QHEI Metrics Gradient River Mile QHEI Substrate Cover Channel

Table 35. QHEI, QHEI metrics, and narrative rating for mainstream Wabash River sites sampled in HUC-11watersheds 05120108-010 and 05120108-030.

Table 36a. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120108-010 from 1999-2006. IBI tolerances are colorcoded: I – Intolerant (blue); M – Sensitive (green); P – Moderately Tolerant (pink); T – Tolerant (red).

River Mile QHEI Substrate Cover Channel Riparian Pool RiffleGradient(Score) Narrative

05120108-010Year: 2004

301.5 56.0 14.0 9.0 13.0 5.0 7.0 0.0 1.00 - (8) Fair305.2 50.5 14.0 8.0 11.0 4.5 7.0 0.0 0.50 - (6) Fair

05120108-030Year: 2004

290.4 62.5 14.0 13.0 14.0 5.5 8.0 0.0 1.00 - (8) Good295.3 64.5 14.0 13.0 13.0 5.5 9.0 0.0 4.00 - (10) Good

QHEI Metrics

SpeciesCode Species Name Latin Name

SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

20-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 102843-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 100943-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 95185-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 63340-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 35277-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 34277-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 24843-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 24543-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 23143-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 23143-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 15243-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 15043-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 13677-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 13277-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 11747-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 11040-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 10340-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 8599-040 unspecified sucker unspecified sucker 6640-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 6343-022 Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus I 6240-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 5640-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 5340-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 5110-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 4374-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 3647-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 3440-007 Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 3243-113 Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 3043-063 Channel Shiner Notropis wickliffi I 2843-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 2710-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 2280 001 S S i di d 22

Wabash River Watershed - Threats to Biological Condition © Midwest Biodviersity Institute & Indiana TNC -- 87

Table 36a. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120108-010, continued.

80-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 2240-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 2177-006 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 1940-015 Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans M 1743-007 Bigeye Chub Notropis amblops I 1508-002 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 1143-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 1177-013 Pumpkinseed Sunfish Lepomis gibbosus P 1020-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 940-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 943-023 Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis 977-002 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 977-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 943-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 818-002 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus I 740-009 Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei I 743-044 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 743-009 Gravel Chub Erimystax x-punctata M 643-047 Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 677-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 680-002 Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 643-039 Silverjaw Minnow Notropis buccatus 447-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 418-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 243-015 Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis 277-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 277-028 Bluegill Sunfish X Redear Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus X macrolophus 280-004 Dusky Darter Percina sciera sciera M 210-003 Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus 140-023 Smallmouth Redhorse Moxostoma breviceps M 143-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 147-008 Stonecat Madtom Noturus flavus I 174-002 Striped Bass Morone saxatalis 180-011 Logperch Percina caprodes M 1


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected


Table 36b. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120108-030 from 1999-2006. IBI tolerances are colorcoded: I – Intolerant (blue); M – Sensitive (green); P – Moderately Tolerant (pink); T – Tolerant (red).


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 133920-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 132743-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 100985-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 78543-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 41340-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 36443-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 30777-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 30447-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 29243-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 22343-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 19577-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 18743-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 17477-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 11640-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 10040-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 8947-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 7710-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 7340-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 7177-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 7140-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 6110-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 4843-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 4240-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 4143-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 4140-015 Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans M 3543-022 Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus I 3274-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 3240-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 2920-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 2840-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 2880-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 2699-040 unspecified sucker unspecified sucker 2343-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 2040-009 Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei I 1677-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 1643-044 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 1443-063 Channel Shiner Notropis wickliffi I 1243-009 Gravel Chub Erimystax x-punctata M 1177-006 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 1143-047 Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 1077-002 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 977-013 Pumpkinseed Sunfish Lepomis gibbosus P 808-002 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 743-039 Silverjaw Minnow Notropis buccatus 777-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 740-007 Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 677-003 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 6


Table 36b. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120108-030, continued.


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

40-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 543-003 Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas T 543-015 Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis 543-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 443-007 Bigeye Chub Notropis amblops I 447-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 474-002 Striped Bass Morone saxatalis 480-002 Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 480-011 Logperch Percina caprodes M 410-003 Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus 318-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 343-025 Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus 340-013 River Redhorse Moxostoma carinatum I 243-013 Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus T 270-001 Brook Silverside Labidesthes sicculus M 277-012 Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus 280-004 Dusky Darter Percina sciera sciera M 280-005 Blackside Darter Percina maculata 280-007 Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala I 290-002 Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi 215-001 Bowfin Amia calva 140-023 Smallmouth Redhorse Moxostoma breviceps M 143-023 Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis 143-113 Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 147-008 Stonecat Madtom Noturus flavus I 177-028 Bluegill Sunfish X Redear Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus X macrolophus 1


Wabash River including Big Pine Creek, Rock Creek, Big Shawnee Creek, 05120108-070 &Redwood Creek, and Opossum Run 05120108-080

Map 19. Map of HUC-11 watersheds 05120108-070 and -080, Middle Wabash River with Big Pine Creek, Rock Creek,Big Shawnee Creek, Redwood Creek and Opossum Run. Data points reflect fish sampling sites on the mainstem (circles)and tributaries (triangles).

Biological conditions as measured by the IBI aregenerally fair - good in the mainstem Wabash Riverwithin these HUC-11 watersheds (Appendix Table1a). There is some variability of sampling resultsthat other researchers have related to the flowvariation in the river (Gammon 1998, Pyron et al.2004). These reaches still contain a diversity of someintolerant (Blue Sucker and Mimic Shiners) andsensitive species (Longear Sunfish, redhorse spp.),but proportionately fewer than in upstream reaches(Table 38). This reach of the river did have segmentswith riffle/run habitats and these habitat types areassociated with many of the sensitive speciescollected in watershed 05120108. Tolerant andmoderately tolerant species are more abundant than

they should be with large populations of carp andfreshwater drum which are associated with slowerpool habitats and enriched conditions (Table 38).Back-calculated stressor signals from fish in thesereaches are consistent with generally fair-to-good in-stream habitat, but nutrient enriched conditions(Appendix 8).

Nitrate and TSS are still high in this reach as theyare in most of the Wabash River mainstem (Table31). BOD and zinc are at moderate concentrations,but DO, TP, dissolved parameters and TOC are atbackground for a large river (Table 32). HUC-11watershed tributaries of Big Pine Creek (HUC-11s -040, -050, and -060) had high to extreme concen-

Table 37. QHEI, QHEI metrics, and narrative rating for mainstream Wabash River sites sampled in HUC-11watersheds 05120108-070 and 05120108-080.


05120108-070Year: 1999

278.8 57 13 11 13 5 9 0 0.40 - (6) Fair

05120108-080Year: 1999

265.6 70.0 14.0 13.0 14.0 7.0 11.0 5.0 0.50 - (6) GoodYear: 2004

265.3 67.0 14.0 14.0 16.0 7.0 8.0 0.0 1.00 - (8) Good

QHEI Metrics

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

05120108-08005120108-070

05120108-030

05120105-10005120108-090

05120108-060


trations of nitrate and TA which contribute tomaintenance of high nutrients in the mainstem.

Habitat quality in these reaches ranged from fair in-070 to good in -080 (Table 37). As in other MiddleWabash River reaches substrate, cover, channel andriparian scores were mediocre with signs of stressedhabitat, likely from a combination of bank erosion,sedimentation from banks and upstream reaches andtributaries, and direct and indirect modi-fications toriparian areas. Some of the upstream tributaries (e.g.,Big Pine Cr.) had sites with very poor and poorhabitats (Appendix 2b). Direct modifications includeremoval or encroachment of riparian forests andindirect includes increased erosion from flashierflows and loss of connections with floodplains whichreduces pressure on banks.

Summary–Biological condition ranged from fair-good in these reaches of the Wabash River. The fishassemblage was a mix of more tolerant with somesensitive and intolerant species still with decentpopulations. Larger river species were a morecommon component of the assemblage in this reach.Tolerant fishes in the these reaches morepredominant than in upstream reaches and werelikely influenced by enrichment from agriculturalrunoff from upstream and nearby tributaries that arecontributing high nitrate and TSS (see Appendix 7).Locally, the lack of mature and sufficiently wideriparian corridor contributes to the low numbers ofsensitive species. Restoration of mature riparian forestsand the resulting large woody debris that would beexported to the channel margins would provide positiveshort- and medium-term improvements to biodiversity.


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 94643-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 53585-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 38743-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 33643-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 30520-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 23743-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 18040-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 12977-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 9743-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 8247-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 6143-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 5640-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 5477-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 4443-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 4340-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 4240-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 3740-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 3547-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 3040-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 2374-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 2399-040 unspecified sucker unspecified sucker 2377-013 Pumpkinseed Sunfish Lepomis gibbosus P 2277-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 1477-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 1343-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 1140-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 1080-011 Logperch Percina caprodes M 843-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 640-009 Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei I 5

Table 38a. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120108-070 from 1999-2006. IBI tolerances are colorcoded:I – Intolerant (blue); M – Sensitive (green); P – Moderately Tolerant (pink); T – Tolerant (red).





SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

80-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 510-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 440-015 Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans M 443-015 Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis 477-006 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 480-002 Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 480-007 Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala I 410-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 320-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 343-047 Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 340-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 240-007 Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 243-003 Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas T 243-025 Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus 247-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 274-002 Striped Bass Morone saxatalis 277-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 277-002 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 277-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 277-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 201-001 Silver Lamprey Ichthyomyzon unicuspis 101-008 Chestnut Lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus P 118-002 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus I 137-001 Grass Pickerel Esox americanus vermiculatus P 140-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 143-007 Bigeye Chub Notropis amblops I 143-021 Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis I 143-022 Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus I 143-063 Channel Shiner Notropis wickliffi I 147-009 Mountain Madtom Noturus eleutherus I 177-003 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 180-004 Dusky Darter Percina sciera sciera M 180-023 Orangethroat Darter Etheostoma spectabile 1


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 42943-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 27185-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 23043-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 20520-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 18443-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 15777-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 12640-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 11743-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 8577-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 7143-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 66


Table 38b. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120108-080, continued.SpeciesCode Species Name Latin Name

SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-015 Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis 5943-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 5843-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 5877-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 4443-022 Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus I 4047-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 3640-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 3343-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 3340-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 2777-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 2540-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 2240-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 2140-015 Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans M 2077-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 1940-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 1480-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 1280-011 Logperch Percina caprodes M 1243-039 Silverjaw Minnow Notropis buccatus 1147-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 1180-007 Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala I 1140-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 1010-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 810-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 840-009 Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei I 899-040 unspecified sucker unspecified sucker 818-002 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus I 740-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 774-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 643-044 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 577-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 518-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 420-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 440-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 443-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 477-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 477-003 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 480-022 Rainbow Darter Etheostoma caeruleum M 443-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 374-005 Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatalis X chrysops 315-001 Bowfin Amia calva 240-007 Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 240-023 Smallmouth Redhorse Moxostoma breviceps M 257-001 Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 277-028 Bluegill Sunfish X Redear Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus X macrolophus 240-013 River Redhorse Moxostoma carinatum I 143-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 143-007 Bigeye Chub Notropis amblops I 143-021 Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis I 177-006 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 180-004 Dusky Darter Percina sciera sciera M 180-014 Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum 1


Middle Wabash River including including Jordan Creek 05120108-090

Map 20. Map of HUC-11 watershed 05120108-090, Middle Wabash River with Jordan Creek. Data points reflect fishsampling sites on the mainstem (circles) and tributaries (triangles).

Biological conditions as rated by the IBI aregenerally fair - good in the mainstem Wabash Riverwithin this HUC-11 watershed (Appendix 1a). Thereis some variability with sampling results that otherresearchers have related to some of the flow variationin the river (Gammon 1998, Pyron et al. 2004). Thisreach still contains a diversity of intoler-ant (BlueSucker and Black Redhorse) and sensitive species(Longear Sunfish, Smallmouth Bass and redhorsespp.). Tolerant and moderately tolerant species are moreabundant than they should be with large populationsof carp and Freshwater Drum. Back-calculated stressorsignals from fish in these reaches are consistentwith generally fair-to-good habitat and nutrientenriched conditions (Appendix 8).

Relatively little chemistry data was available for thisreach in the mainstem or in immediate tributaries,

however, not surprisingly nitrates and TSS are stillelevated through this reach (Table 31). Back-calculated stressor signals from fish in these reachesare consistent with the nutrient enriched conditions(Appendix 8).

Habitat in this reach of the Wabash River wasgenerally fair with one sample poor and anotherbarely into the good range (Table 39). Absenceof riffle habitats has some influence on thesescores, but rather poor substrate, cover, channel,and riparian scores were most responsible for theloss of habitat quality. Low substrate scoresindicate sedimentation and lack of functionalcoarse materials. Low instream cover scores canbe related to poor riparian scores and the lack oflarge stable woody materials that are not heavilysilted.

Table 39. QHEI, QHEI metrics, and narrative rating for mainstream Wabash River sites sampled in HUC-11 watershed05120108-090.

05120108-090


Year: 1999260.7 52.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 5.0 9.0 0.0 0.50 - (6) Fair

Year: 2004254.0 50.0 13.5 7.0 12.0 1.5 8.0 0.0 1.00 - (8) Fair256.2 55.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 6.0 10.0 0.0 0.26 - (6) Fair257.0 43.5 6.0 10.0 8.0 4.5 7.0 0.0 1.00 - (8) Poor262.3 60.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 5.0 8.0 0.0 0.50 - (6) Good

QHEI Metrics

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

05120108-080

05120108-090

05120105-140

05120105-110

05120105-120


Table 40. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120108-090 from 1999-2006. IBI tolerances are colorcoded: I – Intolerant (blue); M – Sensitive (green); P – Moderately Tolerant (pink); T – Tolerant (red).


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 159843-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 134920-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 69540-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 49985-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 47743-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 44643-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 44543-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 28443-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 20843-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 18747-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 9977-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 7843-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 7040-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 6843-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei 6840-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 5340-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 5010-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 4643-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 4477-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 4277-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 3740-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 3647-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 3440-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 3277-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 3040-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 2774-005 Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatalis X chrysops 2177-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 1940-009 Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei I 1680-011 Logperch Percina caprodes M 1410-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 1274-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 1180-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 1140-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 1043-013 Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus T 840-007 Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 740-023 Smallmouth Redhorse Moxostoma breviceps M 743-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 740-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 615-001 Bowfin Amia calva 543-039 Silverjaw Minnow Notropis buccatus 5

Summary–This reach is transitional to upstream anddownstream reaches, and contains species associatedwith good habitat, but also a predominance of speciesassociated with nutrient-enriched and silt-impactedpool habitats. Riparian habitats are at best poor tofair, limiting QHEI cover scores and habitats relatedto good channel development. This reach would

benefit from local riparian and in-stream habitatimprovement, along with enhancement of drained,agricultural headwater streams. This would reduceflashiness and nutrient and sediment export. Invasivealien species (e.g., Bighead Carp) are also anemerging problem in this reach.


Table 40. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120108-090, continued.


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

40-015 Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans M 443-015 Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis 443-022 Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus I 443-044 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 443-113 Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 457-001 Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 474-006 Yellow Bass Morone mississippiensis 477-002 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 477-006 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 477-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 499-040 unspecified sucker unspecified sucker 418-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 380-002 Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 308-002 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 243-021 Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis I 243-028 Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius P 243-030 Bigeye Shiner Notropis boops I 243-063 Channel Shiner Notropis wickliffi I 247-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 277-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 218-002 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus I 120-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 143-047 Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 174-002 Striped Bass Morone saxatalis 180-004 Dusky Darter Percina sciera sciera M 180-028 Mud Darter Etheostoma asprigene P 1


Middle Wabash River – Little Vermilion River, Coal Creek, HUC-11: 05120108-140Mill Creek, and Little Raccoon Creek & 05120108-150

Map 21. Map of HUC-11 watersheds 05120108-140 and -150, Middle Wabash River with the Little VermilionRiver, Mill Creek, Coal Creek, and Little Raccoon Creek. Data points reflect fish sampling sites on the mainstem(circles) and tributaries (triangles).

Biological conditions as rated by the IBI aregenerally fair in the mainstem Wabash River withinthese HUC-11 watersheds (Appendix 1a). There issome variability with sampling results that otherresearchers have related to the flow variation in theriver (Gammon 1998, Pyron et al. 2004). Thesereaches have a somewhat lower diversity ofintolerant species (e.g., Mimic Shiner and RosyfaceShiner) although there was a large number of BigeyeChubs collected in 05120108-150 (Table 42).Sensitive species (Smallmouth Bass and redhorsespp.) were a bit less abundant as well. These reacheshave uncharacteristically low number of sunfish(Appendix 1a) and round-bodied suckers, althoughpresent were a smaller proportion of the population.Tolerant and moderately tolerant species are more

abundant than they should be with large populationsof carp and freshwater drum and there were largepopulations of the “generalist” species such asGizzard Shad and Emerald Shiner. Back-calculatedstressor signals from fish in these reaches areconsistent with generally fair - good habitat andnutrient enriched conditions (Appendix 8).

These reaches had high concentrations of nitrate andTSS as is characteristic of the river in general andmoderate concentrations of BOD, TA, and Zinc, butnormal, background levels of dissolved constituents(chloride, sulfate, TDS) (Table 31). There were fewdata from the immediate HUC-11 tributaries in -140or -150 however other confluent tributaries includedCoal Creek (05120108-110) and Mill Creek

Table 41. QHEI, QHEI metrics, and narrative rating for mainstream Wabash River sites sampled in HUC-11 watersheds05120108-140 and 05120108-150.


05120108-140Year: 2004

247.2 64.5 9.0 13.0 16.0 4.5 8.0 4.0 3.00 - (10) Good

05120108-150Year: 2004

231.0 59.5 13.0 12.0 13.0 5.5 6.0 0.0 3.00 - (10) Fair231.6 61.0 13.0 12.0 12.5 5.5 8.0 0.0 3.00 - (10) Good

QHEI Metrics

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

####

##

##

##

##

#

#

#

05120108-140 05120108-150

05120108-090

05120111-010

05120111-020

05120108-200


(05120108-120), which had generally backgroundconcentrations of most parameters (with theexception very high zinc from -120); Sugar Creek(05120110), which generally had moderate-highconcentrations of TP, nitrate, and TSS and high tovery high concentrations of zinc; and the LittleVermilion River (05120109-100) that generally hadmoderate concentrations of BOD, TP and sulfate andhigh to very high concentrations of nitrate, TA, andTSS (Appendix 7).

Habitat in this reach of the Wabash River wasgenerally fair- marginally good (Table 41). The sitein -140 has a riffle present, but still had poor substrateand riparian scores and a mediocre cover score. Thetwo samples in -150 had mediocre substrate, cover,channel, and riparian scores which has beencharacteristic for this HUC-8 segment. Back-calculated stressor signals from fish in these reachesare consistent with generally fair-to-good habitat andnutrient enriched conditions (Appendix 8).

Summary–Biological condition was generally fairin these reaches of the Wabash River. The fish

assemblage was dominated by a mix of tolerant andintermediate tolerant species (e.g., Emerald Shinerand Gizzard Shad). There were some sensitive andintolerant species, but in lower abundance thanupstream reaches. Tolerant fishes in the these reacheswere more dominant than in upstream reaches andwere likely influenced by enrichment fromagricultural runoff from upstream and some nearbytributaries (Little Vermilion River and Sugar Creek)that are contributing high nitrate and TSS (seeAppendix 7). As with its neighboring reaches,invasive alien species are an emerging problem (e.g.,Silver Carp and Bighead Carp).



SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 87420-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 73143-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 31385-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 28243-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 23443-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 19140-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 14843-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 10743-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 7347-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 5977-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 4647-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 4140-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 4040-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 3674-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 3377-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 3240-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 3043-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 2840-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 2777-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 2610-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 2240-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 2143-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 20





SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 1777-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 1743-022 Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus I 1410-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 1343-063 Channel Shiner Notropis wickliffi I 1077-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 1040-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 999-040 unspecified sucker unspecified sucker 920-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 840-015 Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans M 843-007 Bigeye Chub Notropis amblops I 780-011 Logperch Percina caprodes M 643-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 540-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 440-007 Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 443-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 443-044 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 477-006 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 477-012 Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus 480-014 Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum 440-009 Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei I 343-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 301-007 Amer Brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix I 210-003 Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus 240-023 Smallmouth Redhorse Moxostoma breviceps M 243-015 Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis 257-001 Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 277-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 277-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 277-013 Pumpkinseed Sunfish Lepomis gibbosus P 208-002 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 174-002 Striped Bass Morone saxatalis 177-003 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 1


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 29920-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 25885-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 19243-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 11643-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 11543-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 11443-007 Bigeye Chub Notropis amblops I 10643-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 10540-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 8843-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 61




SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

47-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 5247-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 3240-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 2843-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 2840-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 2477-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 2310-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 2043-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 1877-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 1740-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 1677-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 1610-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 1440-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 1443-022 Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus I 1440-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 1199-040 unspecified sucker unspecified sucker 1140-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 1043-039 Silverjaw Minnow Notropis buccatus 1040-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 943-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 977-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 980-011 Logperch Percina caprodes M 843-044 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 774-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 743-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 640-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 543-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 543-113 Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 577-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 543-023 Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis 440-023 Smallmouth Redhorse Moxostoma breviceps M 357-001 Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 377-006 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 301-001 Silver Lamprey Ichthyomyzon unicuspis 218-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 240-009 Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei I 240-015 Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans M 243-030 Bigeye Shiner Notropis boops I 280-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 220-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 174-002 Striped Bass Morone saxatalis 174-005 Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatalis X chrysops 174-006 Yellow Bass Morone mississippiensis P 177-028 Bluegill Sunfish X Redear Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus X macrolophus 180-002 Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 1


Map 22. Map of HUC-11 watershed 05120108-200, Middle Wabash River with Raccoon Creek and Norton Creek.Data points reflect fish sampling sites on the mainstem (circles) and tributaries (triangles).

