish population studies are difficult to conduct in large, deep
rivers. Several methods are available, such as nets, trawls, electrical
shocking, and toxicants. All of these methods have certain advantages
and disadvantages. Various seines and nets are decidedly selective for
certain species and sizes of fish. Trawls have proven to be difficult
to operate in river habitats. Electrical shocking is less selective
but is only effective in shallow shoreline areas. Rotenone, a toxicant,
is relatively non-selective and is effective in sampling deeper waters;
however, certain requirements for the use of rotenone are necessary for
the effectiveness of the toxicant. It is desirable to sample areas
where the larger and open river fish forms are likely to be present. It
is necessary to obtain an area small enough to concentrate the rotenone
and in a closed system to prevent dilution of the rotenone concentration.
Lock chambers meet these requirements.
The PHS Water Pollution Surveillance System (presently the Methods
Development and Quality Assurance Research Laboratory, EPA) conducted
a study pertaining to the examination and application of methods
suitable for obtaining information on fish populations in large rivers
-------
-------
and recommended rotenone and electric shocking as the most
feasible methods. The ORSANCO-University of Louisville Aquatic Life
Project successfully sampled the lock chambers with rotenone in
1957-1959-
The basic mode of operation for this type of sampling begins with
arranging with the U. S. Corps of Engineers a suitable time that will
be convenient for the investigator and have a minimum of interference
to river navigation. The sampling schedule has been normally arranged
to be conducted in the early fall when fish populations would theoret-
ically be the highest. The sampling time of the year was held consistent
from year to year for comparison purposes.
On the sampling site, the study is conducted in the lock chamber
at a downstream water level. The downstream lock gate is left open
to the river for a period of at least two hours prior to the sampling.
Once the sampling crew moves into the lock chamber with boats and gear,
the lock gates and all discharge gates are closed. The fish toxicant is
applied to the area and all affected fish are collected. This operation
normally requires about 3 - U hours. After all fish are collected the
chamber is filled to dilute the remaining toxicant.
The collected fish are identified, counted, measured (length and
weight), and portions preserved for validation of identifications.
In 1967, the Wheeling Field Office, of the then Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, began fish sampling studies in the
Monongahela River. The sampling locations selected were the Maxwell
Locks and Dam, mile point 6l.2 and Locks and Dam No. 2, mile point 11.2.
The location of these sampling points is shown in Figure 1.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Monongahela River has two major industrial environmental stresses
affecting water quality conditions. In the upper Monongahela, the primary
environmental problem has been acid mine drainage and in the lower Monon-
gahela it has been effluents from the steel and associated industries.
The lower Monongahela River problem sources are concentrated in the first
hO river miles upstream from Pittsburgh. The two fish population sampling
locations discussed here represent these two different environmentally
affected areas. Maxwell Lock and Dam is typical of the upper river and
Lock and Dam No. 2 represents the lower river. A summary of the results
of the lock chamber studies conducted is shown in Table 1. The following
discussions are presented in relation to the two sections of the river.
Upper Monongahela River
The results of the fish sampling at Maxwell Locks and Dam shows a
sharp difference in number and weight collected exists between the 1968
-------
-------
o
•H
-P
a
to
•H
0)
!>
•H
H
0) Tj
^ a
a? ctJ
hO
d KI
H
-------
-------
and 1969 sampling. Water quality monitoring records indicate that
low pH values occurred less frequently in the late 1960's than in
previous years. In 1970 the number of fish collected was reduced,
but the total weight remained about the same. The species composition
of the 1969 and 1970 was very similar, as a pollution tolerant species,
brown bullhead, dominated the population. Tables 2 and 3 present the
species composition of the Monongahela River samples.