Middle Wabash River including Raccoon Creek and Norton Creek 05120108-200

Biological conditions as rated by the IBI aregenerally fair in the mainstem Wabash River withinthis HUC-11 watershed (05120108-200) (Appendix1a). There is some variability with sampling resultsthat other researchers have related to the flowvariation in the river (Gammon 1999, Pyron et al.2004). These reaches have a lower diversity ofintolerant species (e.g., Mimic Shiner, RosyfaceShiner, and Blue Sucker) and aside from MimicShiner abundances were low (Table 44). Sensitivespecies (Smallmouth Bass and redhorse spp.) wereless abundant as well. These reaches, as was true forthe last several, had low numbers of sunfish andround-bodied suckers and contributed the minimumscore (1) to the IBI for these metrics. High numbersof species of intermediate tolerance (Emerald Shinersand Gizzard Shad) had a substantial effect onproportional metric scores. Tolerant and moderatelytolerant species are more abundant than they shouldbe with large populations of carp and freshwaterdrum however the tolerant metric scored a “5”because of large populations of “generalist” species

such as Gizzard Shad and Emerald Shiner (Table 39).Back-calculated stressor signals from fish in thesereaches are consistent with nutrient enrichedconditions (Appendix 8).

The mainstem reach had high concentrations of nitrateand TSS as is characteristic of the river in general andmoderate concentrations of BOD, TA, and zinc, butnormal, background levels of dissolved constituents(chloride, sulfate, TDS) (Table 31). There were fewdata from the immediate HUC-11 tributaries in -200however other confluent tributaries, including RaccoonCreek (05120108-190), had generally moderateconcentrations of nitrate and high concentrations of TAand TSS (Table 32).

Habitat in this reach of the Wabash River was fair atall sites (Table 43). This deviates substantially fromwhat would be expected at a more natural site (Table30). The sites in this reach had rather poor cover,channel, and riparian scores and had good substratescores at only one site. There were no riffle habitats

Table 43. QHEI, QHEI metrics, and narrative rating for mainstem Wabash River sites sampled in HUC-11 watersheds05120108-200.

05120108-200


Year: 2004218.7 56.0 12.0 10.0 14.0 6.0 8.0 0.0 0.53 - (6) Fair218.7 51.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 4.0 9.0 0.0 0.53 - (6) Fair219.5 50.0 15.5 8.0 9.0 4.5 7.0 0.0 0.50 - (6) Fair227.8 51.0 11.0 8.0 11.0 4.0 9.0 0.0 0.55 - (8) Fair

QHEI Metrics

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

####

##

##

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#05120108-200

05120111-020

05120108-150

05120105-19005120108-140


in any of the sample reaches. This lack of riffles insampling sites is a characteristic shared with mostof the remainder of the river.

Summary–Biological condition ranges weregenerally fair in these reaches of the Wabash River.The fish assemblage was predominated by a mix oftolerant and intermediate tolerance species (e.g.,Emerald Shiner and Gizzard Shad) with somesensitive and intolerant species but in lowerabundance than further upstream reaches (i.e., HUC-8 05120105). Tolerant fishes in the these reaches weremore important than in upstream reaches and were

likely influenced by enrichment from agriculturalrunoff from upstream and some nearby tributaries(Little Vermilion River and Raccoon Creek) that arecontributing high nitrate and TSS (see Appendix 7).Invasive alien species such as Silver and BigheadCarp are an emerging problem.

Table 44. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120108-200 from 1999-2006. IBI tolerances are colorcoded: I – Intolerant (blue); M – Sensitive (green); P – Moderately Tolerant (pink); T – Tolerant (red).


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 84120-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 79885-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 78843-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 31643-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 26140-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 25847-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 18047-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 17643-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 15240-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 11343-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 11277-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 7577-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 7340-023 Smallmouth Redhorse Moxostoma breviceps M 6543-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 6410-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 5577-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 4940-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 4610-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 4340-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 4340-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 4299-040 unspecified sucker unspecified sucker 4277-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 3443-022 Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus I 3474-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 2340-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 2377-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 1943-039 Silverjaw Minnow Notropis buccatus 1943-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 1899-079 unspecified sunfish unspecified sunfish 1843-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 1640-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 1643-063 Channel Shiner Notropis wickliffi I 1480-004 Dusky Darter Percina sciera sciera M 14


Table 44. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120108-200, continued.


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

20-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 1340-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 1343-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 1374-005 Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatalis X chrysops 1243-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 1208-002 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 1243-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 1143-007 Bigeye Chub Notropis amblops I 1080-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 943-113 Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 843-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 640-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 540-015 Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans M 547-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 443-025 Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus 477-003 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 377-006 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 374-002 Striped Bass Morone saxatalis 347-016 Freckled Madtom Noturus nocturnus 380-011 Logperch Percina caprodes M 343-013 Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus T 343-047 Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 243-009 Gravel Chub Erimystax x-punctata 280-028 Mud Darter Etheostoma asprigene P 270-001 Brook Silverside Labidesthes sicculus 277-012 Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus 243-023 Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis 240-009 Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei I 280-007 Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala 243-015 Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis 218-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 118-002 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus I 1


#S#S#S#S#S#S

#S

#S

#S#S#S#S#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S#S#S#S#S

#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S

#S

#S#S#S#S #S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S

#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S

$T

$T

$T

$T

$T

$T

$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

Parke

Vigo

Clay

SullivanGr

KnoxDaviess

Map 23. IBI values from the mainstem (circles) or upstream tributaries within the middle Wabash River HUC-8watershed (05120111). Points are scaled by IBI values and colors reflect narrative ranges for scores. Mainstem datain Indiana from 1999 and 2005/6; other data collected between 1990 and 2006 by IDEM (IN). Shaded areas areLevel IV ecoregions; this watershed is primarily in the Loamy, High Lime Till Plains subecoregion with a northernand western portion in the Illinois/Indiana Prairies subecoregion and the southern portion in the Glaciated WabashLowlands subecoregion.

IBI Legend

ExcellentVery GoodGoodFairPoor

UpstreamMainstem

Data and Background - 05120111

This mainstream Wabash River HUC-8 watershed(RMs 309.4 – 236.5) is about seventy-three miles inlength. Biological data on the mainstem wasrelatively abundant, but very sparse on the tributarieswithin this HUC-8 watershed (Map 23). There isabundant historical data from Jim Gammon and Mark

Pyron in these reaches, however, we focused onthemost complete, recent data from Indiana DNR in1999, and from ORSANCO and Mark Pyron from2004-2006.

Identification of Stressors – We used a “weight-of-evidence” stressor identifcation approach toassign likely causes of biological impairment. For


HUC-11Watershed QHEI Substrate Cover Channel Riparian Pool Riffle

Gradient(Score) Narrative

0520111* 92.5 18.0 22.0 19.0 10.0 12.0 7.5 0.50 - (6) Excellent

* Year = 1800

QHEI Metrics

Table 45. Reconstructed historical estimation of habitat conditions in the HUC-8 05120111 watershed (Wabash Riverand Busseron Creek). The reconstruction of this QHEI assumes conditions during early settlement of the Wabash RiverValley in the 1800s and is provided as an “anchor” for interpreting habitat conditions. Feasible goals for habitat rehabilitationwould likely be somewhere between these values and existing values shown in later tables.

05120111

HUC-11Watershed N

05120111020 13 79.5 97.7 49.2 97.1 63.8 90.5

05120111030 40 97.9 94.6 53 65.1 90.8 98.1

05120111040 9 84.2 88.1 54 81.3 64.1 87.6

05120111060 8 100 87.3 93.6 100 83.2 93.9

05120111100 19 96.6 66.8 37.6 40.3 30.7 74.3

05120111160 67 94.4 76.4 53.1 79.4 80.9 90.1

05120111200 25 96.4 77.8 44.5 49 40.3 77.3

-Ref. -Low -Med. -High -V.High -Extreme

Water Chemistry Variables

Min.WQI

MeanWQI

Summary of Narrative Ranges:

DissolvedOxygen

TotalP QHEI TSS

Table 46. Water Quality Index values for HUC-11 watersheds from the upper Wabash River HUC-8 watershed(05120111); tributary and mainstem data combined. N reflects number of stations. Mean WQI does not includeQHEI component. Colors represent increasing risk of aquatic life impairment

example, we compared stressor levels in themainstem and at upstream sites to ranges of valuesconsidered to be “least impacted” to rank stressorlevels and to identify stressor that could beresponsible for limiting biological conditions andbiodiversity.

Historical Habitat Conditions – This HUC-8watershed, in the heart of the Corn Belt Plains, ischaracterized by its Great River characteristics.Most of the extensive bottomland forests, wetlands,and sloughs have been eliminated which has asubstantial effect on the habitat in the Wabash River.Table 45 presents a hypothetical reconstruction ofwhat Wabash River stream habitat might have lookedlike prior to settlement. The excellent rating wasbased on maximum or near maximum scores for mostmetrics.

Water Chemistry Stressors – Tables 47 and 48summarize chemical concentrations for HUC-11watersheds in the mainstem Wabash (Table 47) andin the tributaries within these HUC-11 watersheds(Table 48). Table 46 provides a different way oflooking at water chemistry results using a WaterQuality Index (WQI) that was calibrated by linkingchemical concentrations to threshold responses ofIBI scores at samples sites. None of these tables arereplacements for water quality criteria, but are simplya way to consider risks to aquatic life from increasedconcentrations based on ambient stressor responserelationships.


0512

0111

HU

C-1

1W

ater

shed

N

Upp

er W

abas

h R

iver

0512

0111

040

439.

62.

50.

164.

50.

2035

6035

852

420

0512

0111

050

911

.10.

162.

834

5535

954

56

0512

0111

070

49.

33.

10.

214.

20.

2545

534

10

0512

0111

090

107.

80.

111.

134

5936

069

48

0512

0111

100

492

9.4

2.5

0.20

3.5

0.20

3356

367

644

17

0512

0111

150

159.

0

0512

0111

180

108.

10.

120.

80.

5935

6235

311

24

10

0512

0111

200

237

10.3

2.6

0.19

3.4

0.10

3254

355

684

12

Sum

mar

y of

Nar

rativ

e R

ange

s:-R

ef.

-Low

-Med

.-H

igh

-V.H

igh

-Ext

rem

e

Tot

al O

rg.

Car

bon

Zin

c

Wat

er C

hem

istr

y V

aria

bles

Dis

solv

ed

Oxy

gen

BO

D(5

-day

)T

otal

PN

itrat

eT

otal

Am

mon

iaT

DS

TSS

Tot

alC

hlor

ide

Tot

alSu

lfate

0512

0111

HU

C-1

1W

ater

shed

N

Upp

er W

abas

h R

iver

0512

0111

020

299.

70.

115.

60.

1928

6733

8514

215

0512

0111

030

758.

00.

040.

30.

2413

140

460

82

3305

1201

1104

06

8.5

0.08

0.6

0.20

2639

340

83

1805

1201

1106

019

7.5

0.20

0.4

4170

713

8022

805

1201

1115

07

7.4

0.12

10.

2025

4733

07

524

0512

0111

160

339

7.5

0.12

10.

1617

240

528

164

1205

1201

1119

013

8.4

0.04

07

2120

78

305

1201

1120

011

9.0

0.05

2.2

0.22

2878

380

252

16

Sum

mar

y of

Nar

rativ

e R

ange

s:-R

ef.

-Low

-Med

.-H

igh

-V.H

igh

-Ext

rem

e

Wat

er C

hem

istr

y V

aria

bles

Dis

solv

ed

Oxy

gen

BO

D(5

-day

)T

otal

PN

itrat

eT

SST

otal

Org

.C

arbo

nZ

inc

Tot

alA

mm

onia

Tot

alC

hlor

ide

Tot

alSu

lfate

TD

S

Tabl

e 47

. Se

lect

ed m

edia

n w

ater

qua

lity

valu

es f

or H

UC

-11

wat

ersh

eds

from

with

in th

e W

abas

h R

iver

and

Bus

sero

n C

reek

(05

1201

11)

HU

C-8

wat

ersh

ed; m

ains

trea

m d

ata

ON

LY. N

arra

tive

desc

ript

ions

repr

esen

t dev

iatio

n fr

om a

refe

renc

e ba

ckgr

ound

con

cent

ratio

n an

d no

ta

wat

er q

ualit

y cr

iteri

a st

anda

rd.

Tab

le 4

8. S

elec

ted

med

ian

wat

er q

ualit

y va

lues

for

HU

C-1

1 w

ater

shed

s fr

om w

ithin

the

Wab

ash

Riv

er a

nd B

usse

ron

Cre

ek (

0512

0111

)H

UC

-8 w

ater

shed

; tri

buta

ry d

ata

ON

LY. N

arra

tive

desc

ript

ions

rep

rese

nt d

evia

tion

from

a r

efer

ence

bac

kgro

und

conc

entr

atio

n an

d no

t aw

ater

qua

lity

crite

ria

stan

dard

.


Figure 16. Plot of IBI by river mile in the middle Wabash River & Busseron Creek HUC-8 watershed. Mainstreamsites sampled in 1999 by IN DNR are black and connected by a dashed line; sites sampled in 2004/6 by ORSANCOare open circles. Data from tributaries sampled by IDEM are summarized in the box plot.

10

20

30

40

50

60

100120140160180200220

Mainstem IBI Data - Huc-05120111Wabash River and Busseron Creek

IBI

River Mile

IBI ValuesTributaries

Very Poor

Fair

Poor

Good

Excellent

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Upper Wabash

Middle Wabash & Deer

Cr

Middle Wabash & L. Vermilion

River

Middle Wabash & Busseron

Cr

Lower Wabash

River

Percent Tolerant Fishes by Huc-8 Watershed

Per

cent

Tol

eran

t

Figure 17. Box and whisker plots by Huc-8 watershed of the percent tolerant fish at sites from the mainstem WabashRiver; data collected 1999-2006.

Results and Summary - 05120111

Although we provide detail on biological conditionunder each HUC-11 watershed, we are exploring thepercent of tolerant fish species here because of theirdistinct trending along the entire river. Musselspecies richness was variable throughout this HUC-8, with sites ranging from 0 to 20 species and a reachof low diversity near the beginning of this subbasin.

Biological Condition – Fish sites sampled in thisfourth reach of the Wabash River were variable withsome sites in the upstream and downstream sectionsin the good range and sites in the middle portionfair-poor as can be observed in Map 23 and Figure16. The IBI was generally good in the majority ofthe tributaries to the Wabash in this HUC-8watershed which includes samples in Busseron Creekand Spring Creek and other tributaries (N=15).


Tributaries were in a bit better condition than thebasinwide average for the Wabash River as calculatedby IDEM, but the Wabash River mainstem wasgenerally in worse condition (see Figure 16). Musselspecies richness generally follows the same patternwith fewer mussels species,in general, in the middleportion of this reach (see Appendix 10).

Biological Condition Gradient – The absence ofrare large river species such as Alligator Gar andbackwater species and low populations of sensitivespecies of intermediate tolerance indicates theassemblages in these reaches reflect Tier 4 and Tier5 conditions, with limited sites having better habitatsexhibiting near Tier 3 conditions.

Biodiversity – The fish species collected in themiddle Wabash and Busseron Creek HUC-8 reachof the Wabash River mainstem (Table 50) werecharacterized by a lack of sensitive species and morespecies of intermediate tolerance and several tolerantspecies (Freshwater Drum and Common Carp) thanthe previous two HUCs. These intermediate specieswould also be rated as being towards the tolerantrange of intermediate tolerance.

The percent tolerant fish in the Wabash Rivermainstem are summarized (Figure 17) for all HUC-8 watersheds along the mainstem. Aside from thedomination of tolerants in the upper ditched reachesof the Wabash River (05120101), tolerant fish are

lowest in the high gradient middle Wabash and DeerCreek reach (05120105) and then gradually increasein a downstream direction, including this 05120111HUC-8. This trend would probably be morepronounced if Gizzard Shad and Emerald Shiners(having intermediate tolerance) were eliminated fromcalculations.

The tributary streams to this HUC-8 watershedthat were sampled are predominantly composedof intermediate and tolerant fish species and onesensitive species (Longear Sunfish). Distributionof IBI scores between 34 and 44 identifies thatmany of these sites meet the CWA cutoff, but donot contain many of the most sensitive fishspecies.

Habitat – Historically, the lower reaches of theWabash were quite different in character from whatthey are like today. The mainstem had extensivebackwaters, oxbows, and sloughs. Water was clearand did not rise rapidly during flooding (was non-flashy) and habitat was likely diverse and aquaticvegetation was abundant. QHEI scores would haveranged from the 70s to 90s.

The mainstem habitat today is this reach is in fair tomarginal-good condition. The habitat in fact was verysimiliar along most of the reach (Figure 18). Longstretches of mediocre habitat can cause some cumulativeeffects if not interspersed with areas of high qualityhabitat. It is missing well developed riffles andinstream structure is poor. Historical riparian forests

Table 49. Ten most dominant fish species by number collected in fish samples in the middle Wabash River and Busseron Creek watershed (Huc 05120111) in Indiana. IBI tolerance category for each species is noted as is the total individuals counted during sampling.

Ten Most Dominant Fish Species by Relative Abundance

Mainstem

Tributaries (Excluding Mainstem)

Emerald Shiner - (1,773) Creek Chub [T] – (596) Gizzard Shad – (1,997) Central Stoneroller - (578)

Freshwater Drum [P] – (1,446) Longear Sunfish [M] – (524) Spotfin Shiner – (1,065) Bluntnose Minnow [T] – (406)

Common Carp [T] – (1,022) Silverjaw Minnow – (284) Channel Catfish – (919) Johnny Darter - (257)

River Shiner – (338) Green Sunfish [T] – (174) River Carpsucker – (450) Bluegill Sunfish – (126) Flathead Catfish – (353) White Sucker (104)

Spotted Bass – (232) Orangethroat Darter – (92)


Figure 19. Plot of QHEI Mean Riparian Width by river mile in the entire Wabash mainstem. Data IDEM, ORSANCO,and Ohio EPA (Ohio reaches).

Figure 18. Plot of QHEI by river mile in the middle Wabash River and Busseron Creek HUC-8 watershed (05120111.Mainstream sites are black and connected by a dashed line. Data from tributaries sampled by IDEM are summarizedin the box plot.

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

100120140160180200220

Mainstem IBI Data - Huc-05120108Wabash River and Busseron Creek

QH

EI

River Mile

Very Poor

Fair

PoorClear Habitat

Effects

Possible Habitat Effects Good

Excellent

QHEI Values Tributaries

and wetlands were undoubtedly vast; riparian zonestoday (Figure 19) are very narrow in some reaches,even on such a larger river, which has led tosubstantial, local bank erosion.

The tributary sites that were sampled in this HUC-8had fair to good habitat (Figure 19), but sample sizewas rather small to make broad comparisons

Pollutant Stressors in the Watershed – Mean totalphosphorus concentrations at stations were notsubstantially different among the lower four

mainstem reaches, but the highest values declined(Figure 20) which may be due to the higher averagevolume of flow dampening extreme values.Tributaries still had elevated TP values that may havecontributed to maintaining concentrations in themainstem. Total nitrate values were generally stillhigh in the mainstem; however, tributaries in05120111 had relatively lower nitrate concentrationscompared to upstream HUC-8 watersheds (Figure21). This is likely the result of a lower percentageof land subject to agricultural drainage compared toupstream reaches.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0100200300400500

Mainstem QHEI Riparian Data

NoneVery Narrow

NarrowModerate

Wide

Ave

rage

Rip

aria

n W

idth

(m)

River Mile


Figure 20. Total phosphorus (mg/l) vs. river mile in the Wabash River mainstem within the two lower Wabash RiverHUC-8 watersheds (05120111-blue and 05120113-orange). Box and whisker plots represents data from tributaries fromwithin each these HUC-8 watersheds. Orange dash lines represent total phosphorus targets for wadeable streams or largerivers based on work done in Ohio (Ohio EPA 1999).

0.1

1

04080120160200240

Indiana and Ohio Data (Huc-05120111) - Middle Wabash & Busseron Cr

(Huc-05120113) - Lower Wabash River

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

l)

River Mile

- TP Targets by Stream Size

Large River

TP Values Tributaries

0.1

1

10

04080120160200240280320



Tota

l Nit

rate

(mg/

l)

River Mile

- Nitrate Targets by Stream Size

Large River

NitrateValues Tributaries

WadeableStreams

Figure 21. Total nitrate (mg/l) vs. river mile in the Wabash River mainstem within the two lower Wabash RiverHUC-8 watersheds (05120111-blue and 05120113-orange). Box and whisker plots represents data from tributariesfrom within each these HUC-8 watersheds. Orange dash lines represent total nitrate targets for wadeable streams orlarge rivers based on work done in Ohio (Ohio EPA 1999).


A

Map 24. Maps of the Wabash River HUC-8 watershed, 05120111, showing its position in the Wabash River Watershed(A) and the HUC-11 catchments within it (B). Elevation (0-255 meters; color-coded - 15 levels) serves as the backgroundof each map. Only the last three digits of each HUC-11 are shown.

05120111

B

060070

010

050

020030

090

160

040

130

120

100

170 180

150

200

190

05120111-


Middle Wabash River including Brouillets Creek, Sulphur Creek, HUC-11: 05120111-040Coal Creek, Sugar Creek and Clear Creek 05120111-050

& 05120111-070

Map 25. Map of HUC-11 watersheds 05120111-040, -050, and -070, Middle Wabash River with Brouillets Creek,Sulphur Creek, Coal Creek, Sugar Creek, and Clear Creek. Data points reflect fish sampling sites on the mainstem (circles)and tributaries (triangles).

Biological conditions as rated by the IBI are gener-ally fair in the mainstem Wabash River within theseHUC-11 watersheds (05120108-040, -050, -070), al-though there were sites/samples that were rated poorand one sample collected at night during 2004 (RM201.2, Appendix 1d) that would be rated as excel-lent. There is some variability with sampling resultsthat other researchers have related to flow variationin the river (Gammon 1998, Pyron et al. 2004). Mus-sel species richness varies greatly at sample sites inthese HUC-11 watersheds (see Appendix 10), someof which may be habitat related.

These reaches have a lower diversity of intolerantspecies (e.g., Mimic Shiner and Blue Sucker) and

abundances of these species were comparatively low(Table 51). Sensitive species (Smallmouth Bass andredhorse spp.) were less abundant as well, but stillpresent at many sites. These reaches, as did severalin the last HUC-8 watershed (05120108), had lownumbers of species of sunfish and round-bodiedsuckers and contributed the minimum score (1) tothe IBI for these metrics at most sites. High num-bers of species of intermediate tolerance (EmeraldShiners and Gizzard Shad) like had a substantial ef-fect on proportional metric scores. Tolerant andmoderately tolerant species are more abundant thanthey should be with large populations of carp andFreshwater Drum however the tolerant metric scoreda “5” because of large populations of “generalist”

05120111-040


Year: 1999207.3 60.0 15.0 7.0 14.0 8.0 10.0 0.0 0.50 - (6) Good

Year: 2004208.0 56.5 14.0 8.0 12.5 5.0 9.0 0.0 1.00 - (8) Fair

05120111-050Year: 2004

201.2 64.0 14.5 13.0 16.0 4.5 8.0 0.0 1.00 - (8) Good

QHEI Metrics


!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

####

##

##

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

05120111-020

05120111-070

05120111-060

05120111-03005120111-050

05120111-040

05120111-100


species such as Gizzard Shad and Emerald Shiner.Back-calculated stressor or inferred signals from fishin these reaches are consistent with a generally fair-to-good rating, but also with a variable habitat andnutrient enriched conditions (Appendix 8).

These mainstem reaches, where data was sufficient,had high concentrations of nitrate and TSS as is char-acteristic of the river in general and moderate con-centrations of TA, and zinc, but in general normal,background levels of dissolved constituents (chlo-ride, sulfate, TDS) (Table 47). Back-calculated stres-sor signals from fish in these reaches is consistentwith nutrient enriched conditions (Appendix 8).There were few data from the immediate HUC-11tributaries in -040, -050 and -070. However, otherupstream confluent tributaries included BrouilletsCreek (05120111-020), which had moderate concen-trations of TSS and zinc, high concentrations of TA,sulfate and TDS, and very high nitrate concentra-tions and Sulphur Creek (05120111-030), which hadbackground concentrations of BOD, TP, TSS, TOCand nitrate, high concentrations sulfate and TDS andvery high concentrations or TA and zinc (Table 48).

Habitat in this reach of the Wabash River was fair tomarginally good at sites (Table 50). This deviatesmuch from what might be expected at a more natu-ral (Table 45). The sites in this reach had good sub-strate scores, but rather poor cover scores and poorriparian scores at two of three sites. Back-calculated

stressor signals from fish in these reaches is vari-able with conditions indicating fair – good habitatconditions (Appendix 8). There were no riffle habi-tats in any of the sample reaches. The lack of rifflesat sampling sites will continue for most of the restof the river. As discussed in other sections, poorriparian corridors contribute to low QHEI coverscores because of the lack of high quality wood fromlarge trees. Large woody debris was likely a majorcharacteristic of the pre-settlement, “natural” WabashRiver that had bottomland forests with AmericanSycamores approaching 200 feet in height.

Summary–Biological condition ranges were gener-ally fair in these reaches of the Wabash River al-though some sites scored in the good range. The fishassemblage was dominated by a mix of tolerant andintermediate tolerance species (e.g., Emerald Shinerand Gizzard Shad) with some sensitive and intoler-ant species but in lower abundance than further up-stream reaches (e.g., HUC-8 05120105). Tolerantfishes in the these reaches were more predominantthan in upstream reaches and were likely influencedby mediocre habitat and enrichment from agricul-tural runoff from upstream and some nearby tribu-taries (Brouillets Creek) that are contributing highnitrate and TSS (see Appendix 7).



SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

20-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 96143-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 94043-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 59785-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 37743-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 18643-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 17243-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 15147-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 12747-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 11040-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 9077-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 8443-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 6977-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 5777-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 53


43-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 3977-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 3210-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 3140-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 2840-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 2710-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 2640-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 2643-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 2340-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 2274-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 2240-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 1780-011 Logperch Percina caprodes M 1699-040 unspecified sucker unspecified sucker 1440-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 1240-015 Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans M 1243-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 1277-006 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 1277-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 1280-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 1120-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 1043-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 1040-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 943-039 Silverjaw Minnow Notropis buccatus 843-044 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 843-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 708-002 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 643-015 Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis 643-047 Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 610-003 Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus 418-002 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus I 447-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 474-006 Yellow Bass Morone mississippiensis P 440-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 343-022 Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus I 343-063 Channel Shiner Notropis wickliffi I 343-113 Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 380-002 Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 340-007 Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 243-114 Weed Shiner Notropis texanus 270-001 Brook Silverside Labidesthes sicculus M 277-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 277-002 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 277-012 Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus 220-004 Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense 143-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 143-007 Bigeye Chub Notropis amblops I 143-010 Shoal Chub Macrhybopsis hystoma I 177-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 180-004 Dusky Darter Percina sciera sciera M 180-014 Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum 1


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected





SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 56920-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 40585-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 33443-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 31643-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 19547-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 11743-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 11043-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 9210-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 8140-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 5547-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 5240-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 4777-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 4680-011 Logperch Percina caprodes M 4277-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 3840-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 3640-015 Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans M 3343-022 Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus I 3040-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 2743-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 2740-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 2477-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 2443-015 Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis 2340-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 2043-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 2077-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 1943-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 1810-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 1743-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 1543-044 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 1508-002 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 1440-009 Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei I 1443-113 Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 1240-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 1174-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 1120-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 943-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 977-006 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 780-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 777-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 643-063 Channel Shiner Notropis wickliffi I 518-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 443-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 457-001 Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 470-001 Brook Silverside Labidesthes sicculus M 477-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 480-007 Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala I 480-015 Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides M 480-028 Mud Darter Etheostoma asprigene P 4


Table 51c. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120111-070 from 1999-2006. IBI tolerances are colorcoded: I – Intolerant (blue); M – Sensitive (green); P – Moderately Tolerant (pink); T – Tolerant (red).


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected


99-040 unspecified sucker unspecified sucker 440-023 Smallmouth Redhorse Moxostoma breviceps M 343-007 Bigeye Chub Notropis amblops I 374-006 Yellow Bass Morone mississippiensis P 377-002 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 315-001 Bowfin Amia calva 218-002 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus I 240-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 243-005 River Chub Nocomis micropogon I 243-013 Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus T 277-003 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 240-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 143-009 Gravel Chub Erimystax x-punctata M 143-023 Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis 143-039 Silverjaw Minnow Notropis buccatus 143-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 143-047 Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 174-005 Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatalis X chrysops 177-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 180-002 Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 180-014 Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum 1


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

20-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 4047-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 3810-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 3243-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 2243-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 474-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 340-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 247-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 277-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 285-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 210-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 118-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 120-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 140-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 143-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 177-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 177-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 180-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 1


Map 26. Map of HUC-11 watersheds 05120111-090 and -100, Middle Wabash River with Big Creek and Snyder Creek.Data points reflect fish sampling sites on the mainstem (circles) and tributaries (triangles).

Biological conditions as rated by the IBI is generallyfair in the mainstem Wabash River within theseHUC-11 watersheds (05120108-090 and -100)although there were sites/samples that were ratedpoor (Appendix Table 1a). There is some variabilitywith sampling results that other researchers haverelated to the flow variation in the river (Gammon1998, Pyron et al. 2004). That same variability wasalso characteristic of the mussel assemblages nearthese sites (see Appendix 10).

These reaches have a lower diversity of intolerantspecies (e.g., Blue Sucker and Goldeye) andabundances of these species were comparatively low.Sensitive species (Longear Sunfish, SmallmouthBass and redhorse spp.) were less abundant as well,but still present (Table 53). These reaches, as wereseveral in the previous HUC-8 watershed(05120108), had low numbers of species of sunfish

and round-bodied suckers, and these contributed theminimum score (1) to the IBI for these metrics atmost sites. High numbers of species of intermediatetolerance (Emerald Shiners and Gizzard Shad) likelyhad a substantial effect on proportional metric scoresas in other reaches. Tolerant and moderately tolerantspecies are more abundant than they should be (e.g.,large populations of carp and Freshwater Drum).However the tolerant metric scored a “5” at some siteswith large populations of “generalist” species such asGizzard Shad and Emerald Shiner that skewed relativeproportions. Back-calculated stressor signals from fishin these reaches is consistent with generally variablefair-to-good habitat and nutrient conditions that areconsistently enriched (Appendix 8).

These mainstem reaches, where data was sufficient(05120111-100), had high concentrations of nitrateand TSS as is characteristic of the river in general

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

05120111-130

05120111-060

05120111-100

05120111-090

05120111-120

Middle Wabash River including Big Creek and Snyder Creek 05120111-09005120111-100

05120111-090


Year: 2004179.0 58.0 14.0 14.0 13.5 4.5 6.0 0.0 0.10 - (6) Fair182.3 61.0 11.0 14.0 12.0 6.0 10.0 0.0 0.64 - (8) Good182.8 61.0 14.0 14.0 13.5 4.5 7.0 0.0 1.00 - (8) Good186.5 58.0 14.0 11.0 13.0 4.0 8.0 0.0 1.00 - (8) Fair

QHEI Metrics



and moderate concentrations of TA, BOD and Zinc,but in general normal, background levels of dissolvedconstituents (chloride, sulfate, TDS) (Table 47).Back-calculated stressor signals from fish in thesereaches are consistent with nutrient enrichedconditions (Appendix 8). There were few data fromthe immediate HUC-11 tributaries in -090 and -100however upstream confluent tributaries includedHoney Creek (05120111-060) which had lowconcentrations of TSS and TP, moderateconcentrations of chloride, high concentrations ofTOC, and extreme concentrations of sulfate and TDS(Table 48).

Habitat in this reach of the Wabash River was fair tomarginally good at sites (Table 52). This deviatesmuch from what might be expected at a more natural(Table 45). The sites in this reach had decentsubstrate scores, but rather poor riparian scores andlow pool scores probably because of a lack ofvariation in current speed. Back-calculated stressorsignals from fish in these reaches is consistent withvariable and fair - good habitat conditions (Appendix8). There were no riffle habitats in any of the samplereaches. The lack of riffles at will continue for mostof the rest of the river.

Summary: Biological condition ranges weregenerally fair in these reaches of the Wabash Riveralthough some sites scored in the good range. Thefish assemblage was predominated by a mix oftolerant and intermediate tolerance species (e.g.,Emerald Shiner and Gizzard Shad) with somesensitive and intolerant species but in lowerabundance than further upstream reaches (e.g., HUC-8 05120105). Tolerant fishes in these reaches weremore predominant than in upstream reaches and werelikely influenced by mediocre habitat and enrichmentfrom agricultural runoff from upstream reaches andtributaries (see Appendix 7). As is true for most ofthe reaches in the lower two-thirds fo the WabashRiver, riparian zones and floodplains with poorlydeveloped forests contribute to the poor in-streamhabitat in the mainstem.


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

85-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 23920-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 18743-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 14547-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 13943-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 10943-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 9240-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 8647-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 4710-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 3977-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 3040-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 2640-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 2343-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 2177-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 1977-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 1740-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 1377-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 1343-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 1243-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 1274-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 12



10-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 1140-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 1177-002 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 943-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 818-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 708-002 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 640-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 615-001 Bowfin Amia calva 447-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 443-025 Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus 343-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 374-005 Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatalis X chrysops 377-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 377-006 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 380-004 Dusky Darter Percina sciera sciera M 343-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 243-023 Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis 243-045 Common Carp X Goldfish Cyprinus carpio X Carassius auratus T 243-063 Channel Shiner Notropis wickliffi I 243-113 Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 277-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 277-028 Bluegill Sunfish X Redear Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus X macrolophus 280-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 220-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 120-004 Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense 140-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 140-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 140-015 Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans M 140-023 Smallmouth Redhorse Moxostoma breviceps M 143-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 1


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected




SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

20-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 43643-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 17043-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 11985-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 10443-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 5547-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 4577-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 3547-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 2810-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 2343-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 2140-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 2040-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 1877-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 1540-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 1343-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 1310-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 1077-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 943-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 808-002 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 640-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 543-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 515-001 Bowfin Amia calva 443-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 443-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 474-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 443-063 Channel Shiner Notropis wickliffi I 377-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 380-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 340-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 243-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 277-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 280-015 Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides M 218-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 120-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 143-113 Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 147-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 147-016 Freckled Madtom Noturus nocturnus I 174-005 Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatalis X chrysops 1



Middle Wabash River including Truman Creek, Turtle Creek, 05120111-120and Sugar Creek 05120111-150

Map 27. Map of HUC-11 watersheds 05120111-120 and -150, Middle Wabash River with Truman Creek, Turtle Creek,and Sugar Creek. Data points reflect fish sampling sites on the mainstem (circles) and tributaries (triangles).

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

05120108-120

05120108-090

05120111-150

05120111-020

05120108-200

Biological conditions as rated by the IBI are generallypoor-to-fair in the mainstem Wabash River within theseHUC-11 watersheds (05120111-120 and -150) (Appen-dix 1a). Species richness and total abundance was ratherlow in these reaches and the most common fish spe-cies in each segment was common carp.

These reaches have a lower diversity of intoler-ant species, which could be characterized as in-cidental occurrences (Table 55). Sensitive specieswere mostly low numbers of several redhorse spe-cies. These reaches had low numbers of speciesof sunfish and round-bodied suckers, as were sev-eral in the last HUC-8 watershed (05120108), andthese species contributed the minimum score (1)to the IBI for their metrics at most sites. Goldfishwere collected in both reaches, which is an indi-cation of moderate-severe impairment. Tolerantand moderately tolerant species are more abun-


05120111-120Year: 2004

166.3 62.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 6.0 7.0 0.0 0.50 - (6) Good

05120111-150Year: 2004

159.1 61.5 13.0 9.0 16.0 6.5 7.0 0.0 2.00 - (10) Good

QHEI Metrics


dant than they should be with large populationsof carp and Freshwater Drum. Total abundancewas low, especially at sites collected in 1999; datafrom 2004 had higher catch rates, but was col-lected at night and is hard to compare.

These mainstem reaches had insufficient data inthe mainstem or in upstream tributaries in theirimmediate HUC-11 watersheds to assess thechemical concentrations. It is reasonable to as-sume that, at a minimum, nitrate and TSS are highas they are in mainstem segments upstream(05120111-090 and -100) and downstream(05120111-200), and as is characteristic of the riverin general (Table 47).

Habitat in this reach of the Wabash River was mar-ginally good at sites (Table 54). This deviates muchfrom what might be expected at a more natural reach


(Table 45). The sites in this reach had mediocrescores for most metrics and rather poor riparianscores and low pool scores probably because of alack of variation in current speed. There were noriffle habitats in any of the sample reaches. Thesetrends seem somewhat general and repetitive, how-ever, extensive diffuse impacts are characteristic ofthese downstream reaches of this HUC-8 and simi-lar to the Lower Wabash.

Summary–Biological condition ranges were gener-ally fair in these reaches of the Wabash River. Thefish assemblage was predominated by a mix of tol-

erant and intermediate tolerant species with carp themost common species in each reach. Sensitive andintolerant species were fewer and in low abundancein these reaches. Tolerant fishes in these reacheswere more predominant than in upstream reaches andwere likely influenced by mediocre habitat and en-richment from agricultural runoff from upstreamreaches and tributaries (see Appendix 7). Similar toother sites in this section of the Wabash mainstem,actions that would increase habitat heterogeneity,particularly addition of large woody debris in pools,and connections with floodplain areas should in-crease habitat complexity.



SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 6520-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 5447-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 4485-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 4443-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 2010-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 1140-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 1040-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 843-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 643-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 540-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 443-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 443-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 440-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 347-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 340-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 240-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 240-023 Smallmouth Redhorse Moxostoma breviceps M 247-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 274-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 208-002 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 110-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 120-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 140-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 140-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 143-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 143-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 143-039 Silverjaw Minnow Notropis buccatus 143-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 143-113 Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 177-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 177-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 177-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 177-028 Bluegill Sunfish X Redear Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus X macrolophus 1




SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 11247-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 6443-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 3985-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 2743-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 2240-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 1543-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 843-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 680-007 Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala I 640-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 577-028 Bluegill Sunfish X Redear Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus X macrolophus 540-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 443-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 447-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 420-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 240-016 White Sucker Catostomus commersoni T 277-002 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 218-002 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus I 120-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 143-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 143-039 Silverjaw Minnow Notropis buccatus 143-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 143-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 174-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 177-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 1


Middle Wabash River including Busseron Creek HUC-11: 05120111-17005120111-18005120111-190

& 05120111-200

Map 28. Map of HUC-11 watersheds 05120111-170, -180, -190 and -200, Middle Wabash River with Busseron Creek.Data points reflect fish sampling sites on the mainstem (circles) and tributaries (triangles).

Biological conditions as rated by the IBI is generallyfair-to-good in the mainstem Wabash River withinthese HUC-11 watersheds (05120111-170 (no data),-180, -190 and -200) (Appendix 1a). Species richnessand total abundance was rather low in these reachesand the most common fish species in each segmentwas Freshwater Drum or Common Carp. Carp aregenerally minor components of large river reacheswhere water quality (e.g., nutrients) and habitat aregood, favoring buffalo and other native suckers. Thedominance of carp in these reaches are a signal ofdegraded habitat and enrichment.

These reaches have a lower diversity of intolerantspecies (e.g., Blue Sucker) which could be charac-terized as incidental in occurrence, and should beabundant. Sensitive species were mostly low numberof Longear Sunfish, Smallmouth Bass and severalredhorse species (Table 57). There was a significantdegree of variation in metrics among samples andsunfish were more abundant in some samples thanin upstream reaches. Abundances were similarlyvariable between samples. What is characteristic inthese reaches, as in many of these lower reaches, isthe predominance by tolerant and sometimes alien


05120111-180Year: 2004

130.3 56.0 13.5 12.0 12.0 4.5 8.0 0.0 0.50 - (6) Fair133.5 55.0 14.0 13.0 10.0 4.0 8.0 0.0 0.50 - (6) Fair134.8 61.0 14.0 14.0 12.0 5.0 10.0 0.0 0.27 - (6) Good

05120111-200Year: 1999

115.1 60.0 15.0 7.0 13.0 9.0 10.0 0.0 0.50 - (6) GoodYear: 2004

117.4 51.5 13.5 8.0 12.0 5.0 7.0 0.0 0.50 - (6) Fair118.0 55.0 14.0 8.0 12.0 5.0 8.0 0.0 1.00 - (8) Fair118.8 64.0 13.0 15.0 11.0 7.0 10.0 0.0 0.71 - (8) Good

QHEI Metrics

Table 56. QHEI, QHEI metrics and narrative rating for mainstream Wabash River sites sampled in HUC-11 water-sheds 05120111-180 and 05120111-200.