The most dramatic change at Maxwell Lock occurred between the
samples of 1970 and 1973. Not only did the number and weight of the
fish population increase substantially, but the variety of species in-
creased, thereby reflecting a significant and sustained improvement of
water quality. Further, the 1973 species composition consists of an
increase in pollution sensitive fishes, such as the largemouth bass,
channel catfish and emerald shiners. The overall composition and the
described increases in the fish populations at Maxwell Locks and Dam
represents a significant reduction in the environmental stresses that
had been operating for decades in the upper Monongahela River.
Specifically, at Maxwell Lock and Dam in 1967 no fish life was
recovered in the 3 surface acre lock chamber'. In 1968, one small
bluegill sunfish was found in the sampling. In 1969, 20^ fish weighing
6.5 pounds were taken in the sample. The species composition recovered
were dominated by bullhead catfish and sunfish. In 1970, only 5^ fish
weighing 6.75 pounds were recovered and again, the population was
dominated by bullheads and sunfish.
Fishery studies in the Monongahela River were not planned until
1975 by EPA. However, fisherman reports the fish and game agencies of
West Virginia and Pennsylvania indicated a significant sport fishery
and therefore, in order to document these changes, the States and the
Wheeling Field Office, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted
sampling in September 1973. The results of this investigation at Max-
well Lock and Dam was astounding. A total of 8,071 fish weighing
91.5 pounds was collected and, more significantly, sixteen species
were collected. Largemouth bass, a pollution sensitive species, made
up 25.6 percent (by weight) of the total composition. The catch also
include important forage fish and sport panfish.
Representatives of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission assisted in
conducting these studies, and as a result of their evaluation of the
results, recommended and implemented the stocking of sport fishes in
upper Monongahela River in the State of Pennsylvania.
The Division of Fish and Wildlife, West Virginia Department of
Natural Resources, has, in recent years, received numerous comments from
local sport fishermen that substantial changes were occurring in their
-------
-------
10
catches. The Division wished to document these changes in the West
Virginia portion of the Monongahela River and, in cooperation with U. S.
EPA, Region III, conducted similar lock chamber studies in September, 1973
at the Opekiska Lock and Dam, mile point 115.H and the Morgantown Lock
and Dam, mile point 102.0. The results of the studies reflected a
similar fish population to that collected at Maxwell Lock during the same
month and year (10). Sixteen and fifteen species were collected re-
spectively at Opekiska and Morgantown. The sunfishes predominated the
composition at these two upstream stations. Since there has not been
previous comparable studies conducted in the West Virginia portion of
the Monongahela River, it is difficult to document recent changes or
trends in the fish population. However, it has been assumed that because
of the low pH and high acidity loads, there were few fishes inhabiting
the river in previous years.
The state report also cites the pH changes observed during the
decade 1962-1972 in which the 1962 average pH values for the Monongahela
River was U.7 and the 1972 average was 6.8 (WV Water Quality Network
Data). The report concludes "The Monongahela River fishery, once dead,
is now on the active list and coming back strong" (10).
The U. S. EPA and its predecessor agencies have also conducted other
long term biological monitoring in the upper Monongahela since 1968.
These studies have consisted of the periodic collection of aquatic
macroinvertebrates on installed artificial substrates in the river.
The data collected shows a steady increase in the number of taxa and
individuals during the period 1968 through 1973. Also, there has been
a corresponding increase in the frequency of occurrence that an increased
diversity of aquatic forms appears. Such data supports the observation of
an improvement in water quality. The results of these monitoring studies
are described in detail in Part II of this report.
Lower Monongahela River
In the lower Monongahela River, the aquatic environment has not
been impacted by acid mine drainage and/or its reduction as severely as
the upper portion. Although some trends in the aquatic life can be
observed, they are not as dramatic as those just described for the upper
portion of the river.
Fish population studies have been conducted at Lock and Dam No. 2,
mile point 11.2 in 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1973. The only previous
comparable data for the lower Monongahela River is from the 1957 study
at Elizabeth, Pennsylvania and mile point 2k by ORSANCO-University of
Louisville team. The results of that study consisted of the collection
of only two small bluegill sunfish weighing 0.1 lb..