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

05120111-170

05120111-16005120111-150

05120113-200

05120111-180

05120111-190

05120111-200


species (e.g., carp), the relatively low numbers ofintolerant and sensitive species and the absence ofhistorically collected species that were associatedwith habitats (wetlands, aquatic plants, sloughs,backwaters) that are now absent, degraded or rare(see BCG Appendix 6).

These mainstem reaches had sufficient data only forreach 05120111-200 and in this reach BOD and TAwere moderately elevated, nitrate and TSS were highand other parameters were within background rangesincluding dissolved substances (Table 47). BusseronCreek (05120111-160) is the only upstream tributarywith substantial water chemistry data and in thiswatershed TP and TSS were moderately elevated,TDS, TA and zinc were high, sulfate was extremelyelevated, and other parameters were low or atreference levels (Table 48).

Habitat in these reaches of the Wabash River wheredata was available (-180 and -200) were fair tomarginally good at sites (Table 56). This deviatesmuch from what might be expected at a more natural

(Table 45). The sites in reach -180 had particularlylow riparian scores and site in -200 had particularlow cover scores. There were no riffle habitats inany of the sample reaches.

Summary–Biological condition ranges weregenerally fair-to-good in these reaches of the WabashRiver. The fish assemblage was predominated by amix of tolerant and intermediate tolerance specieswith carp, drum and species of intermediate tolerancethe most common species in each reach. Sensitiveand intolerant species were in low abundance in mostof these reaches. Tolerant fishes in these reacheswere more predominant than in upstream reaches ofthe Wabash River and were likely influenced bymediocre habitat and enrichment from agriculturalrunoff from upstream reaches and tributaries (seeAppendix 7).



SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

85-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 27747-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 16643-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 14843-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 13920-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 11640-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 10377-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 6477-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 3440-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 3140-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 2543-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 2477-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 2443-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 1947-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 1543-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 1243-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 1243-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 1110-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 843-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 757-001 Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 777-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 777-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 740-007 Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 5



SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected


40-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 443-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 480-004 Dusky Darter Percina sciera sciera M 418-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 340-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 340-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 343-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 377-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 377-003 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 377-028 Bluegill Sunfish X Redear Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus X macrolophus 380-005 Blackside Darter Percina maculata 340-016 White Sucker Catostomus commersoni T 243-047 Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 274-005 Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatalis X chrysops 208-002 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 174-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 1



SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 10543-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 1310-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 1140-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 747-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 643-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 447-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 443-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 340-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 243-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 277-002 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 240-016 White Sucker Catostomus commersoni T 177-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 1



SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

20-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 43847-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 35785-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 28043-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 20943-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 191



SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

Table 57c. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120111-200, continued.

40-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 14943-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 13077-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 5243-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 4340-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 2877-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 2477-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 2247-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 2010-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 1943-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 1943-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 1677-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 1577-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 1174-005 Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatalis X chrysops 1043-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 977-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 940-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 774-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 740-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 610-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 520-004 Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense 440-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 443-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 443-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 443-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 440-016 White Sucker Catostomus commersoni T 340-023 Smallmouth Redhorse Moxostoma breviceps M 357-001 Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 380-007 Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala I 320-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 240-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 240-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 240-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 240-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 240-018 Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops 243-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 243-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 243-114 Weed Shiner Notropis texanus 247-016 Freckled Madtom Noturus nocturnus I 277-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 277-021 Green Sunfish X Longear Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus X megalotis 240-007 Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 143-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 143-113 Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 147-012 Brindled Madtom Noturus miurus I 177-028 Bluegill Sunfish X Redear Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus X macrolophus 180-004 Dusky Darter Percina sciera sciera M 180-028 Mud Darter Etheostoma asprigene P 1


#S#S

#S

#S#S#S#S#S#S

#S

#S

&V

#S

#S

#S

#S #S #S

#S#S#S

#S

#S#S

$T

$T

$T

$T

$T

$T

$T

Gibson

Kno

PoseyVanderburgh

IBI Legend


UpstreamMainstem

Map 29. IBI values from the mainstem (circles) or upstream tributaries within the Lower Wabash River HUC-8watershed (05120113). Points are scaled by IBI values and colors reflect narrative ranges for scores. Mainstem datain Indiana from 1999 and 2004-6; other data collected between 1990 and 2006 by IDEM (IN). Shaded areas areLevel IV ecoregions; this watershed is primarily in the Wabash Bottomlands subecoregion with the western portionin the Southern Wabash Lowland subecoregion.

Lower Wabash River to Ohio River (HUC-8 05120113)


This is one of the longest of the five mainstreamHUC-8 watersheds and includes over one hundredand thirteen miles (RMs 113.41 – 0.0) of the WabashRiver. Fish assemblage data of the mainstem Wabashwas more sparse than in upstream reaches, and littledata was available from tributaries of this HUC-8.We again focused on the 1999 survey from IndianaDNR and ORSANCO data from 2004-2006 (Map29).

Identification of Stressors – We used a “weight-of-evidence” stressor identifcation approach to assignlikely causes of biological impairment. For example,we compared stressor levels in the mainstem and atupstream sites to ranges of values considered to be“least impacted” to rank stressor levels and toidentify stressor that could be responsible for limitingbiological conditions and biodiversity.

Historical Habitat Conditions – The Wabash Riveras it flows through this HUC-8 watershed is in the


Wabash Bottomlands Ecoregion. The adjacentfloodplains and bayous were seasonally floodedbefore flood control occurred (Woods et al. 2001).Most of the extens ive bot tomland fores ts ,wetlands, and sloughs have been eliminated whichhas a substantial effect on the habitat in theWabash River. Table 58 presents a hypotheticalreconstruction of what Wabash River stream mighthave looked like prior to settlement. The historicalra t ing would have been “exce l len t” wi thmaximum or near maximum scores for mostmetrics.

Water Chemistry Stressors – Tables 60 and 61 summar-ize chemical concentrations for HUC-11 watershedsin the mainstem Wabash (Table 60) and in the tributarieswithin these HUC-11 watersheds (Table 61). Table 55below provides a different way of looking at waterchemistry results using a Water Quality Index (WQI)that was calibrated by linking chemical concentrationsto threshold responses of IBI scores at samples sites.None of these tables are replacements for water qualitycriteria, but are simply a way to consider risks to aquaticlife from increased concentrations based on ambientstressor response relationships.



0520113* 93.5 19.0 22.0 19.0 10.0 12.0 7.50 0.50 - (6) Excellent

* Year = 1800

QHEI Metrics

Table 58. Reconstructed historical estimation of habitat conditions in the HUC-8 05120113 watershed (Lower WabashRiver). The reconstruction of this QHEI assumes conditions during early settlement of the Wabash River Valley in the1800s and is provided as an “anchor” for interpreting habitat conditions. Feasible goals for habitat rehabilitation wouldlikely be somewhere between these values and existing values shown in later tables.

Table 59. Water Quality Index values for HUC-11 watersheds from the lower Wabash River HUC-8 watershed (05120113);tributary and mainstem data combined. N reflects number of stations. Mean WQI does not include QHEI component.Colors represent increasing risk of aquatic life impairment

HUC-11Watershed N

05120113110 6 83.3 91.9 59.6 70.7 50.0 86.7


Water Chemistry Variables

Min.WQI

MeanWQI


DissolvedOxygen

TotalP QHEI TSS


Tabl

e 60

. Se

lect

ed m

edia

n w

ater

qua

lity

valu

es f

or H

UC

-11

wat

ersh

eds

from

with

in th

e lo

wer

Wab

ash

Riv

er (

0512

0113

) H

UC

-8 w

ater

shed

;m

ains

tream

dat

a O

NLY

. Nar

rativ

e de

scrip

tions

rep

rese

nt d

evia

tion

from

a r

efer

ence

bac

kgro

und

conc

entra

tion

and

not

a w

ater

qua

lity

crite

riast

anda

rd.

Tabl

e 61

. Se

lect

ed m

edia

n w

ater

qua

lity

valu

es f

or H

UC

-11

wat

ersh

eds

from

with

in th

e lo

wer

Wab

ash

Riv

er (

0512

0113

) H

UC

-8 w

ater

shed

;tri

buta

ry d

ata

ON

LY. N

arra

tive

desc

riptio

ns re

pres

ent d

evia

tion

from

a re

fere

nce

back

grou

nd c

once

ntra

tion

and

not a

wat

er q

ualit

y cr

iteria

stan

dard

0512

0113

HU

C-1

1W

ater

shed

NU

pper

Wab

ash

Riv

er05

1201

1302

011

6.3

0.12

2.1

0.10

2449

390

502

3005

1201

1309

013

7.8

0.11

2.6

2324

399

172

2405

1201

1310

09

7.6

0.07

0.4

0.12

814

370

93

0512

0113

110

197.

00.

090.

60.

2549

3334

513

424

Sum

mar

y of

Nar

rativ

e R

ange

s:-R

ef.

-Low

-Med

.-H

igh

-V.H

igh

-Ext

rem

e

Wat

er C

hem

istr

y V

aria

bles

Dis

solv

ed

Oxy

gen

BO

D(5

-day

)T

otal

PN

itrat

eT

SST

otal

Org

.C

arbo

nZ

inc

Tot

alA

mm

onia

Tot

alC

hlor

ide

Tot

alSu

lfate

TD

S

0512

0113

HU

C-1

1W

ater

shed

N

Upp

er W

abas

h R

iver

0512

0113

040

228.

50.

2230

5633

687

313

0512

0113

060

310

.30.

182.

80.

1049

8540

064

433

0512

0113

080

98.

40.

313.

641

6139

063

424

0512

0113

100

510

.30.

110.

746

6934

451

419

0512

0113

120

107.

60.

111.

144

6934

658

49

Sum

mar

y of

Nar

rativ

e R

ange

s:-R

ef.

-Low

-Med

.-H

igh

-V.H

igh

-Ext

rem

e

Tot

al O

rg.

Car

bon

Zin

c

Wat

er C

hem

istr

y V

aria

bles

Dis

solv

ed

Oxy

gen

BO

D(5

-day

)T

otal

PN

itrat

eT

otal

Am

mon

iaT

DS

TSS

Tot

alC

hlor

ide

Tot

alSu

lfate


Figure 22. Plot of IBI by river mile in the lower Wabash River HUC-8 watershed. Mainstream sites sample in 1999by IN DNR are black and connected by a dashed line; sites sampled in 2004/6 by ORSANCO are open circles. Datafrom tributaries sampled by IDEM are summarized in the box plot.

10

20

30

40

50

60

020406080100120

Mainstem IBI Data - Huc-05120113lower Wabash River

IBI

River Mile

Very Poor

Fair

IBI ValuesTributaries

Poor

Good

Excellent


Although IBI values were variable (Map 29 andFigure 22), a plot of sensitive fish species showedthat they were very low in this lower reach, withgenerally less than 5 sensitive species in any sample.This matched a pattern in the mussel assemblageswhich showed a substantial depression in speciesrichness in the lower river. The IBI also rangedfrom very poor to good in the tributaries whichincluded Big Creek and some other streams (N=7).

Biological Condition Gradient – The BCG wedeveloped is probably most applicable to these lowerreaches of the Wabash, where it is clearly a “GreatRiver” in size and in historical biological diversity.The dominance by tolerant species and species ofintermediate tolerance, loss of now rare taxa, andlow populations of intolerant species indicates thisreach is largely Tier 5 with some Tier 4 sites.

Biodiversity – The fish species collected in theLower Wabash River were characterized by species

Table 62. Ten most dominant fish species by number collected in fish samples in the lower Wabash River Huc-8 watershed (Huc 05120113) collected in Indiana. IBI tolerance category for each species is noted as is the total individuals counted during sampling.


Mainstem


Spotfin Shiner – (1,068) Creek Chub [T] – (119) Emerald Shiner - (916) Blackstripe Topminnow – (115)

Freshwater Drum [P] – (954) Bluntnose Minnow [T] – (115) Gizzard Shad – (551) Central Stoneroller - (79)

Mississippi Silvery Minnow (301) Silverjaw Minnow – (50) Common Carp [T] – (427) Longear Sunfish [M] – (46)

Shortnose Gar – (285) Spotfin Shiner – (34) Bullhead Minnow – (191) Green Sunfish [T] – (22) River Carpsucker (182) Yellow Bullhead [T] – (20) Channel Catfish – (139) Sand Shiner [M] – (18)


Figure 23. Plot of QHEI by river mile in the lower Wabash River HUC-8 watershed. Mainstream sites are black andconnected by a dashed line. Box plot data is from IDEM.

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

020406080100120

Mainstem IBI Data - Huc-05120113lower Wabash River

QH

EI

River Mile

Very Poor

Fair

PoorClear Habitat

Effects

Possible Habitat Effects

Good

Excellent

QHEI Values Tributaries

of intermediate sensitivity or were tolerant. In ananalysis of the relative tolerance of fish andmacroinvertebrates to various individual stressors,most of the species in the mainstem are habitatgeneralists and associated with nutrient enrichedconditions. Many of the fish species that are rare,endangered, or extirpated in the Wabash River onceinhabited this lower reach and were associated withthe backwater swamps and aquatic vegetation thathave been largely eliminated from the river.

The species which are not rare or extirpated fromthe lower river fall into two groups. One group wasassociated with the oxbows, swamps and otherwetland type features along the lower river. The othergroup are species that inhabitated fast flowingareas of the river with stable substrates and butgood flows but with relatively low shear stressesduring most storms. This would include many of themussel species as well as certain darter (HarlequinDarter), chub (Shoal Chub), and madtom species.One important stressor we have not dicussed in detailis the recent invasion by the alien carp species (silver,bighead, and black) that have been introduced into theMississippi River basin. These were already present(silver and bighead carp) in he data we examined forthis report (up to 2006), but are likely more commonnow. Black carp would be a serious threat because theyfeed on snails and mussels which are already athreatened component of ecosystems in the Wabash andacross the US. These threats were discussed by Simon(2006).

Habitat – Historically, the lower reaches of theWabash had extensive backwater swamps andbottomwood forests. These were largely removed orfilled for agriculture in their rich soils. QHEI scoreswould have ranged from the 80s to 90s. Habitatin the mainstem Wabash River is now verymediocre for such a large river. QHEI values atsites in the lower river were clearly in range whereimpacts to Clean Water Act biological goals wouldbe impacted. Although QHEI scores were in arange classified as “possible” habitat effects,QHEI expectations for intolerant species wouldactually be much higher. Some of these specieswould be lost if QHEI scores fell below 70. As inthe uppermost Wabash, the lower part of thewatershed has many tributary streams that have beenused for agricultural drainage (see Map 3). As aresult of alteration of these small channels to enhancedrainage, habitat is mostly poor in sampledtributaries with most QHEI scores less than 50(Figure 23) and a median of only 38 (poor).

Pollutant Stressors in the Watershed – Totalphosphorus data in the mainstem was lowest in thisreach of the Wabash with most values below the largeriver cutoff illustrated on Figure 24. The TP targetwas developed for “large” rivers smaller in size thanthis reach of the Wabash so it simply represents a“best guess” as what would be an expected levelunder current best agricultural land practices.Anecdotal information suggests that TP would havebeen much lower prior to current agricultural and


0.1

1

10

04080120160200240280320



Tota

l Nit

rate

(mg/

l)

River Mile

- Nitrate Targets by Stream Size

Large River

NitrateValues Tributaries

WadeableStreams

Figure 25. Total nitrate (mg/l) vs. river mile in the Wabash River mainstem within the two lower Wabash RiverHUC-8 watersheds (05120111-blue and 05120113-orange). Box and whisker plots represents data from tributariesfrom within each these HUC-8 watersheds. Orange dash lines represent total nitrate targets for wadeable streams orlarge rivers based on work done in Ohio (Ohio EPA 1999).

0.1

1

04080120160200240



Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

l)

River Mile

- TP Targets by Stream Size

Large River

TP Values Tributaries

Figure 24. Total phosphorus (mg/l) vs. river mile in the Wabash River mainstem within the two lower Wabash RiverHUC-8 watersheds (05120111-blue and 05120113-orange). Box and whisker plots represents data from tributariesfrom within each these HUC-8 watersheds. Orange dash lines represent total phosphorus targets for wadeable streamsor large rivers based on work done in Ohio (Ohio EPA 1999).


drainage practices. Mean nitrate concentrations inthe lower Wabash River are lower than the othermainstem HUC-8 reaches and there are fewer veryhigh values (Figure 25), although our sample sizewas much lower. In any case, nutrient values inthe lower reach are very dependent on whathappens in the upper watershed and small streams.

Another obvious pattern by examining chemicaldata is the gradual increase in TSS in downstreamreaches (see Figure 14 in Part I of this report).This, at least partially, reflects increase algalproduction in the large pools in the lower river.

Research on the basic nutrient dynamics in streamsand rivers has identified small headwater streams asbeing of primary importance in assimilating andtransforming nutr ients in a watershed. Themediocre QHEI values in the lower Wabashidentify instream habitat characteristics (bankerosion, lack of riparian habitats, and lack ofinstream cover) as key limiting factors to thebiodiversity of this reach. Historically, backwaterswamps, oxbows and other similar features providedhabitats now rare along the river. The loss of thesestream features and the “flood-proofing” ofprevious f loodprone areas has undoubtedlyincreased problems associated with increasedflashy flows compared to historical levels. Somees t imates of hydro logica l changes to theMississippi basin has estimated that peak flowsare up to six times higher than prior to settlement.


A


05120113

B

060

080

010

050

020030

090

100

130

110

05120111-

120


Lower Wabash River including DeShee River, Raccoon Creek HUC-11: 05120113-010 and Coffee Bayou 05120113-030

05120113-040& 05120113-050

Map 31. Map of HUC-11 watersheds 05120113-010, -030, -040 and -050, Lower Wabash River with River DeShee andRaccoon Creek. Data points reflect fish sampling sites on the mainstem (circles) and tributaries (triangles).

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

05120113-040

05120113-020

05120113-090

05120113-080

05120113-030

05120113-050

05120113-010

05120113-060

Biological conditions as rated by the IBI weregenerally fair-to-good in the mainstem Wabash Riverwithin these HUC-11 watersheds (05120113-010, -030 -040 and -050 (no data)) (Appendix 1a). Speciesrichness and total abundance was rather low in thesereaches and the most common fish species in thesesegments were Emerald Shiner, Freshwater Drumand Common Carp. These reaches have a lowerdiversity and abundances of intolerant species (e.g.,

Blue Sucker) which could be characterized asincidental (Table 64). Sensitive species were mostlylow numbers of Longear Sunfish and severalredhorse species. What is characteristic in thesereaches, as in many of these lower reaches is thepredominance by tolerant and sometimes alienspecies (e.g., carp), the relatively low numbers ofintolerant and sensitive species and the absence ofhistorically collected species that were associated


05120113-010Year: 2004

106.8 58.5 13.5 12.0 9.0 5.0 9.0 0.0 2.00 - (10) Fair108.2 60.0 14.0 7.0 14.5 5.5 9.0 0.0 7.00 - (10) Good110.6 48.0 2.5 15.0 7.0 5.5 8.0 0.0 3.00 - (10) Fair

05120113-030Year: 2004

98.3 57.5 12.5 13.0 10.0 5.0 7.0 0.0 3.00 - (10) Fair

05120113-040Year: 2004

82.4 59.0 14.0 13.0 12.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 3.00 - (10) Fair85.3 51.5 8.5 14.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 0.0 3.00 - (10) Fair

05120113-050Year: 2004

81.9 59.0 15.5 13.0 9.0 4.5 7.0 0.0 3.00 - (10) Fair

QHEI Metrics

Table 63. QHEI, QHEI metrics and narrative rating for mainstream Wabash River sites sampled in HUC-11 water-sheds 05120113-010, 05120113-030, 05120113-040 and 051201131-050.


with habitats (wetlands, aquatic plants, sloughs,backwaters) that are now absent, degraded or rare(see BCG discussion in Appendix 6).

These mainstem reaches had insufficient data tocharacterize water chemistry stressors in these HUC-11 watersheds. The lower White River enters theWabash between 05120113-030 and -040 anddoubles the river’s volume at its confluence. In itslowest HUC-11 reach (05120202-100) it hasmoderate concentrations of TP, nitrate, sulfate andzinc and high concentrations of TA and very highTSS; other parameters are low or at referenceconcentrations. This is a similar pattern ofenrichment from agriculture and other upstream landuses that we see along most of the Wabash.