-------
-------
11
The results of the 1967-1973 studies at Lock and Dam 2 are given
in Tables 1 and 2. These results show an increase in the quantity of
fishes in this area, but very little increase in the quality or the type
of fishes. In 1967, 20 fish weighing 2.5 pounds were collected; in 1968,
there were 207 fish weighing 28 pounds; in 1969» 1,626 fish weighing
58 pounds were collected and in 1970 only 26l fish weighing 45-7 pounds
were in the sample. In 1973, a total of 869 fish weighing 75 pounds was
collected. The species diversity increased from k to 15 during the period
and, in the latter samples, pollution sensitive fish became more common.
The trend at this location reflects an improvement, but not as great as
occurred further upstream in the Maxwell area. The surface area of Lock
and Dam No. 2 is .5 acre and approximately one third the size of the
Maxwell Lock Chamber and therefore, on a per acre basis, a greater number of
fish exist at Lock and Dam No. 2 than at Maxwell Lock. However, examination
of the composition of the fish population reveals little improvement at
Lock and Dam No. 2 during the study period in terms of a significant
increase in pollution sensitive fishes. The predominant fishes in the
samples were carp and bullheads. The lower Monongahela River fish population
samples have remained relatively stable since 1969 and the 1973 data does
not reveal significant changes or improvement. It appears that the population
sampled at this location is one supported by migrants from the upper Ohio
and lower Allegheny Rivers.
Similarly, the biological monitoring that has been conducted at
Lock and Dam 2 since 1968, involving use of artificial substrates and
examination of aquatic macroinvertebrate life, shows a gradual increase
in numbers but predominated by a few forms. Essentially this indicates
conditions remaining relatively constant with signs of improvement
developing. The macroinvertebrate data of the Monongahela Basin study
is presented in Part II of this report.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Associated with the observations on the fish population during
the period of this study, there has been measurable improvement in
the water quality as reflected by higher pH values and lower acidity
loads.
A recent water quality assessment report (ll) states that in the
Monongahela River basin, most industries, including coal mining, have
been making steady progress in reducing water pollution. In Pennsylvania,
active mine discharges requiring treatment have been providing such
treatment since 1970. Although not all are now in compliance in
West Virginia, active mines with discharges requiring treatment are
increasing the number of treatment facilities to meet compliance
requirements. A recent EPA survey of active mine discharges stimu-
lated the construction of several more facilities in West Virginia.
-------
-------
12
The fish population studies conducted on the Monongahela River
have been used to monitor water quality trends. The studies reflect
significant improvement of vater quality in the upper Monongahela
and less significant changes in the lover Monongahela.
In addition to providing measurements of water quality trends,
basic fishery information can be easily related to the general
public and the impact of the efforts of water pollution control
agencies can be more fully realized.
-------
-------
13
TABLE 1
Summary of Fish Sampling, Monongahela River
1967 - 1973
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973
Maxwell Lock (l.h surface
acres)
Total number fish
Total weight fish (ibs.)
Number of species
Percentage sensitive species -
(by weight)
Lock No. 2 (.5 surface
acres)
Total number fish
Total weight fish (ibs.)