Habitat in these reaches of the Wabash River werefair at all but one sample which was marginallygood (Table 63). This deviates much from whatmight be expected in a more natural Wabash River(Table 58). Substrates were poor to very poor atseveral reaches and mediocre in the others as wasthe channel metric. Cover was also low in severalreaches and the riparian metric was consistently

mediocre. There were no riffle habitats in any ofthe sample reaches. These lower HUC-11 reachesof the Wabash once harbored large populations ofnow rare or extirpated darters, chubs, and freshwatermussels that were associated with stable substratesand less flashy flows. The latter likely had lowershear stressors during storms, but maintained goodflow over these habitats during low flow summerperiods.

Summary – Biological condition ranges weregenerally fair-good in these reaches of the WabashRiver. The fish assemblage was predominated by amix of tolerant and intermediate tolerance specieswith carp, drum and species of intermediate tolerancethe most common species in each reach. Sensitiveand intolerant species were in low abundance in mostof these reaches. Tolerant fishes in these reacheswere more predominant than in upstream reaches ofthe Wabash River and were likely influenced bymediocre habitat and enrichment from agriculturalrunoff from upstream reaches and tributaries (seeAppendix 7). The leveed nature of the lower rivercoupled with more severe peak flows my well belimiting to mussels and other flow-loving species.



SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 7043-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 5485-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 4320-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 3047-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 2143-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 1940-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 1440-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 1043-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 743-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 710-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 440-016 White Sucker Catostomus commersoni T 447-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 443-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 377-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 340-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 243-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 243-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 157-001 Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 174-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 180-007 Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala I 1



SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 2985-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 740-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 543-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 580-007 Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala I 443-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 343-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 310-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 243-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 247-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 240-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 140-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 143-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 177-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 1




SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

85-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 12443-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 4540-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 2443-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 1847-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 1740-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 1320-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 840-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 843-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 740-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 677-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 643-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 547-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 510-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 443-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 447-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 443-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 377-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 318-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 240-018 Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops 240-023 Smallmouth Redhorse Moxostoma breviceps M 274-005 Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatalis X chrysops 277-028 Bluegill Sunfish X Redear Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus X macrolophus 218-002 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus I 140-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 140-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 140-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 1


43-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 143-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 143-045 Common Carp X Goldfish Cyprinus carpio X Carassius auratus T 147-008 Stonecat Madtom Noturus flavus I 147-012 Brindled Madtom Noturus miurus I 177-003 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 1


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

Table 64c. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120113-010, continued.


Lower Wabash River including Bonpas Creek, Big Bayou, HUC-11: 05120113-060 and Black River 05120113-080

& 05120113-100

Map 32. Map of HUC-11 watersheds 05120113-060, -080 and -100; Lower Wabash River with Bonpas Creek, BigBayou and Black River. Data points reflect fish sampling sites on the mainstem (circles) and tributaries (triangles).

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

05120113-080

05120113-120

05120113-090

05120113-100

05120113-060

05120113-110

05120113-050

Biological conditions as rated by the IBI weregenerally fair-to-good in the mainstem Wabash Riverwithin these HUC-11 watersheds (05120113-060, -080 and 100) (Appendix 1a). Species richness andtotal abundance was variable in these reaches andthe most common fish species in these segments wereSpotfin Shiner, Freshwater Drum, and CommonCarp.

These reaches have a lower diversity and abundancesof intolerant species (e.g., Blue Sucker) which couldbe characterized as incidental. Sensitive species were

mostly low numbers of Golden and ShortheadRedhorse species. What is characteristic in thesereaches, as in many of these lower reaches is thepredominance by tolerant and sometimes alienspecies (e.g., carp), the relatively low numbers ofintolerant and sensitive species and the absence ofhistorically collected species that were associatedwith habitats (wetlands, aquatic plants, sloughs,backwaters) that are now absent, degraded or rare(see BCG discussion in Appendix 6). Freshwatermussel species are less diverse than historical levelsin these lower HUC-11 watersheds (Appendix 10).

Table 65. QHEI, QHEI metrics, and narrative rating for mainstream Wabash River sites sampled in HUC-11 watersheds05120113-060, 05120113-080 and 051201131-100.


05120113-060Year: 1999

75.8 59.0 12.0 13.0 11.0 7.0 10.0 0.0 0.50 - (6) FairYear: 2004

67.8 51.0 8.5 14.0 9.0 6.5 7.0 0.0 0.50 - (6) Fair

05120113-080Year: 1999

48.9 58.0 11.0 7.0 14.0 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.60 - (8) Fair

05120113-100Year: 2004

46.3 55.0 8.0 6.0 16.0 7.0 8.0 0.0 3.00 - (10) Fair

QHEI Metrics


These mainstem reaches generally had insufficientdata to characterize water chemistry stressors in theseHUC-11 watersheds. However, even with lowsamples sizes, TSS was high or very high at allmainstem sites. The Patoka is also a tributary in thisregion and the lower HUC-11 watershed in thePatoka has highly elevated concentrations of TA andTSS, high concentrations of sulfate and TSS, andmoderate concentrations of TOC and TP (Appendix7). This pattern is similar for HUC-11 watershedsfurther upstream on the Patoka, with some extremevalues for sulfate and TDS.

Habitat in these reaches of the Wabash River werefair at all sites (Table 65). Again this deviates muchfrom what might be expected in a more naturalWabash River (Table 58). Substrates were poor tofair as was the cover metric. Channel quality wasfair in the lowest reaches and good upstream. Therewere no riffle habitats in any of the sample reaches.The poor substrates and flashy flows are likelycontributors to low freshwater mussel diversity in

the Lower Wabash River. High TSS, which reflectshigher algal production, may also influence musselspecies.

Summary – Biological condition ranges weregenerally fair-good in these reaches of the WabashRiver. The fish assemblage was predominated by amix of tolerant and intermediate tolerance specieswith carp, drum and species of intermediate tolerancethe most common species in each reach. Sensitiveand intolerant species were in low abundance in mostof these reaches. Tolerant fishes in these reacheswere more predominant than in upstream reaches ofthe Wabash River and were likely influenced bymediocre habitat and enrichment from agriculturalrunoff from upstream reaches and tributaries (seeAppendix 7).


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

85-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 24143-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 20743-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 9043-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 7743-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 6740-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 5047-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 4140-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 3220-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 2940-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 2047-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 1943-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 1840-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 1643-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 1174-005 Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatalis X chrysops 743-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 510-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 443-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 443-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 377-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 340-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 277-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 218-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 140-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 140-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 1





SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

40-018 Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops 143-039 Silverjaw Minnow Notropis buccatus 177-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 177-002 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 177-003 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 177-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 1



SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 80743-114 Weed Shiner Notropis texanus 7785-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 6843-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 5843-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 5343-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 5120-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 4243-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 2840-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 1577-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 1440-010 Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum M 1377-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 1243-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 1057-001 Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 947-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 877-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 847-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 740-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 643-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 610-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 440-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 480-007 Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala I 343-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 274-006 Yellow Bass Morone mississippiensis P 277-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 280-026 Sauger X Walleye Stizostedion canadense X vitreum 210-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 140-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 143-003 Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas T 143-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 147-008 Stonecat Madtom Noturus flavus I 174-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 177-002 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 177-007 Warmouth Sunfish Lepomis gulosus 177-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 1




SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

20-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 11643-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 5785-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 3743-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 3540-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 3440-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 2443-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 1810-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 1777-028 Bluegill Sunfish X Redear Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus X macrolophus 1343-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 1243-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 1147-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 1147-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 943-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 847-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 743-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 677-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 580-007 Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala I 543-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 474-005 Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatalis X chrysops 474-007 Morone sp. Morone sp. 477-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 340-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 240-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 240-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 220-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 120-004 Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense 140-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 140-018 Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops 143-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 143-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 177-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 177-007 Warmouth Sunfish Lepomis gulosus 177-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 177-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 1


Lower Wabash River including Big Creek, The Chute, HUC-11: 05120113-120 and Levy Slough & 05120113-130

Map 33. Map of HUC-11 watershed 05120113-120 and -130, lower Wabash River with Big Creek, The Chute, and LevySlough. Data points reflect fish sampling sites on the mainstem (circles) and tributaries (triangles).

Biological conditions as rated by the IBI weregenerally fair-to-good in the mainstem Wabash Riverwithin these HUC-11 watersheds (05120113-120 and130). Species richness and total abundance wasvariable in these reaches and the most common fishspecies in these segments were Emerald Shiner,Freshwater Drum, Gizzard Shad, and Longnose Gar.

These reaches have a lower diversity and abundancesof intolerant species (e.g., Paddlefish, Blue Sucker)which could be characterized as incidental. Sensi-tive species were mostly low numbers of BrookSilverside and redhorse species. What is charac-teristic in these reaches, as in many of these lowerreaches is the predominance by tolerant andsometimes alien species (e.g., carp), the relativelylow numbers of intolerant and sensitive species andthe absence of historically collected species that wereassociated with habitats (wetlands, aquatic plants,



05120113-120Year: 2004

22.9 66.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 7.0 10.0 0.0 0.70 - (8) Good23.5 55.0 14.0 12.0 12.0 5.0 7.0 0.0 0.50 - (6) Fair25.9 49.0 14.0 10.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 0.0 1.00 - (8) Fair29.5 48.5 13.0 6.0 12.0 3.5 6.0 0.0 1.00 - (8) Fair

05120113-130Year: 2004

7.0 55.0 8.0 10.0 16.0 2.0 7.0 2.0 6.00 - (10) Fair

QHEI Metrics

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

#

#

#

05120113-130

05120111-110

05120108-100

05120113-120

sloughs, backwaters) that are now absent, degradedor rare (see BCG Appendix 6). Recently, Silver Carp(Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Valenciennes 1844)have invaded the lower Wabash and White Rivers asreported in a US FWS “non-indigenous species” factsheet on this species (USGS 2008). Indiana DNRrecently modified its aquatic invasive species list (INDNR 2009) to make it illegal to possess liveindividuals of the Silver Carp, Bighead Carp(Hypophthalmichthys nobili) which has beencollected in the Wabash River, Black Carp(Mylopharyngodon piceus), White Perch (Moroneamericana) and the snakehead fish (28 species inthe Family Channidae). Although the magnitude ofthe effect of such species is difficult to predict, theIN DNR list (2009) notes that, because of the largesizes and diets of the Silver and Bighead Carp, theycould compete with other planktivorous species suchas Paddlefish. For example, silver carp from a pool


in the Mississippi River comprised 90% of the fishwithin a decade of invading.

These mainstem reaches generally had insufficientdata to characterize water chemistry stressors in theseHUC-11 watersheds. However, even with lowsamples sizes, TSS was high or very high at allmainstem sites. This pattern was a continuation ofthat observed in upstream reaches.

Habitat scores in these reaches of the Wabash Riverwere fair at all but one site (Table 67). This deviatesmuch from what might be expected in a more naturalWabash River (Table 58). Substrates were poor tofair as was the cover metric. Channel quality wasfair in the lowest reaches and good upstream. Therewere no riffle habitats in any of the sample reaches.Direct loss of river side oxbows and wetlands andlevees disconnecting the Wabash River from itsfloodplain is an obvious cause of habitat loss formany “large river” Wabash River species such asAlligator Gar, Bantam Sunfish, etc. Another factorthat may be important, but that is poorly understoodin Midwest large rivers is the role of aquaticmacrophytes in these ecosystems. Gammon (1998)captured descriptions from early settlers to the regionof lush growths of aquatic macrophytes in theWabash River. Macrophytes have been used asmonitoring tools more often in Europe (Small et al.1996, Scott et al. 2002, Thiebaut et al. 2002) althoughU.S. EPA provides some information on their use asmonitoring tools in the U.S. (www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/macrophytes.html). Aside fromtheir obvious importance as nursery areas in streamsand their absence when turbidity is chronically high,we could find little information on their role in largerivers and no information on their status in theWabash River.

There was likely, however, a strongly historical linkbetween the extensive bottomland forests that existedadjacent to the Wabash River (Jackson 2006) andthe instream structure (woody debris) and channelcharacteristics that occurred in the mainstem WabashRiver. Studies of woody material in large westernrivers has identified its critical role for providingstructure and cover for aquatic life (Abbe andMontgomery 1996) and for providing diverse andstable channel features in such rivers (Montgomeryand Piégay 2003). Studies of large wood in theserivers indicated that woody debris could be stable

for periods of time ranging from decades to centuries(Abbe and Montgomery 1996). Establishment ofstable piles of large wood alters flow characteristicsin the vicinity of a logjam that can provide multipletypes of instream habitat niches. This downstreammost reach of the Wabash River is also importantbecause of its connection with the Ohio River andthe potential for interchange of great river species.Re-establishment of a naturally functioning oxbowand backwater habitats would be important in thisvicinity of the Wabash River. The recent cutoff of alarge bend of the river would be an opportunity toenhance habitat for many aquatic species if it can bemanaged to mimic natural oxbow/backwaterconditions.

Summary – Biological condition ranges weregenerally fair-good in these reaches of the WabashRiver. The fish assemblage was predominated by amix of tolerant and intermediate tolerance specieswith carp, drum and species of intermediate tolerancethe most common species in each reach. Sensitiveand intolerant species were in low abundance in mostof these reaches. Tolerant fishes in these reacheswere more predominant than in upstream reaches ofthe Wabash River and were likely influenced bymediocre habitat and enrichment from agriculturalrunoff from upstream reaches and tributaries (seeAppendix 7). The water quality in the mainstem ofthe Wabash along most of its length, but especiallyin its lower reaches, is truly dependent on howupstream waters and tributaries are managed. Thescience supporting nutrient assimilation, especiallyfor nitrate, is dependent on management of smallheadwater streams (Peterson et al. 2001). Small,natural headwaters streams with intact floodproneareas, carbon sources and natural channelcharacteristics (i.e., coarse or rough substrates) havea high surface to water volume ration and areefficient at removing nitrates. In contrastconventionally drained streams often export highconcent ra t ions of n i t ra tes and d isso lvedphosphorus through tile drains (Madramootoo etal. 2007). This explains the continually highni t ra tes in the Wabash River and suggestsinnovative drainage management is a key toreducing these nutrient stressors. Drainage is alsoa major contributor to the altered flow regimes inthe Wabash River compared to likely historical flowregimes. Altered flows may contribute to loss ofhabitat features through scouring of bottom materials


in the mainstem Wabash River. This suggests thatprudent approaches to rehabilitation of the WabashRiver should focus on local habitat, wetland, andriparian restoration along with innovative approaches

Table 68a. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120113120 from 1999-2006. IBI tolerances are colorcoded: I – Intolerant (blue); M – Sensitive (green); P – Moderately Tolerant (pink); T – Tolerant (red).

for controlling the stressors originating fromheadwater streams: nutrients, fine sediments, habitatloss and flow alterations.


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 68785-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 36520-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 32510-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 24043-040 Miss. Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 21343-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 12940-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 10043-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 6647-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 4943-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 4640-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 4140-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 4140-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 2777-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 2510-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 2143-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 2077-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 2043-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 1877-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 1770-001 Brook Silverside Labidesthes sicculus M 1640-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 1443-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 1174-005 Striped Bass X White Bass Morone saxatalis X chrysops 1120-004 Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense 743-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 747-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 777-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 720-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 643-035 Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus I 647-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 643-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 599-080 unspecified morone Morone sp. 408-002 Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 374-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 377-002 Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 377-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 380-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 304-001 Paddlefish Polyodon spathula I 210-003 Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus 240-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 240-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 243-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 2


Table 68b. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120113130 from 1999-2006. IBI tolerances are colorcoded: I – Intolerant (blue); M – Sensitive (green); P – Moderately Tolerant (pink); T – Tolerant (red).


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

85-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 6974-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 4543-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 3243-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 1847-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 1847-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 1610-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 1340-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 1340-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 1243-002 Goldfish Carassius auratus T 843-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 747-008 Stonecat Madtom Noturus flavus I 743-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 440-018 Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops 343-039 Silverjaw Minnow Notropis buccatus 347-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 377-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 380-007 Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala I 340-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 243-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 218-001 Goldeye Hiodon alosoides I 120-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 140-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 143-010 Shoal Chub Macrhybopsis hystoma I 143-047 Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 1

Table 68a. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watershed 05120113120, continued.


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-113 Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis 280-004 Dusky Darter Percina sciera sciera M 240-007 Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 140-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 143-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 143-047 Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 177-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 180-002 Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 180-026 Sauger X Walleye Stizostedion canadense X vitreum 1


Map 34. IBI values from the mainstem (circles) or upstream tributaries within the lower White River Huc-8 watershed(05120202). Points are scaled by IBI values and colors reflect narrative ranges for scores. Mainstem data from IDEM andUSGS collected between 2002 and 2006. Shaded areas are Level IV ecoregions; this watershed crosses five Level IVecoregions (two Level III ecoregions: In the Level III Interior River Lowland - the Wabash Bottomlands, the SouthernWabash Lowland and the Glaciated Wabash Lowlands and in the Level III Interior Plateau: the Crawford Uplands and theMitchell Plains

Lower White River to Wabash River (HUC-8 05120202)


The White River (also called the West Fork WhiteRiver at its confluence with the East Fork WhiteRiver) originates near Ohio and at its confluence insouthwestern Indiana is nearly as large as the WabashRiver. We have less frequent samples along the lowerWhite River (White and lower West Fork WhiteRiver) than we had for most Wabash River reaches,so we divided the lower HUC-8 Watershed into anupper and lower portion (Table 69) instead of treatingeach HUC-11 individually. The HUC-8 watershed05120202 contains 10 HUC-11 watersheds as listedin Table 69. The degree of agricultural drainageincreases as the river flows from the Interior Plateauto the Interior River Lowland level 3 ecoregion andthen within the Interior River Lowland ecoregion asthe river passes from the Glaciated Wabash Lowlandslevel IV ecoregion to the Wabash Bottomlands levelIV ecoregion (Table 69). Although there is a largerhuman population density in the White River thanthe Wabash River, most of it is in the northern partof the watershed (e.g. Indianapolis), far upstreamfrom 05120202.

Fish and water chemistry for the White River werecollected by USGS as part of their NAWQA studyand by Indiana DEM from 2002 to 2006. This issummarized in Table 70 and illustrated in Map 34.An intensive study of the fish assemblages of theentire White River was completed by Crawford etal. (1996) who looked at historical and extantpopulations throughout the White River. The goalof our study was not to repeat the in depth study ofCrawford et al. (1996), Frey et al. (1996) and others,but rather to do an assessment of stressors that appearto be currently limiting biodiversity in the lower-most White River HUC-11 watersheds (those withinthe 05120202 HUC-8 watershed).

Identification of Stressors – We used a “weight-of-evidence” stressor identification approach toassign likely causes of biological impairment. Forexample, we compared stressor levels in themainstem and at upstream sites to ranges of valuesconsidered to be “least impacted” to rank stressorlevels and to identify stressor that could beresponsible for limiting biological conditions andbiodiversity.

IBI Legend


UpstreamMainstem


Drained LandHUC-11 Code Watershed Description Intensity Index

Upper Portion of 0512020205120202010 Beanblossom Creek with Jacks Defeat Creek 105120202020 White River (seg 6) with Fish Creek, Raccoon Creek, and Rattlesnake Creek 105120202030 White River (seg 5) with Lattas Creek 205120202040 Richland Creek with Beach Creek and Plummer Creek 205120202050 White River (seg 4) with First Creek, Doans Creek, and Fourmile Creek 205120202060 Black Creek and Beehunter Ditch 2

Lower Portion of 0512020205120202070 White River (seg 3) with Ben’s Creek and Indian Creek 305120202080 Prairie Creek (with North and South Forks) 305120202090 White River (seg 2) with Pond Creek, Veale Creek, and Hawkins Creek 305120202100 Lower White River with Harbin Creek, Wilson Creek, Prides Creek and Plass Ditch 3

Table 69. HUC-11 watersheds, descriptions and drained land intensity index within the lower White River HUC-8watershed 05120202.

10

20

30

40

50

60

050100150

White River Mainstem Data: 2002-2006IDEM and USGS Data

Ohio IBIIndiana IBIBCG IBI

IBI

River Mile

Figure 26. IBI scores in the White River collected by IDEM and USGS from 1993 – 2006. Data obtained fromIDEM and from Frey et al. 1996.

Historical Habitat Conditions – Historically thelower White River, as it flowed through WabashBottomlands Ecoregion, frequently flooded into theadjacent floodplains and bayous prior to floodcontrol (Crawford et al. 1996). Habitat conditionsat this time were likely very different than measuredin the river today. Table 71 presents a hypotheticalreconstruction of what a lower White River QHEIscore might have looked like prior to settlement.Habitat at this time was likely excellent withmaximum or near maximum scores for most metrics.Substrates at this time were neither subject to

deposition of extensive silts and fines as they aretoday nor subject to un-natural shear stresses fromincreased peak flows and flood-stage frequencies.Instream cover (e.g., large logs and wood) wouldundoubtedly have been more common and stablebecause of its large size; the wood would havebeen contributed by the undisturbed riparianforests that contained trees such as AmericanSycamore (Jackson 2006). Similarly, channelswere l ike ly much more s tab le wi th be t te rdeveloped riffle and pool structures and morestable banks and channel features.


Riv

erM

ileT

ype

Dat

eD

rain

age

area

(sq

mi)

Tot

alSp

ecie

sSu

nfis

hSp

ecie

sSu

cker

Spec

ies

Into

lera

ntSp

ecie

s

Rou

nd-

bodi

edSu

cker

sSi

mpl

eL

ithop

hils

Tol

eran

tFi

shO

mni

-vo

res

Top

Car

nivo

res

Inse

cti-

vore

s

DE

LT

Ano

mal

ies

Rel

. No.

min

usT

oler

ants

(1.0

km

)O

hio

IBI

Indi

ana

IBI

0512

0202

100

- Low

er W

hite

Riv

er6.

30A

10/0

4/20

0611

300

13(3

)0(

1)3(

3)1(

1)4(

1)4(

1)6(

5)31

(1)

31(5

)15

(1)

0.0(

5)90

(1)

*28

2618

.45

A05

/01/

2002

1130

521

(5)

3(3)

4(3)

2(3)

1(1)

3(1)

3(5)

31(1

)14

(5)

23(1

)0.

0(5)

156(

1)*

3424

18.4

5A

08/1

3/20

0311

305

18(3

)2(

3)2(

1)0(

1)0(

1)2(

1)6(

5)30

(1)

30(5

)27

(3)

0.0(

5)15

8(1)

*30

2618

.45

A08

/24/

2004

1130

518

(3)

4(5)

3(3)

0(1)

0(1)

0(1)

6(5)

33(1

)19

(5)

19(1

)0.

0(5)

152(

1)*

3224

18.4

5A

08/1

8/20

0511

305

19(3

)1(

1)4(

3)0(

1)0(

1)3(

1)6(

5)50

(1)

9(3)

16(1

)0.

0(5)

204(

1)28

2218

.50

A08

/02/

2002

1130

519

(3)

3(3)

3(3)

0(1)

0(1)

4(1)

6(5)

34(1

)33

(5)

28(3

)0.

0(5)

168(

1)*

3230

18.6

0A

07/3

1/20

0211

305

18(3

)1(

1)3(

3)4(

5)2(

1)6(

1)8(

5)50

(1)

17(5

)28

(3)

0.0(

5)19

4(1)

3426

35.7

5A

10/0

3/20

0611

170

13(3

)2(

3)2(

1)0(

1)0(

1)0(

1)17

(3)

57(1

)14

(5)

17(1

)0.

0(5)

70(1

)*

2620

0512

0202

090

- Low

er W

hite

Riv

er, s

egm

ent 2

52.3

0A

10/0

3/20

0652

9915

(3)

0(1)

6(5)

1(1)

16(1

)24

(3)

5(5)

39(1

)11

(5)

37(3

)0.

0(5)

72(1

)*

3424

0512

0202

050

- Low

er W

hite

Riv

er; s

egm

ent 4

93.0

5A

10/0

2/20

0647

6920

(3)

1(1)

5(3)

0(1)

0(1)

1(1)

1(5)

43(1

)6(

3)47

(3)

0.0(

5)38

2(3)

3032

0512

0202

020

- Low

er W

hite

Riv

er; s

egm

ent 6

144.

00A

10/1

0/20

0629

2725

(5)

2(3)

7(5)

0(1)

1(1)

4(1)

2(5)

48(1

)14

(5)

32(3

)0.

0(5)

370(

3)38

36

Num

ber

ofPe

rcen

t of I

ndiv

idua

ls

Tabl

e70.

Boa

tabl

e IB

I sco

res

for t

he lo

wer

Whi

te R

iver

in H

UC

-8 w

ater

shed

051

2020

2 fr

om 2

002-

2006

.




0520202* 97.5 19.0 22.0 19.0 10.0 12.0 7.5 2.0 - (10) Excellent

* Year = 1800

QHEI Metrics

Table 71. Reconstructed historical estimation of habitat conditions in the HUC-8 05120202 watershed (Lower WhiteRiver). The reconstruction of this QHEI assumes conditions during early settlement of the Wabash River Valley in the1800s and is provided as an “anchor” for interpreting habitat conditions. Feasible goals for habitat rehabilitation wouldlikely be somewhere between these values and existing values shown in later tables.

0

20

40

60

80

100

020406080100120140

QH

EI S

core

River Mile

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

White River QHEI Scores 1995 - 2006IDEM and USGS Data

Figure 27. QHEI scores in the White River collected by IDEM and USGS from 1993 – 2006. Data obtained fromIDEM and from Frey et al. 1996.

Water Chemistry Stressors – Table 72summarizes chemical concentrations for streamsin HUC-11 watersheds in the lower White RiverHUC-8 watershed (05120202). Table 73 providesa different way of looking at water chemistryresults using a Water Quality Index (WQI) thatwas calibrated by linking chemical concentrationsto threshold responses of IBI scores at samplessites. None of these tables are replacements forwater quality criteria, but are simply a way toconsider risks to aquatic life from increasedconcentrations based on ambient stressor responserelationships.

U.S.G.S. (Fenelon, 1998) conducted an intensivesurvey of the White River between 1992 and 1996.With regard to stressors affecting aquatic life, theyfound, as we did, high concentrations of nitrates

in the river that are likely exported throughagricultural drainage tiles in the tributaries of theWhite River. Associated with the high nitratelevels from drain tiles are high pesticide levels.Although the magnitude of the pesticides effecton aquatic life is unclear, their occurrence istroubling.


IBIs for fish sites sampled in this lower White Riverwere variable and ranged between poor to good ascan be observed in Map 34 and Figure 28. The IBIranged from very poor to excellent in the tributariesof the lower White River (N=26) in this HUC-8watershed. Stream that rated excellent includedPlummer Creed and Richland Creek; the North Fork


Tabl

e 72.

Sel

ecte

d m

edia

n w

ater

qua

lity

valu

es fo

r HU

C-1

1 w

ater

shed

s fro

m w

ithin

the l

ower

Whi

te R

iver

(051

2020

2) H

UC

-8 w

ater

shed

. Nar

rativ

ede

scrip

tions

repr

esen

t dev

iatio

n fr

om a

refe

renc

e ba

ckgr

ound

con

cent

ratio

n an

d no

t a w

ater

qua

lity

crite

ria s

tand

ard.

HU

C-1

1W

ater

shed

NL

ower

Whi

te R

iver

0512

0202

010

165

8.7

0.07

0.3

1024

165

384

2605

1202

0202

039

89.

02.

700.

282.

80.

1460

6342

837

415

0512

0202

030

143

10.1

0.26

2.6

0.16

5662

408

494

14

0512

0202

040

244

8.4

0.08

0.5

729

170

243

3205

1202

0205

020

39.

70.

201.

00.

7425

4533

030

425

0512

0202

060

418.

10.

150.

40.

1211

400

825

414

4805

1202

0207

022

010

.13.

200.

222.

00.

2044

6337

572

413

0512

0202

080

192

8.8

0.34

2.8

0.50

1952

310

497

2105

1202

0209

015

67.

20.

212.

20.

1928

5432

567

424

0512

0202

100

431

9.8

2.60

0.17

1.9

0.20

3248

316

744

11

Sum

mar

y of

Nar

rativ

e R

ange

s:-R

ef.

-Low

-Med

.-H

igh

-V.H

igh

-Ext

rem

e

Tot

al O

rg.

Car

bon

Zinc

Wat

er C

hem

istr

y V

aria

bles

Dis

solv

ed

Oxy

gen

BO

D(5

-day

)T

otal P

Nitr

ate

Tot

alA

mm

onia

TD

ST

SST

otal

Chl

orid

eT

otal

Sulfa

te


HUC-11Watershed RM

INIBI

05120202: Lower White River 05120202100

10/04/2006 6.3 5.3 5.3 5.5 6.9 5.4 3.7 2608/01/2002 18.4 5.7 5.0 6.7 6.6 5.0 3.5 2408/13/2003 18.4 6.1 6.2 6.7 7.4 5.2 3.4 2608/18/2005 18.4 5.8 5.6 5.8 6.9 5.3 4.1 2208/24/2004 18.4 5.5 4.6 5.0 6.0 5.2 3.7 2408/02/2002 18.5 5.0 5.1 5.9 5.8 5.0 3.7 3007/31/2002 18.6 6.1 6.2 7.1 6.7 4.8 3.3 2610/03/2006 35.7 6.5 7.0 7.4 7.6 5.5 4.1 20

0512020209010/03/2006 52.3 5.4 4.7 6.0 6.8 3.7 2.7 24

0512020205010/02/2006 93 6.1 5.6 7.6 6.8 5.4 3.7 32

0512020202010/10/2006 144 5.7 5.3 7.0 6.4 5.0 3.7 36


Weighted Stressor Ranks

MetalsStressor

Rank

IonicStressor

Rank


GrandStressorRanki

HabitatStressor

Rank

NutrientStressor

Rank

BODStressor

Rank

Table 73. Back-calculated weighted stressor ranks based on fish species TIV values weighted by relative abundance ofeach species at a site. TIV data based on boatable samples from IBI Ohio and several other Midwest Rivers. This data isfrom the lower White River HUC-8 watershed 05120202.

abundant oxbows, sloughs, and streamside wetlands,and with substantial large-river in-channel habitats.Current assemblages would be classified primarilyas Tier 4 and Tier 5 because of the sparse populationsof intolerant and rare species.

Biodiversity – The fish species collected in thelower White River were characterized by speciesof intermediate sensitivity or species that aretolerant (e.g., Common Carp and FreshwaterDrum; Tables 74, 76, and 78). In an analysis ofthe relative tolerance of fish and macroinverte-brates to various individual stressors, most of thespecies in the mainstem are habitat generalists andassociated with nutrient enriched conditions.Many of the fish species that are rare, endangered,or extirpated in the White River once inhabitedthis lower reach and were associated with thebackwater swamps and aquatic vegetation thathave been largely eliminated from the river. USGScollected an alligator gar in the lower White inthe 1990s which is a remnant associated with thesehabitats.

of Prairie Creek was rated as very poor. IBI scoresin the mainstem declined from upstream todownstream.

The White River is historically on par with theWabash River in terms of aquatic species diversity.The White River (East Fork), for example containsthe last population of native Lake Sturgeon in theMississippi River drainage which is geneticallydistinct from other Lake Sturgeon populations inNorth America (Drauch et al. 2006). Other rareaquatic species are also associated with this riverincluding a record of an Alligator Snapping Turtle(Macroclemys temminckii) along the White Riverwest of Martinsville in 1991 (Minton 2001) and thecollection of an Alligator Gar on the White Rivernear Hazelton (Crawford et al. 1996).

Biological Condition Gradient – The BCGdeveloped for the lower Wabash River would applydirectly to the lower White River. The size of thewaters are similar and the historical habitatcharacteristics would have been similar with


10

20

30

40

50

60

050100150

White River Mainstem Data: 2002-2006IDEM and USGS Data

Ohio IBIIndiana IBIBCG IBI

IBI

River Mile

Tributaries

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

Figure 28. Plot of IBI by river mile in the lower White River HUC-8 watershed (05120202).. Mainstream sitessampled between 2002 and 2006 by IDEM and USGS.. Data from tributaries sampled by IDEM are summarized inthe box plot.

Habitat– Historically, the lower reaches of the WhiteRiver had extensive backwater swamps andbottomwood forests. These were largely removed orconverted to agriculture because of their rich soils.QHEI scores the lower White River would haveranged from the 80s to 90s. As in the upper mostWabash, the lower part of the watershed has manystreams that have been subjected to agriculturaldrainage. As a result of these small channels havingbeen altered to enhance drainage, habitat is mostlypoor with most QHEI scores less than 50 (Figure29). Current habitat conditions were rated “good”,

but mediocre compared to what historical conditionslikely achieved. More detailed is provided underHUC-11 assessments.

Pollutant Stressors in the Watershed – In generalnutrients (TP, nitrate) were elevated in the WhiteRiver in a similar nature to what was observed inthe Wabash River (Table 72). Nitrate values weresomewhat variable between HUC-11 watersheds, butTSS was uniformly high or very high. The biologicalsignatures we generated from using the assemblagesto estimate environmental conditions also suggest

Table 74. Ten most dominant fish species by number collected in fish samples in the lower White River Huc-8 watershed (Huc 05120202) collected in Indiana. IBI tolerance category for each species is noted as is the total individuals counted during sampling.


Mainstem


Mississippi Silvery Mminnow – (435) Longear Sunfish [M] – (519) Gizzard Shad - (399) Spotfin Shiner – (462)

Spotfin Shiner – (3294) Creek Chub [T] – (399) Bullhead Minnow – (184) Bluntnose Minnow – (398)

Freshwater Drum [P] – (176) Western Mosquitofish – (245) River Carpsucker (147) Bluegill [P] – (228)

Common Carp [T] – (119) Green Sunfish [T] – (163) Shortnose Gar – (105) Central Stoneroller – (157) Flathead Catfish (101) Striped Shiner – (132)

Channel Catfish – (139) Sand Shiner [M] – (18)


Figure 29. Plot of QHEI by river mile in the lower White River Huc-8 watershed (05120202). Mainstream sites areblue and connected by a solid line and were collected by USGS and IDEM. Box plot data is from IDEM.

0

20

40

60

80

100

050100150

QH

EI S

core

River Mile

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

White River QHEI Scores 1995 - 2006IDEM and USGS Data

Tributaries

nutrient impacts and moderate to neutral habitatimpacts (see Appendix 9).

Total phosphorus (TP) data in the mainstem WhiteRiver was variable, but a high proportion of valueswere greater than the large river cutoff illustrated inFigure 30. Similarly a high proportion of tributarysites were above a wadeable river cutoff. Thesepatterns are typical for highly agricultural watershedsin the Midwest and reflect a substantial runoff ofsilt and sediments from these uses and somecontribution from tile drainage sources. Work in Ohiohas found that in small streams there is a strongcorrelation with intact stream habitat and low TPvalues. This suggests that intact stream habitat,associated with intact riparian buffer zones, wouldreduce TP in tributaries and mainstem reaches.

Mean nitrate concentrations in the lower White Riverwere also usually above a large river cutoff valuesfor total nitrate (Figure 31), and were similar tovalues observed in the Wabash River mainstem. Alarge proportion of nitrate is exported through tiledrains. USGS conducted studies of nutrients in theWhite River basin in the 1990s (Fenelon 1998). Withregard to aquatic life issues they found, as we did,high concentrations of nitrates in the river (Fenelon1998), that are likely exported by agriculturaldrainage tiles in the Wabash River. Associated withthe high nitrate levels from drain tiles are high

pesticide levels (Fenelon 1998), although the preciseaffect of pesticides on aquatic life is unclear. In anycase, nutrient values in the lower reach are verydependent on what happens in the upper White Riverwatershed and headwater streams.

Research on the basic nutrient dynamics in streamsand rivers has identified small headwater streams asprimarily important in assimilating and transformingnutrients in a watershed. As with the lower WabashRiver, habitat in the White River has some limitationswhich influence the biodiversity of these reaches.Key limiting habitat characteristics include bankerosion, lack of riparian habitats, and lack ofinstream cover. Backwater swamps, oxbows andother similar habitat types are now rare along theriver. The increase in levees, loss of connections withnatural floodways and increase flashiness fromagricultural drainage have all worked to greatly alterthe flow regimes in the lower White River. Otherstudies in the Mississippi River basin have estimatedthat peak flows are up to six times higher than priorto settlement. High shear stress during storm eventsin particularly troublesome for species such asmussels that require areas of low shear stress duringinfrequent storm events. Given the long life span ofthese animals (decades to centuries) more frequentsevere storms can, through increased sheer stress,lead to increased mortality and ultimately limitpopulations.


0.01

0.1

1

Tribs -020 -030 -050 -070 -090 -100

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

l)

Lower White River - Total Phosphorus Valuesby HUC-11 Watershed (within HUC-8 05120202)

Total Phosphorus Targets by Stream Size

Upstream Downstream

HUC-11 Watershed

0.01

0.1

1

10

Tribs -020 -030 -050 -070 -090 -100

Tota

l Nit

rate

(mg/

l)

Lower White River - Total Nitrate Valuesby HUC-11 Watershed (within HUC-8 05120202)

Total Nitrate Targets by Stream Size

Upstream Downstream

HUC-11 Watershed

Figure 30. Total phosphorus (mg/l) vs. HUC-11 watershed for mainstem sites in the lower White River HUC-8watershed (05120202) and for all tributaries. Orange dash lines represent total phosphorus targets for wadeablestreams or large rivers based on work done in Ohio (Ohio EPA 1999).

Figure 31. Total nitrate (mg/l) vs HUC-11for mainstem sites in the lower White River HUC-8 watershed (05120202) andfor all tributaries in 05120202. Box and whisker plots represents data from tributaries from within each these Huc-8watersheds. Orange dash lines represent total nitrate targets for wadeable streams or large rivers based on work done inOhio (Ohio EPA 1999).



B

060

080

010

050

020

030

090

100

040

05120202-

070

A

05120202


#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

!(

!(

05120202-01005120202-020

05120202-060

05120202-050

05120202-040

05120202-08005120202-070

05120111-020

05120202-030

Lower White River HUC-11: 05120202-010, 05120202-020,05120202-030, 05120202-040

05120202-050, & 05120202-060

Map 36. Map of HUC-11 watersheds within the HUC-8 05120202 Lower White River watershed. The watershedis divided into lower (HUC-11 watersheds -070 through -100) and upper (HUC-11 watersheds -010 through -060,green), the latter of which is the focus of this section. Data points reflect IBI scores at fish sampling sites on themainstem (circles) and tributaries (triangles).

Biological conditions as rated by the IBI weregenerally fair-to-good in the mainstem White Riverwithin these upper HUC-11 watersheds (-010through -060). IBI scores and metrics indicate thatintolerant species and round-bodied suckers werefewer than would be expected for this size of river.The most common species were those of intermediatetolerance (Mississippi Silvery Minnow, SpotfinShiner, Gizzard Shad) or tolerant (Freshwater Drumand carp) species relatively unaffected by nutrientenrichment and degraded habitat. Sensitive species(Smallmouth Bass, Shorthead Redhorse, DuskyDarter) were low in abundance.These reaches have a lack of intolerant species,although few samples were collected. There is an

absence of historically collected species that wereassociated with habitats (wetlands, aquatic plants,sloughs, backwaters) that are now absent, degraded,or rare in the White River (see BCG discussionAppendix 6).

These mainstem reaches generally had insufficientdata to characterize water chemistry stressors in theseHUC-11 watersheds. However, even with lowsamples sizes, TSS was high or very high at allmainstem sites and nutrients were also elevated.USGS characterized the water quality of the WhiteRiver in the 1990s and found that nitrateconcentrations were generally between 2-6 mg/l,higher than most other NAWQA sampling sites in


05120202-020Year: 2006

144.0 62.0 14.0 12.0 13.0 3.0 10.0 0.0 1.43 - (10) Good

05120202-050Year: 2006

93.0 63.0 15.0 7.0 14.0 4.0 11.0 4.0 0.70 - (8) Good

QHEI Metrics

Table 75. QHEI, QHEI metrics, and narrative rating for mainstream West Fork White River sites sampled in HUC-11watersheds 05120202-020 and 05120202-050.


rivers in the United States (Fenelon 1998) andoriginated from nitrogen fertilizers. Fenelon (1998)also reported that pesticide concentrations, notconsidered in our study, were high the White Riverand associated with runoff and agricultural drainagepractices in the watershed.

Habitat in these reaches of the White River (WestFork) were marginally good at the sites sampled byIDEM (Table 75) and also at sites reported by Freyet al. (1996, fig. 4). An examination of individualmetrics demonstrates a pattern similar to that of theWabash River with low cover and riparian scores(Table 75). This deviates much from what might be

expected in a more natural large river (Table 71).Unlike the lower Wabash River there were rifflehabitats in most of the sample reaches. The loss ofthe now rare wetland associated features adjacent orattached to the White and Wabash Rivers such asbald cypress swamps (Homoya 2006) contribute topoorer habitat and the loss of many of the wetlandassociated aquatic species such as Alligator Gar. Inaddition, the streamside forests are now a fragmentof their historical extent and size (Jackson 2006).The original forest were dominated by large treesup to 150 ft tall, with certain trees such as AmericanSycamore reaching 200 ft in height and a diameterof 15 ft (Jackson 2006). Studies of Western climax


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

43-040 Miss.Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 27943-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 15820-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 10040-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 8543-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 3985-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 1943-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 1810-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 1747-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 1347-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 1110-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 1040-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 1040-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 1077-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 1043-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 940-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 777-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 580-004 Dusky Darter Percina sciera sciera M 540-007 Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 443-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 440-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 377-006 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 380-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 301-008 Chestnut Lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus P 277-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 277-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 210-003 Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus 140-011 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum M 140-018 Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops 143-006 Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 174-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 180-028 Mud Darter Etheostoma asprigene P 1

Table 76. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watersheds 05120202-010 through 05120202-060 from 2002-2006. IBItolerances are color coded: I – Intolerant (blue); M – Sensitive (green); P – Moderately Tolerant (pink); T – Tolerant (red).


forests have identify the key role large stable woodplayed as instream cover and low erosion rates. Thegreatly altered hydrology in the White River,although perhaps not as cumulatively extensive asin the Wabash River, has likely contributed to thepoorer habitat in the White River. The compositionof forest trees species in riparian habitats haschanged, with Cottonwood and Silver Maple nowdominant species in the Wabash River floodplain butabsent or uncommon in 1814 (Jackson 2006).