Number of species
Percentage sensitive species 26
(by weight)
0
0
0
—
20
2.58
h
26
1
o.oU
1
—
207
27.33
8
9
20U
6.U3
8
18
1626
58.33
12
6
5h
6.76
6
23
261
^5-70
12
12
8,071
91-50
16
65
869
7lt.lt 8
16
31
-------
-------
Tablfe 2
Table 2
Year
1967
Total
1968
Total
1969
Total
1970
Total
1973
Composition of Fish Collections, Maxwell Lock
Monongahela River , 1967-73
(+indicates fraction of percent, X indicates hybrid)
Species
Total
Bluegill
Carp
Brown bullhead
Black crappie
Pumpkinseed sunfish
Green sunfish
Orange spotted sunfish
Sunfish X
Sand shiner
Golden redhorse
Brown bullhead
Bluegill
Bluegill-Green sunfish X
Pumpkinseed hybrid
Largemouth bass
Carp
Goldfish
Gizzard Shad
Largaaouth bass
Smallmouth bass
Rock bass
Pumpkinseed sunfish
Green sunfish
Bluegill
Green-Pumpkinseed X
Sunfish, young of year
unidentified
White crappie
Channel catfish
Brown bullhead
White catfish
Emerald shiner
Shiners (unidentified)
Number
0
0
Weight
0
0
O.Ql*
O.Ol*
8,071
0.03
6.76
12.17
0.22
5.1*8
23.1*2
0.38
0.06
0.1*9
0.15
1.00-
0.16
5.77
0.1*7
11.06
20.08
• 05
10.1*9
.05
91-50
Percent
by Weight
.100
100
1
108
18
69
1
1
1
20l*
1
38
6
1
7
2.20
3.05
.21
.90
.01
.01
.01
6.1*3
l.OU'
5.21
0.02
0.03
0.1*3
3l*+
1*7+
3+
ll*
+
+
+
15+
77+
+
+
6+
13+
6
25+
1+
6+
12+
21+
11+
-------
-------
Table 3 Composition of Fish Collections, Lock No. 2
Monongahela River, 1967-73
(+indicates fraction of percent, X indicates hybrid)
15
Date
1967
I!
II
II
Total
1968
ii
ii
it
it
it
ii
ii
Total
1969
I!
II
tl
II
II
II
II
Total
1970
it
Total
1973
Species
Bluegill
Pumpkinseed sunfish
Brown "bullhead
Shiner
Gizzard shad
Carp
Emerald shiner
Fathead minnow
Brown bullhead
Bluegill
Green sunfish
Largemouth bass
Gizzard shad
Carp
Goldfish
Bluntnose minnow
Sand shiner
Hnerald shiner
Channel catfish
Brown bullhead
Pumpkinseed sunfish
Bluegill-sunfish
Largemouth bass
Banded killifish
Gizzard shad
Carp
Bluntnose minnow
Bnerald shiner
Mimic shiner
White sucker
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Yellow bullhead
Bluegill
Orange spotted-sunfishX
Largemouth bass
Carp
Goldfish
Number
1
ll*
h
1
20
6
1*5
69
l
69
3
13
1
207
17
752
1
1
Weight (ibs) Percent by weight
1
522
173
1
1*
5_
1626
12
98
3
60
l*
1
73
2
1
i*
2
1_
261
0.05
0.60
1.92
0.01
2.58
1.36
13.16
0.60
0.01
12.27
0.03
0.1*2
27.99
2.05
1*1*.1*0
o.oi*
0.01
0.01
0.1*3
0.20
10.30
0.66
0.01
0.21
0.01
58.33
3.75
31.70
0.03
0.06
0.01
0.10
8.36
O.Oi*
0.02
0.18
0.08
1.37
1*5-70
1*1*.85
0.80
1+
23+
1+3+
+
1+
3+
76+
17+
1+
8+
69+
18+
60+
1+
-------
-------
16
Table 3 Cont'd.
Composition of Fish Collections, Lock No. 2
Monongahela River, 1967-73
(+indicates fraction of percent, X indicates hybrid)
Date Species Number
1973 Gizzard shad 271
" Channel catfish 39
Yellow bullhead 1
Brown bullhead 60
Golden shiner 1
Mimic shiner ) ^7
Sand shiner )
Spotfin shiner 15
Bluntnose minnow 6
Emerald shiner 237
Rock bass 2
Pumpkinseed sunfish 18
Bluegill sunfish 30
Sunfish (unidentified) 1
Total 869
It
tt
I!
II
II
II
II
II
»
II
II
II
Weight (Ibs)
20.81
0.6^
0.01
5-38
0.06
0.10
0.06
0.03
1.30
0.01
0.17
0.23
0.03
Percent by weight
27+
7+
1+
-------
-------
References
1. Lachner, Ernest A., 1Q56. The changing Fish Fauna of the Upper Ohio
Basin. Iri Man and the Waters of the Upper Ohio Basin, Special
Publication Number 1, Pymatuning Laboratory of Field Biology,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
2. Krumholz, Louis A., James R. Charles, and W. L. Minckley, 1962. The
Fish Population of the Ohio River. In_ Aquatic-Life Resources of
the Ohio River. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
3. Sidio, A.D., and K. M. Mackenthun, 1963. Report on Pollution of the
Interstate Waters of theMonongahela.
h. FWPCA, Wheeling Field Office, Ohio Basin Region, 1968. Benthic
Biology, Monongahela River Basin, Work Document No. 16.
5. USEPA, Wheeling Field Office, Region III, 1973- The Status of Active
Deep Mines in the Monongahela River Basin, Work Document No. U6.
6. Doudoroff, Peter and Charles E. Warren, 1957- Biological Indices of
Water Pollution, with Special Reference to Fish Populations, Trans.
of a Seminar on Biological Problems in Water Pollution., R.A. Taft,
Sanitary Engineer Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, pp. 144-163-
7- Tebo, L. B., Jr., 1965. Fish Population Sampling Studies at Water
Pollution Surveillance System Stations on the Ohio, Tennessee, Clinch
and Cumberland Rivers. PHS Water Pollution Surveillance System,
Applications and Development Report No. 15-
8. Tarzwell, Clarence M. and Arden R. Gaufin, 1953. Some Important Biological
Effects of Pollution Often Disregarded in Stream Surveys. Purdue
University Eng,. Bull., Prod, of the 8th Indus. Waste Conf.
9- Krumholz, Louis A. and W. L. Minckley, 196U. Changes in the Fish Popula-
tions in the Upper Ohio River following Temporary Pollution Abatement,
Trans, of Am. Fish. Soc., Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 1-5-
10. Jernejcic, Franklin, 197^. Monongahela River Surveys, D-J Project
F-10-R-16, Survey of Streams. Division of Fish and Wildlife, W.Va.
Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, W. Va.
11. Bryant, Gary and Scott McPhilliamy, 1973. Water Quality Assessment Report,
Monongahela River Basin, USEPA, Region III, Wheeling Field Office.
12. Preston, H. Ronald, 1969. Fishery Composition Studies, Ohio River Basin.
Seventieth Meeting of the ORSANCO Engineering Committee,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
-------
-------
Appendix
Scientific names of fishes listed in this report:
Gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur)
Goldfish, Carassius auratus (Linnaeus)
Carp, Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus
Golden shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas (Mitchill)
Emerald shiner, Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque
Spotfin shiner, Notropis spilopterus (Cope)
Sand shiner, Notropis stramineus (Cope)
Mimic shiner, Notropis volucellus (Cope)
Bluntnose minnow, Pimephales notatus (Rofinesque)
Fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas Rufinesque
White sucker, Catostomus commersoni (Lacepede)
Golden redhorse, Moxostoma erythrurum (Rafinesque)
White catfish, Ictalurus catus (Linnaeus)
Yellow bullhead, Ictalurus natalis (Lesueur)
Brown "bullhead, Ictalurus nebulusus (Lesueur)
Channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque)
Banded killifish, Fundulus diaphanus (Lesueur)
Rock bass, Ambloplites rupestris (Rafinesque)
Green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque
Pumpkinseed sunfish, Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus)
Orangespotted sunfish, Lepomis humilis_ (Girord)
Bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque
i t
Smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieui Lacepede
Largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides (Lacepede)
White crappie, Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque
Black crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Lesueur)
-------
------- |