Summary – Biological condition ranges weregenerally marginally good in the upper reaches ofthe lower White River (West Fork White River). Thefish assemblage was predominated by a mix ofspecies intermediate tolerance (Mississippi SilveryMinnow, Spotfin Shiner, Gizzard Shad, and RiverCarpsucker). Tolerant species were not predominant,but sensitive were also low in abundance in thesereaches. As with the Wabash River, nitrates and TSSwere elevated and TSS was uniformly high or veryhigh. Habitat was marginally good, but cover andriparian scores were particularly low as with thelower White River. The importance of matureriparian forests and their contribution to woody coveris likely underestimated in the White River andother Midwestern large rivers. Rehabilitation ofnative tree species that once reached tremendoussizes along the White River would have substantialbenefits on low cover scores observed in the WhiteRiver. Large stable wood could provide substantialchannel and habitat heterogeneity that is lacking inthe current White River (Table 75) as compared tohistorical estimates (Table 71). As with the WabashRiver, there is likely a substantial limitation toaquatic life from upstream landuses, especiallydrained lands that export nutrients, fine sediments,and that have altered flow regimes. Innovative waysof altering drainage management that maintainagricultural productivity, but reduce the chemical,flow and habitat stressors discussed above shouldbe part of a long term management plan for the WhiteRiver and Wabash River drainages.


#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

Lower White River HUC-11: 05120202-070, 05120202-080,05120202-090, & 05120202-100

05120202-100

05120113-020

05120113-050

05120202-090

05120202-07005120202-080

Map 37. Map of HUC-11 watershed within the Huc-8 05120202 Lower White River watershed. Watershed is dividedinto upper (HUC-11 watersheds -010 through -060) and lower (HUC-11 watersheds -070 through -100, green), the latterof which is the focus of this section. Data points reflect IBI scores at fish sampling sites on the mainstem (circles) andtributaries (triangles).

Biological conditions as rated by the IBI weregenerally fair-to-good in the mainstem WhiteRiver within these lower HUC-11 watersheds withmost IBI scores ranging from the mid 20s to themid 30s (attainment cutoff of 36) (Figure 24,Table 63). There have been collections of largeand great r iver species at these si tes (e.g. ,Paddlefish, Mooneye, Shovelnose Sturgeon),however these species were in low abundance andcaptured infrequently, which is similar to theircollection rate in the lower Wabash River. Round-bodied sucker populations were low and intolerantspecies were fewer than expected (Table 62).However, Stefanavage (1995, cited in Crawfordet al. 1996) reported good numbers of Blue

Suckers, an intolerant, round-bodied sucker nearthe confluence with the Wabash River. Crawfordet al. (1996) noted the collection of an AlligatorGar in the White River near Hazleton, which wasconsidered extirpated and is strongly associatedwith the well developed sloughs and backwatersthat were historically common. There are still lownumbers of intolerant and sensitive species andthe absence of historically collected species(Alligator Gar, flier, Bantam Sunfish) that wereassociated with habitats (wetlands, aquatic plants,sloughs, backwaters) that are now rare. Thus, theWhite River maintains remnants of what wereonce key species in unimpaired large and greatrivers of the Midwest (see Appendix 6).


05120202-090Year: 2006

52.3 62.0 12.0 11.0 12.0 5.0 11.0 3.0 0.89 - (8) Good

05120202-100Year: 2006

35.7 57.0 12.0 8.0 12.0 5.0 11.0 1.0 0.63 - (8) Good6.3 60.0 12.0 7.0 15.0 5.0 12.0 3.0 0.30 - (6) Fair

QHEI Metrics

Table77. QHEI, QHEI metrics, and narrative rating for mainstream White River/West Fork White River sites sampled inHUC-11 watersheds 05120202-090 and 05120202-100.


The lower White River is predominated by speciesconsidered intermediate or tolerant to pollution andhabitat loss (e.g., Gizzard Shad, Spotfin Shiner, carp,Freshwater Drum). The fact however, that many ofthese species still exist in the ecosystem shouldprovide some optimism that enhancement of habitatsfeatures that have been lost (e.g., wetlands,backwaters) combined with upstream reductions innutrient enrichment, sedimentation and flowalterations could gradually restore populations ofmany of these species.

These mainstem reaches generally had insufficientdata to characterize water chemistry stressors in theHUC-11 watersheds. However, even with lowsamples sizes, TSS was high or very high at allmainstem sites. Although there are some moderate(TP) to high (Nitrate) nutrients in the tributaries ofthe lower White River watersheds, TSS wasuniformly high to very high in all of the HUC-11watersheds (Table 72). Similar to the mainstemWabash River these high TSS concentrations arelikely related to agriculture and the disturbedhydrology which exports fine sediments andnutrients that that result in high algal activityespecially during summer months.

Habitat in these reaches of the White River was fairto marginally good at most sites (Figure 27, Table75). This deviates much from what might beexpected in a more natural White River (Table 71).Substrates were fair at best and the cover metric (7out of 20) was much lower than it should be.Structure such as logs, wood and woody debris areespecially important in large rivers. With the loss oflarge wood in Midwest large rivers we likelyunderestimate the importance of large woodymaterial in creating diverse channel features. Abbeand Montgomery (1996) indicated that in westernlarge rivers stable wood jams could last for decadesor even centuries and provide stable channel andriparian features. Montgomery and Piégay (2003)also summarized the important of wood to rivermorphology and channel features. Riffle scores werelow for such a large river which suggests riffles werenot well developed or were impacted by finesediments. Riparian scores (Table 64) were also low(scores of 5 at all sites) which indicates poorlydeveloped riparian forests compared to what existedhistorically (see Jackson 2006).

Summary – Biological condition ranges weregenerally fair-good in these reaches of the WhiteRiver. The fish assemblage was predominated by amix of tolerant and intermediate tolerance specieswith carp, drum and species of intermediate tolerancethe most common species (Gizzard Shad, SpotfinShiner, Freshwater Drum, Mississippi SilveryMinnow). Invasive exotic species (e.g., Silver Carp)were collected in the Lower White River and willprobably increase in numbers and biomass. Themagnitude of effect of these aliens is unknown, butcould potentially be severe for other species.Sensitive and intolerant species were in lowabundance in most of these reaches, but some keyrare species were present (e.g., Blue Sucker,Mooneye, Paddlefish). As with the Wabash River,nitrates and TSS were elevated and TSS wasuniformly high or very high. Habitat was fair-marginally good, but cover and riparian scores wereparticularly low. Aside from the historical loss ofwetlands, sloughs and other similar features, long-term stabilization and restoration of riparian forestsand woody cover would be important considerationsfor improving the habitats of the White River. Aswith the Wabash River, there is likely a substantiallimitation to aquatic life from upstream landuses,especially drained lands, that export nutrients, finesediments, and have altered natural flow regimes.Innovative ways of altering drainage managementthat maintain agricultural productivity, but reducethe chemical, flow and habitat stressors discussedabove should be part of a long term management planfor the White River and Wabash River drainages.


Table 78. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watersheds 05120202-070 through 05120202-100 from 2002-2006.IBI tolerances are color coded: I – Intolerant (blue); M – Sensitive (green); P – Moderately Tolerant (pink); T –Tolerant (red).


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

20-003 Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum 29943-032 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 17185-001 Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens P 15743-040 Miss.Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis 15643-041 Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax 14543-001 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio T 10143-031 Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei P 9510-002 Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 8847-007 Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 8843-027 River Shiner Notropis blennius 8377-005 Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 8040-006 River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio carpio 6243-020 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides 6047-002 Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 4577-009 Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus P 3777-011 Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis M 3540-005 Quillback Carpsucker Carpiodes cyprinus 1810-004 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 1740-001 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus I 1777-010 Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis 1740-004 Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 1577-004 Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui M 1474-001 White Bass Morone chrysops 1308-002 Shovelnose Sturgeon S. platorynchus 1077-008 Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus T 1020-001 Skipjack Herring Alosa chrysochloris 840-002 Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 743-015 Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis 774-002 Striped Bass Morone saxatalis 780-004 Dusky Darter Percina sciera sciera M 740-003 Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 540-008 Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum M 543-007 Bigeye Chub Notropis amblops I 510-003 Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus 454-002 Blackstripe Topminnow Fundulus notatus 477-001 White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 418-002 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus I 340-013 River Redhorse Moxostoma carinatum I 343-021 Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis I 343-025 Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus 343-039 Silverjaw Minnow Notropis buccatus 343-043 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus T 347-001 Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 368-001 Pirate Perch Aphredoderus sayanus 377-006 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 377-012 Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus 343-079 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix 280-005 Blackside Darter Percina maculata 204-001 Paddlefish Polyodon spathula I 1


Table 78. Fish species captured in HUC-11 watersheds 05120202-070 through 05120202-100, continued.


SpeciesTolerance

NumberCollected

40-007 Highfin Carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 143-034 Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus M 143-047 Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 143-115 Ribbon Shiner Lythrurus fumeus 147-006 Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas P 147-008 Stonecat Madtom Noturus flavus I 147-016 Freckled Madtom Noturus nocturnus I 150-001 American Eel Anguilla rostrata 177-007 Warmouth Sunfish Lepomis gulosus 180-001 Sauger Stizostedion canadense 180-007 Slenderhead Darter Percina phoxocephala I 180-011 Logperch Percina caprodes M 180-028 Mud Darter Etheostoma asprigene P 1


Wabash River Watershed - Threats to Biological Condition © Midwest Biodviersity Institute & Indiana TNC

Abbe, T.B. and D.R. Montgomery. 1996. Largewoody debris jams, channel hydraulics and habitatformation in large rivers. Regulated Rivers:Research & Management 12 (2-3): 201-221.

Alexander, G.G. and J.D. Allan. 2006. StreamRestoration in the Upper Midwest, U.S.A.Restoration Ecology 14(4): 595–604.

Baker, D.B. and R.P. Richards. 2003. Phosphorusbudgets and riverine phosphorus export innorthwestern Ohio watersheds. Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 31: 96–108.

Baker, D.B., P. Richards, T.L. Loftus, and J.W.Kramer. 2004. A New Flashiness Index:Characteristics and Applications to MidwesternRivers and Streams. Journal of the AmericanWater Resources Association 40(2): 503–522,http://www.awra.org/jawra/papers/J03095.html

Baker, N. T. and J. W. Frey. 1997. Fish Communityand Habitat Data at Selected Sites in the WhiteRiver Basin, Indiana, 1993-1995. NationalWater-Quality Assessment Program, U.S.Geological Survey. Open File Report 96- 653A.

Bernhardt, E.S., M.A. Palmer, J.D. Allan, G.Alexander, S. Brooks, S. Clayton, J. Carr, C.Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D.L. Galat, S. Gloss, P.Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G.M. Kondolf, S. Lake, R. Lave, J.L.Meyer, T.K.O’Donnell, L. Pagano, P. Srivastava, and E.Sudduth. 2005. Restoration of U.S. Rivers: ANational Synthesis. Science 308 (2005): 636–637.

Bernot, M.J., J.L. Tank, T.V. Royer, and M.B. David.2006. Nutrient uptake in streams drainingagricultural catchments of the midwestern UnitedStates. Freshwater Biology 51: 499–509.

Booth, D. B., D. Hartley, and C. R. Jackson. 2002.Forest cover, impervious-surface area, and themitigation of stormwater impacts. Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association 38:835–845.

Bram, G.W.A. and P.H. Nienhuis 2003, Fishzonations and guilds as the basis for assessmentof ecological integrity of large rivers.Hydrobiologia 500: 157–178.

Bressler, D.W., Stribling, J.B., Paul, M.J., Hicks,M.B. 2006. Stressor tolerance values for benthicmacroinvertebrates in Mississippi. Hydrobiolo-gia 573(1): 155 – 172.

Bryce, S.A. and R.M. Hughes. 2003. Variableassemblage responses to multiple disturbancegradients: Case studies in Oregon andAppalachia, USA. Pages 539-560 in T.P. Simon,editor. Biological response signatures: Indicatorpatterns using aquatic communities. CRC Press,Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

Burke Engineering. 2007. Watershed ManagementPlan. Prepared for: Upper Wabash River BasinCommission, July 2007. Prepared by:Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. NationalCity Center, Suite 1368-South 115 W.Washington Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204,CBBEL Project Number 05-331.

Carter, D.S., M.J. Lydy, and C.G. Crawford. 1995.Water-quality assessment of the White RiverBasin, Indiana- Analysis of available informationon pesticides. 1972-92: U.S. Geological SurveyWater- Resources Investigations Report 94-4024,60 pp.

Cordova, J.M., E.J. Rosi-Marshall, M. Yamamuroa,and G.A. Lamberti. 2007. Quantity, controls andfunctions of large woody debris in MidwesternUSA streams. River Res. Applic. 23: 21–33.

Craig, L.S., M. A Palmer, D.C. Richardson, S. Filoso,E.S. Bernhardt, B.P. Bledsoe, M.W. Doyle, P. MGroffman, B. A. Hassett, S. S. Kaushal, P. M.Mayer, S.M. Smith, and P.R. Wilcock. 2008.Stream restoration strategies for reducing rivernitrogen loads. Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment: 6(10): 529-538.

Crawford, C.G. 1996, Influence of natural and humanfactors on pesticide concentrations in surfacewaters of the White River Basin, Indiana: U.S.Geological Survey Fact Sheet 119-96, 4 pp.

Crawford, C.G., M.J. Lydy, and J.W. Frey. 1996.Fishes of the White River Basin, Indiana: U.S.Geological Survey Water - Resources Investiga-tions Report 96–4232, 8 pp.

Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1993. Distributionand host species of the federally endangeredfreshwater mussel, Potamilus capax (Green,1832) in the Lower Wabash River, Illinois andIndiana. Illinois Natural History Survey, Centerfor Biodiversity, Technical Report 1993(1): 1-29.

Cummings, K.S. and J.M. Berlocher. 1990. Thenaiades or freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:

References


Unionidae) of the Tippecanoe River, Indiana.Malacological Review 23: 83-98.

Cummings, K.S., C.A. Mayer, and L.M. Page. 1991.Survey of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca:Unionidae) of the Wabash River drainage, PhaseIII—White River and selected tributaries:Indianapolis, Department of Natural ResourcesTechnical Report 3: 1-37.

Cummings, K.S., C.A. Mayer, and L.M. Page. 1988.Survey of the Freshwater Mussels [MolluscaUnionidae] of the Wabash River Drainage, Phase11: Upper and Middle Wabash River. TechnicalReport 1988 (8), Illinois Natural History Survey,47 pp., plus appendix 1.

Cummings, K.S., C.A. Mayer, L.M. Page, and J.M.Berlocher. 1987. Survey of the FreshwaterMussels (Mollusca Unionacea) of the WabashRiver Drainage, Phase 1 Lower Wabash andTippecanoe Rivers. Technical Report 1987(5)Illinois Natural History Survey. 60 pp.+app.

Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field Guideto Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest. IllinoisNatural History Survey Manual 5. 194 pp.

Cummings, Kevin S. et al. 1992. Survey of theFreshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) ofthe Wabash River Drainage. Final Report. INHSCenter for Biodiversity Tech. Rep. 1992 (1):210pp.

David M.B. & L.E. Gentry. 2000. Anthropogenicinputs of nitrogen and phosphorus and riverineexport for Illinois, USA. Journal of Environ-mental Quality 29: 494-508.

Davies, S. P. and S. K. Jackson. 2006. The biologicalcondition gradient: a descriptive model forinterpreting change in aquatic ecosystems.Ecological Applications 16: 1251–1266.

Drauch, A.M., B.E. Fisher, E.K. Latch, J.A. Fike,and O. Rhodes. 2008. Evaluation of a remnantlake sturgeon population’s utility as a source forreintroductions in the Ohio River system.Conserv Genet (2008) 9: 1195–1209.

Drauch, A.M., B.E. Fisher, and O. Rhodes. 2006.Genetic Evaluation of the Remnant White RiverLake Sturgeon Population: A Suitable Source forOhio River Reintroductions? Great Lakes LakeSturgeon Coordination Meeting 2006 heldNovember 29-30, 2006 in Sault Ste. Marie,Michigan.

Dudgeon, D., A.H. Arthington, M.O. Gessner, Z-I.Kawabata, D.J. Knowler, C. Leveque, R.J.Naiman, A-H. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M.L.J.Stiassny, and C.A. Sullivan. 2006. Freshwater

biodiversity: Importance, threats, status andconservation challenges. Biological Reviews.Cambridge University Press. 81(2): 163-182.

Dudgeon, D. 1992. Patterns and Processes in StreamEcology: A Synoptic Review of Hong KongRunning Waters. Schweizer-bart’sche Verlags-buchhandlung. Stuttgart: 147 pp.

Eigenmann, C.H. and C.H. Beeson. 1894. The Fishesof Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academyof Science, 1893. 9: 76-108 (cited in Gammon1998).

Emery, E., R.Tewes, R. Argo, and J. Thomas. 2007.A Biological Assessment of the Large Rivers ofthe Upper Mississippi and Ohio River Basins inRegionV. Ohio River Valley Water SanitationCommission (ORSANCO), Cincinnati, Ohio45228.

Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes ofTennessee. University of Tennessee Press,Knoxville. 681 pp.

Fenelon, J.M. 1998, Water Quality in the White RiverBasin, Indiana. 1992-96: U.S. Geological SurveyCircular 1150, 34 pp.

Fisher, B.E. 2006. Current status of freshwatermussels (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash Riverdrainage of Indiana. Proceedings of the IndianaAcademy of Science 15(2):103–109.

Flotemersch, J.E., K. Blocksom, J.J. Hutchens, andB.C.Autrey. 2006. Development of a standard-ized large river bioassessment protocol (LR-BP)for macroinvertebrate assemblages RiverResearch and Applications 22(7): 775-790.

Flotemersch, J.E., J.B. Stribling, and M.J. Paul. 2006.Concepts and Approaches for the Bioassessmentof Non-wadeable Streams and Rivers. EPA 600-R-06-127. US Environmental Protection Agency,Cincinnati, Ohio.

Frey, J.W. and B.J. Caskey. 2007. Nutrient, habitat,and basin-characteristics data relations with fishand invertebrate communities in Indiana streams,1998–2000: U.S. Geological Survey ScientificInvestigations Report 2007–5076, 40 pp.

Frey, J.W., B.J. Caskey, and B.S. Lowe. 2007,Relations of Principal Component Analysis sitescores algal-biomass, habitat, basin characteris-tics, nutrient, and biological community data inthe West Fork White River Basin, Indiana, 2001:U.S. Geological Survey Scientific InvestigationsReport 2007–5222, 25 pp.

Frey, J.W., Baker, N.T., Lydy, M.J., and Stone, W.W.1996. Assessment of water quality at selectedsites in the White River Basin, Indiana. 1993 and


1995 using biological indices: U.S. GeologicalSurvey Fact Sheet 209-96, 4 pp.

Frothingham, K.M., B.L. Rhoads, and E.E. Herricks.2002. A Multiscale Conceptual Framework forIntegrated Ecogeomorphological Research toSupport Stream Naturalization in the AgriculturalMidwest. Environmental Management 29(1):16–33

Galat, D.L. and R. Lipkin. 2000. Restoringecological integrity of great rivers: historicalhydrographs aid in defining reference conditionsfor the Missouri River. Hydrobiologia. 442/423:29-48.

Gammon, J.R. 1983. Changes in the fish communityof the Wabash River following power plant start-up: projected and observed. Pages 350-366 In:Bishop, W. E., R. D. Cardwell & B. B. Heidolph(eds), Aquatic Toxicology and HazardAssessment: Sixth Symposium. ASTM STP 802.

Gammon, J.R. 1971. The response of fish popula-tions in the Wabash River to heated effluents.Pages 513-523 In: Proceedings of the 3rdNational Symposium on Radioecology.

Gammon, J.R. 1973 . The effect of thermal inputson the populations of fish and macroinvertebratesin the Wabash River. Purdue University WaterResources Research Center. Technical ReportNo. 32. 106 pp.

Gammon, J.R. 1976. The fish populations of themiddle 340 km of the Wabash River. PurdueUniversity Water Resources Research Center.Technical Report No. 86. 73 pp.

Gammon, J.R. 1977. The status of Indiana streamsand fish from 1800 to 1900. Proceedings of theIndiana Academy of Science 86:209-216.

Gammon, J.R. 1980. The use of communityparameters der ived f rom e lec t rof ish ingca tches of r iver f i sh as ind ica tors ofenvironmental quality. Pages 335-363 In: EPASeminar on Water Qual i ty ManagementTradeoffs—Point Source vs. Diffuse SourcePollution: EPA-905/9-80-009.

Gammon, J.R. 1998. The Wabash River Ecosystem.Indiana University Press, Bloomington: 250 pp.

Gammon, J.R. 2005. Wabash River fishes from 1800to 2000. Pages 365–381 In: Historical Changesin Large River Fish Assemblages of the Americas(J.N. Rinne, R.M. Hughes, and B. Calamusso,eds.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesday,MD.

Gammon, J.R. and J.M. Reidy 1981. The role oftributaries during an episode of low dissolved

oxygen in the Wabash River. Am. Fish. Soc.Warmwater Streams Symposium: 396-407.

Gammon, J.R. and J.R. Riggs. 1983 . The fishcommunities of Big Vermilion River and SugarCreek. Proceedings of the Indian Academy ofScience 92 :183-190.

Gammon, J.R. and T.P. Simon. 2000. Variation in aGreat River Index of Biotic Integrity over a 20-year period. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 291–304,2000.

Gerking, S.D. 1945. Distribution of Indiana Fishes.Investigations of Indiana Lakes and Streams 3:1-137. (cited in Gammon 1998)

Gerritsen, J. and E.W. Leppo. 2005. Biologicalcondition gradient for tiered aquatic life use inNew Jersey. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office ofScience and Technology by Tetra Tech, Inc. 400Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills,MD 21117.

Goolsby, D.A., W.A. Battaglin, G.B. Lawrence,R.S. Artz, B.T. Aulenbach, R.P. Hooper, D.R.Keeney, and G.J. Stensland. 1999. Flux andsources of nutr ients in the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin—topic 3 report forthe integrated assessment on hypoxia in theGulf of Mexico: Silver Spring, Md., NOAACoastal Ocean Office, NOAA Coastal OceanProgram Decision Analysis Series No. 17, 130pp.

Gore, J.A. and F.D. Shields. 1995. Can large riversbe restored? Bioscience. 45(3): 142-152.

Guenther, C.B. and A. Spacie 2006. Changes in FishAssemblage Structure Upstream of Impound-ments within the Upper Wabash River Basin,Indiana. Transactions of the American FisheriesSociety: 135(3): 570–583.

Heatherly, T., M.R. Whiles, T.V. Royer, and M.B.David. 2007. Relationships between habitatquality, water quality, and macroinvertebrateassemblages in Illinois streams. Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 36: 1653-1660.

Hellenthal, R.A., R.D. Waltz, A.V. Provonsha andJ.D. Haddock. 2003. Preliminary Checklist ofIndiana Aquatic Insects. Indiana Academy ofScience Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Workshop:Over-view of the State of Science. October 17,2003. Anderson, Indiana. iv+73 pp.

Homoya, M.A. 2006. A brief survey of the rareterrestrial natural communities and associatedvascular flora of the Wabash River corridor inIndiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy ofScience 115(2): 89-93.


Indiana Department of Environmental Management(IDEM). 2006. Indiana Water QualityMonitoring Strategy 2006-2010. M-001-OWQ-A-00-06R03. IDEM, Office of Water Quality,Assessment Branch, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management(IDEM). 2006. IDEM’s Surface Water QualityAssessment Program, Fish Community SamplingProgram, Indiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement Office of Water Quality AssessmentBranch, FACT SHEET B-004-OWQ-A-BS-06-0-R5, Rev. March 2006.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management(IDEM). 2007. Limberlost Creek WatershedSediment and Nutrient TMDL DevelopmentDraft for U.S.EPA Approval, June 7, 2007.

Culp, J.M., K.J. Cash, and F.J. Wrona (editors).2000. Integrated Assessment of EcosystemIntegrity of Large Northern Rivers: the NorthernRiver Basins Study Example. Journal of AquaticEcosystem Stress and Recovery 8: 1–5.

Jackson, M.T. 2006. Forest communities and treespecies of the lower Wabash River basin.Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science115(2): 94-102

Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity usingfish communities. Fisheries 6: 21–27.

Karr, J.R. and E.W. Chu. 2000. Sustaining livingrivers. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 1–14.

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant,and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing BiologicalIntegrity in Running Waters: A Method and itsRationale. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. Spec. Publ. 5.Champaign: 23 pp.

Karr, J.R., L.A. Toth, and D.R. Dudley. 1985. Fishcommunities of midwestern rivers: a history ofdegradation. BioScience 35: 90–95.

Kennedy A.J., D.J. Daugherty, T.M. Sutton, and B.E.Fisher. 2007. Population characteristics ofshovelnose sturgeon in the upper Wabash River,Indiana. North American Journal of FisheriesManagement 27(1): 52-62.

Knox, J.C. 1999. Long-term episodic changes inmagnitudes and frequencies of floods in theUpper Mississippi river valley. Pages 255–282In: Browne, A.G., Quine, T.A. (Eds.), FluvialProcesses and Environmental Change. JohnWiley & Sons, London.

Knox, J.C. 2001. Agricultural influence on landscapesensitivity in the Upper Mississippi River Valley.Catena 422001.193–224.

Krumholz, L.A., R.L. Bingham, and E.R. Meyer.1970. A survey of the commercially valuablemussels of the Wabash and White Rivers ofIndiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy ofScience 79: 205-226.

Kuehne, R.A., and R.W. Barbour. 1983. TheAmerican Darters. University Press of Kentucky,Lexington, Kentucky. 177 pp.

Lau, J.K., T.E. Lauer, and M.L. Weinman. 2006.Impacts of channelization on stream habitats andassociated fish assemblages in east centralIndiana. American Midland Naturalist. 156(2):319-330.

Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins,D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlasof North American Freshwater Fishes. NorthCarolina State Museum of Natural History. 867pp.

Leer, D.R., B.J. Caskey, J.W. Frey, and B.S. Lowe.2007. Relations of Principal ComponentAnalysis site scores algal-biomass, habitat,basin-characteristics, nutrient, and biologicalcommunity data in the Upper Wabash RiverBasin, Indiana, 2003: U.S. Geological SurveyScientific Investigations Report 2007-5231, 25pp.

Lenat, D.R. and V.H. Resh. 2001. Taxonomy andstream ecology: The benefits of genusandspecies-level identifications. Journal of the NorthAmerican Benthological Society 20:287-298.

Madramootoo, C.A., W.R. Johnston, J.E. Ayars, R.O.Evans, and N.R. Fausey. 2007. Agriculturaldrainage management quality and diposal issuesin North America. Irrigation and Drainage 56:S35-S45.

Martin, J.D., J.W. Frey, and C.G. Crawford. 1994,Factors affecting nutrient concentrations in theWhite River Basin, Indiana, [abs.]. Page 5 InSorenson, S.K., ed. 1994, Proceedings abstractsAmerican Water Resources Association’ssymposium on the National Water-QualityAssessment Program—November 7-9 1994,Chicago, Illinois: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-397.

Meador, M.R. and D.M. Carlisle. 2007. Quantifyingtolerance indictor values for common stream fishspecies of the United States. Ecol. Indic. 7, 329–338.

Minton, S.A., Jr. 2001. Amphibians & reptiles ofIndiana. Revised second edition. IndianaAcademy of Science, Indianapolis. xiv + 404 pp.


Montgomery, D.R. and H. Piégay. 2003. Wood inrivers: interactions with channel morphology andprocesses. Geomorphology 51(1-3): 1-5.

National Water-Quality Assessment Program(NAWQA). 1996. Fishes of the White RiverBasin, Indiana. U. S. Department of the Interior.U. S. Geological Survey. Water-ResourcesInvestigations Report 96-4232.

Nelson, J.S., E.J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L.T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.Williams. 2004. Common and scientific namesof fishes from the United States, Canada, andMexico. American Fisheries Society, SpecialPublication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

Ohio EPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency).1999. Association Between Nutrients, Habitatand the Aquatic Biota in Ohio Rivers andStreams. Technical BulletinMAS/1999 1-1. OhioEnvironmental Protection Agency, Division ofSurface Water, Columbus, OH.

Ohio EPA. 2008. Executive Summary: Biologicaland Water Quality Survey of the Wabash RiverBasin, 1999, Darke and Mercer Counties, Ohio,April 1, 2002 (revised August 12, 2008). OhioEPA Technical Report EAS/2002-4-4.

Olden, J.D. and N.L. Poff. 2003. Redundancy andthe choice of hydrologic indices forcharacterizing streamflow regimes. RiverResearch and Applications (19) 2: 101-121.

Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminousUnited States. Ann. Ass. Am. Geogr. 73: 133–136.

Palmer, M.A. and E.S. Bernhardt. 2006. Hydro-ecology and river restoration: ripe for researchand synthesis. Water Resources Research . Vol.42, No. 3, W03S07, 10.1029/2005WR004354

Palmer, M.A. and J.D. Allan. 2006. River restoration:as the need for river restoration grows,supporting federal policies should follow. Issuesin Science and Technology. 22: 40-48.

Paulson, C., S. Reeves, S.P. Canton, and T.F. Moore2001. Distinguishing the Relative Influence ofHabitat and Water Quality on Aquatic Biota;Project 98-WSM-1; Final Report to WaterEnvironment Research Foundation; WaterResources Foundation: Alexandria, VA, 2001.

Peterson, B.J., W.M. Wollheim,, P.J. Mulholland,J.R. Webster, J.L. Meyer, J.L. Tank, E. Marti,W.B. Bowden, H.M. Vallett, A.E. Hershey, W.H.McDowell, W.K. Dodds, S.K. Hamilton, S.Gregory, and D.D. Morall. 2001. Control of

nitrogen export from watersheds by headwaterstreams. Science 292: 86–90.

Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri. Revisededition. Missouri Department of Conservation,Jefferson City. vi + 372 pp.

Poff, N.L. and J.V. Ward. 1989. Implications ofStreamflow Variability and Predictibility forBiotic Community Structure: a RegionalAnalysis of Streamflow Patterns. CanadianJournal of Aquatic Sciences 46: 1805-1818.

Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L.Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime.Bioscience 47(11):769–784.

Pomeroy, C.A., L.A. Roesner, J.C. Coleman II, andE.T. Rankin. 2008. Protocols for Studying WetWeather Impacts and Urbanization Patterns.Water Environmental Research FoundationReport No. 03WSM3.

Powell, G.W., A.D. Ward, D.E. Mecklenburg, andA.D. Jayakaran. 2006. Two-stage channelsystems: Part 1, a practical approach for sizingagricultural ditches. Journal of Soil and WaterConservation July 2007 62(4): 277-286.

Pyron, M & T. E. Lauer. 2004. Hydrological variationand fish assemblage structure in the middleWabash River. Hydrobiologia 525: 203–213.

Pyron, M. 2006. James R. Gammon: The WabashRiver Man. Proceedings of the Indiana Academyof Science 2006.

Pyron, M. and T.E. Lauer. 2004. Hydrological varia-tion and fish assemblage structure in the middleWabash River. Hydrobiologia 525: 203–213.

Pyron, M. and K. Neumann. 2008. Hydrologicalterations in the Wabash River watershed. RiverResearch and Applications 24:1175-1184.

Pyron, M., T.E. Lauer, and J.R. Gammon. 2006.Stability of the Wabash River fish assemblagesfrom 1974-1998. Freshwater Biology 51:1789-1797.

Pyron, M., T.E. Lauer, D. LeBlanc, D. Weitzel, andJ.R. Gammon. 2008. Temporal and spatialvariation in an index of biotic integrity for themiddle Wabash River, Indiana. Hydrobiologia600:205-214.

Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and D. Scavia. 2002.Beyond science into policy: Gulf of Mexicohypoxia and the Mississippi River. BioScience52: 129–42.

Rankin, E.T. 1995. The use of habitat assessmentsin water resource management programs. Pages


181-208 (Chapter 13). in W. Davis and T.Simon (eds.). Biological Assessment andCriteria: Tools for Water Resource Planningand Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, BocaRaton, FL.

Rankin, E.T. 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluationindex (QHEI): rationale, methods, andapplications, Columbus, Ohio: State of OhioEnvironmental Protection Agency, Division ofWater Quality Planning and Assessment. 14 p.

Rankin, E.T. and B.J. Armitage. 2004. Protection,restoration, and aquatic life potential in NatureConservancy Areas in the agricultural Midwest:French Creek (New York), St. Joseph River andFish Creek (Indiana, Michigan and Ohio), andthe Mackinaw River (Illinois). Kellogg ResearchReport. 53 pp.

Reash, R.J. 1998. Considerations for characterizingMidwestern large-river habitats. Pages 463–473In: Simon, T. P. (ed.), Assessing the Sustain-ability and Biological Integrity of WaterResources using Fish Communities. CRC Press,Boca Raton, FL.

Ricciardi, A. and J.B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinctionrates of North American freshwater fauna.Conservation Biology 13(5): 1220-1222.

Richter, B.D, J.V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington, andD.P. Braun. 1997. How much water does a riverneed? Freshwater Biology 37: 231-249.

Richter, B.D., J.V. Baumgartner, D.P. Braun , and J.Powell. 1998. A Spatial Assessment of Hydro-logic Alteration Within a River Network. Regul.Rivers: Res. Mgmt. 14: 329-340.

Richter, B.D., J.V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, and D.P.Braun. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologicalteration within ecosystems. ConservationBiology 10: 1163-1174.

Ridgway, R. 1882 . Notes on the native trees of thelower Wabash and White River valleys in Illinoisand Indiana. U. S. National Museum Proceedings1882: 49-88.

Sanders, R.E. 1992. Day versus night electro®shingcatches form near-shore waters of the Ohio andMuskingum rivers. Ohio Journal of Science 92:51-59.

Scott, W.A., J.K. Adamson, J. Rollinson, and T.W.Park. 2002. Monitoring of aquatic macrophytesfor detection of long-term change in riversystems. Environ Monitoring and Assessment73: 131-53.

Seegert, G. 2000. Considerations regarding develop-ment of index of biotic integrity metrics for large

rivers. Environmental Science & Policy 3: S99-S106.

Shields, F. D. C.M. Cooper Jr., S.S. Knight and M.T.Moore. 2003. Stream corridor restorationresearch: a long and winding road. EcologicalEngineering 20: 441–454.

Simberloff, D. and T. Dayan. 1991. The guild conceptand the structure of ecological communities.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 22:115–143.

Simon, T. P. and J. Lyons 1995. Application of theindex of biotic integrity to evaluate waterresources integrity in freshwater ecosystems.Pages 245-262 In: Davis, W. S. and T. P. Simon(eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Toolsfor Water Resource Planning and DecisionMaking. Lewis Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Simon, T. P. and R. E. Sanders. 1998. Applying an indexof biotic integrity based on Great River fishcommunities: considerations in sampling andinterpretation. Pages 475–505 In: Simon, T. P. (ed.),Assessing the Sustainability and BiologicalIntegrity of Water Resources using FishCommunities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Simon, T.P. 1992. Biological criteria developmentfor large rivers with an emphasis on anassessment of the White River drainage, Indiana.EPA 905/R-92/006. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois.

Simon, T.P. 2006. Biodiversity of fishes in theWabash River: Status, indicators, and threats.Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Sciences115(2): 136-148.

Simon, T.P. and E.B. Emery. 1995. Modification andassessment of an index of biotic integrity toquantify water resource quality in Great Rivers.Reg. Rivers: Res. Manage. 11: 283–298.

Simon, T.P. and R.Wallus. 2006. ReproductiveBiology and Early Life History of Fishes in theOhio River Drainage, Volume 4. Taylor andFrancis Group, Boca Raton, Florida. 619 pp.

Small, A.M., W.H. Adey, S.M. Lutz, E.G. Reese, andD.L. Roberts. 1996. A macrophyte-based rapidbiosurvey of stream water quality: restoration atthe watershed scale. Restoration Ecology 4: 124-45.

Smith, P.W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. Univ. IllinoisPress, Urbana. 314 pp.

Snook, H., S.P. Davies, J. Gerritsen, B.K. Jessup,R. Langdon, D. Neils, and E. Pizutto. 2007.TheNew England Wadeable Stream Survey (NEWS):Development of Common Assessments in the


Framework of the Biological ConditionGradient. Prepared for: USEPA Office of Scienceand Technology by Hilary Snook, Susan P.Davies, Jeroen Gerritsen, Benjamin K. Jessup,Richard Langdon, David Neils. and ErnestPizutto, Region I Workgroup.

Sobat, S.L., C.C. Morris, A.K. Stephan, and T.P.Simon. 2006. Changes in the condition of theWabash River drainage from 1990-2004.Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science115: 156-169.

Stefanavage, T.C. 1995. Standing stock estimationof sport and commercial fish species in the lowerone mile reach of the West Fork White River:Indianapolis, Indiana Department of NaturalResources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, 12 pp.(cited in Crawford et al. 1996).

Sullivan, B.E., L.S. Rigsby, A. Beier, M.R. Jones, T.P. Simon, T.E. Lauer, and M. Pyron. 2004.Habitat influence on fish community assemblagein an agricultural landscape in four east centralIndiana streams. Journal of Freshwater Ecology19(1):141-148.

Thiebaut G, F. Guerold, and S. Muller. 2002. Aretrophic and diversity indices based onmacrophyte communities pertinent to monitorwater quality? Water Research 36: 3602-3610.

Trautman, M. B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. The OhioState University Press, Columbus: 782 pp.

Turner, R.E. and N.N. Rabalais. 2003. Linkinglandscape and water quality in the MississippiRiver basin for 200 years. BioScience 53(6):563-572

U.S.E.P.A. 2002. Macrophytes as Indicators.[Online]. Available: http:// www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/macrophytes.html. Accessed23 Sept 2003.

U.S.EPA. 2004. Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL) for the Wabash River Watershed, Ohio.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region5 Watersheds and Wetlands Branch 77 WestJackson Blvd. (WW-16J) Chicago, Illinois 60604

U.S.G.S. 2008. NAS - Nonindigenous AquaticSpecies Fact Sheet on Silver CarpHypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes1 8 4 4 ) . h t t p : / / n a s . e r . u s g s . g o v / q u e r i e s /FactSheet.asp?speciesID=549

Warren, M.L., Jr., B.M. Burr, S.J. Walsh, H.L. Bart,Jr., R.C. Cashner, D.A. Etnier, B.J. Freeman,B.R. Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, S.T.Ross, and W.C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity,distribution, and conservation status of the native

freshwater fishes of the southern United States.Fisheries 25(10): 7-31.

Weigel, B.M., J. Lyons, and P. W. Rasmussen. 2006.Fish assemblages and biotic integrity of a highlymodified floodplain river, the Upper Mississippi,and a large,relatively unimpacted tributary, theLower Wisconsin. River Research andApplications. 22(8): 923-936

Welcomme R. and A. Halls. 2004. Dependence oftropical river fisheries on flow. Proceedings ofthe Second International Symposium on theManagement of Large Rivers for Fisheries,VolumeII. Sustaining Livelihoods and Biodiversity inthe New Millennium, 11 - 14 February 2003,Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia. Edited byRobin L. Welcomme and T. Petr.

Williams J.D., M.L. Warren, K.S. Cummings, J.L.Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993. Conservationstatus of freshwatermussels of the United Statesand Canada. Fisheries, 18(9): 6-22.

Williams, J.E., J.E. Johnson, D.A. Hendrickson, S.Contreras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D.E. McAllister, and J.E. Deacon.1989. Fishes of North America endangered,threatened, or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries(Bethesda) 14(6): 2-20.

Woods, A.J., J.M. Omernik, C.S. Brockman, T.D.Gerber, W. D. Hosteter, and S. H. Azevedo.1998. Ecoregions of Indiana and Ohio. (Mapposter). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Yoder, C.O., E.T. Rankin, M.A. Smith, B.C. Alsdorf,D.J. Altfater, C.E. Boucher, R.J. Miltner, D.E.Mishne, R.E. Sanders, and R.F. Thoma. 2005.Changes in fish assemblage status in Ohio’snonwadeable rivers and streams over twodecades. Pages 399-429 In: Historical changesin large river fish assemblages of the Americas.Edited by J.N. Rinne, R.M. Hughes, and B.Calamusso. American Fisheries Society, Sym-posium 45. Bethesda, MD.

Yuan L.L. 2004. Assigning macroinvertebratetolerance classifications using generalisedadditive models. Freshwater Biology, 49, 662–677.

Yuan, L. 2006. Estimation and Application ofMacroinvertebrate Tolerance Values. UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency,National Center for Environmental Assessment,Office of Research and DevelopmentEPA/600/P-04/116F, March 2006.


Wabash River Watershed - Threats to Biological Condition © Midwest Biodviersity Institute & Indiana TNC

Documents

QHEI Metrics Gradient River Mile QHEI Substrate Cover Channel