A Review and Recent Records of the Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boopi (Cyprinidae)(C*rt\r\t\\(Ki\f*\, i nIn Ohi Ohioo 1

DANIEL L. RICE, MARK D. BARNES, AND GEORGE J. PHINNEY2, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Fountain Square, Columbus, OH 43224; Department of Natural Resources, Chinese Culture University, Hwa Kang, Yang Ming Shan, Taipei, Taiwan 111; and Department of Life Science, Otterbein College, Westerville, OH 43081

ABSTRACT. The bigeye shiner (Notropis boops^) is a common fish of upland streams in the middle Mississippi River drainage. It prefers warm, quiet pools with clear water and silt-free substrates. It is threatened in Ohio, which is on the northern edge of its range, and since 1941 has been collected in only a few streams in the southwestern part of the state. In order to assess the current status of the bigeye shiner in Ohio, we examined the extensive stream fish data base for the whole state. We then conducted seining surveys from 1985-1995 to more fully document the distribution of bigeye shiners in the six stream systems in which they had been reported since 1941. The largest populations were found in Turkey Creek and the Sunfish Creek system, which have mostly forested watersheds, clear water, and silt-free substrates. Smaller populations were found in O'Bannon Creek and the White Oak Creek system. Both these systems have agriculturalized watersheds, and the O'Bannon Creek watershed is affected by urban construction activities. Both systems experience heavier silt loading and have more turbid water and siltier substrates. We were unable to find bigeye shiners in Paddy's Run Creek and Scioto Brush Creek, where they had been reported in the 1970s. Siltation, gravel dredging and channelization are the major factors which threaten the remaining populations of bigeye shiners in southern Ohio.

OHIO J SCI 98 (3): 42-51, 1998

INTRODUCTION small insects (Smith and Powell 1971, Trautman 1981). The bigeye shiner, Notropis boops Gilbert, is a mod- Spawning may occur from late April into August (Leh- erately slender, silvery minnow with a dusky lateral tinen and Echelle 1979, Pflieger 1975, Robison and stripe and a maximum total length of about 80 mm. Its Buchanan 1988). most distinctive characteristic is its large eye diameter, The bigeye shiner was probably never very com- which is included 2.0-3-0 times in its head length mon on the northern periphery of its range (Gerking (Pflieger 1975, Smith 1979, Robison and Buchanan 1988, 1945, Smith 1979, Trautman 1981). It is still regularly Trautman 1981). reported from several streams in the White and Wabash The bigeye shiner is a common species in upland river systems in Indiana and appears to be secure in streams of the middle Mississippi River system, includ- that state (R. M. Anderson, Indiana Department of ing the Eastern Highlands of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Natural Resources, personal communication). However, northern Alabama, the Ozark and Ouachita highlands of it has declined severely in Illinois, where it is listed as Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, and sub-highland endangered (C. D'Onofrio, Illinois Department of Con- regions of northern Louisiana and southeastern Kansas servation, personal communication). The decline of the (Fig. 1). It is less commonly found in tribu- bigeye shiner in Illinois has been attributed to increased taries of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois (Burr and Warren siltation due to agricultural runoff and to loss of habi- 1986, Cross and Collins 1995, Douglas 1974, Etnier and tat due to channelization and construction of im- Starnes 1993, Gerking 1945, Lee and others 1980, Mettee poundments (Smith 1979; L. M. Page, Illinois Natural and others 1996, Miller and Robison 1973, Pflieger 1975, History Survey, personal communication). Robison and Buchanan 1988, Smith 1979, Trautman 1981). The bigeye shiner is listed as threatened in Ohio due Throughout its range, the bigeye shiner appears to to its restricted range and apparently declining abun- prefer relatively clear upland streams with moderate dance in the state (ODNR 1997). Prior to 1900, the species gradient, permanent pools, and silt-free substrates of was probably widely distributed throughout the western sand, gravel, or rock. It is associated with warm, quiet half of the state, including both the - pools and is intolerant of strong currents, water that is Lake Erie drainage and the Ohio River drainage from continuously cool or turbid, and silty substrates (Burr and the Great Miami River system in the west to the Scioto Warren 1986, Etnier and Starnes 1993, Gerking 1945, River system in the east (Osburn and Williamson 1898, Pflieger 1975, Robison and Buchanan 1988, Smith 1979, Trautman 1981) (Table 1, Fig. 1). The bigeye shiner was Trautman 1981). Its habits and life history have not been last reported in the upper Scioto River system (Big Wal- studied extensively. It appears to prefer midwater pool nut Creek) in 1897, in the upper Great Miami River habitats (Gorman 1987, 1988) and to feed by sight on before 1900, and in the Maumee River system (Auglaize River) in 1941 (Table 1, Fig. 1), leading Trautman (1957) to conclude that it had become extinct in the glaciated Manuscript received 2 June 1997 and in revised form 10 July 1998 (#97-10). region of Ohio. Between 1941 and 1972, only two popu- 2Present Address: 385 East Stafford Avenue, Worthington, OH 43085 lations of bigeye shiners were known to persist in Ohio, OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE D. L. RICE, M. D. BARNES, AND G. J. PHINNEY 43

few historical records of the bigeye shiner in the Mau- mee, upper Great Miami, and upper Scioto river systems suggest that the species may have been more widely distributed in northwestern Ohio before Pleistocene glacial advances eliminated most suitable upland habitat in that region, leaving, as Trautman (1981) suggested, a

TABLE 1

Known populations of the bigeye shiner (Notropis boops) in Ohio, 1893-1975.

Stream* County IMumber** Date Reference***

Maumee R Lucas-Wood V 8/21/1893 Kirsch (1895) Auglaize R Allen 1 7/4/25 OSUM 10876 Auglaize R Auglaize 2 9/29/25 OSUM 10875 Auglaize R Auglaize 21 7/8/41 OSUM 3290 Blanchard R Hancock 5 8/7/1893 UMMZ 063040 Blanchard R Hancock •> 9/7/1893 UMMZ 192571' Scioto R B. Walnut Cr Franklin ? 1897 OSUM 12945 Scioto Brush Cr Scioto 1 1973 JCU Sunfish Cr Pike 5 8/15/22 ODW Sunfish Cr Pike 5 7/8/40 OSUM 2642 Sunfish Cr Pike 1 6/11/64 OSUM 15555 Sunfish Cr Pike 1 6/11/72 JCU 361 Sunfish Cr Pike 1KX2) 9/12/73 OUVC 6767 Chenoweth Fk Pike 3 5/3/30 OSUM 10877 Chenoweth Fk Pike 42 5/29/40 OSUM 2090 Chenoweth Fk Pike 4 8/27/53 OSUM 12409 Chenoweth Fk Pike 2 4/26/64 OSUM 17851 Chenoweth Fk Pike 13 6/11/64 OSUM 15112 before 1970 Morgan Fk Pike 7 5/4/30 OSUM 10878 Morgan Fk Pike ? 5/4/30 UMMZ 107729 1970-1995 Morgan Fk Pike 3 7/18/39 OSUM 2654 50 km Morgan Fk Pike 30 12/6/39 OSUM 1399 Morgan Fk Pike 48 7/3/48 OSUM 7631 FIGURE 1. Map of western Ohio showing collection locations of bigeye Morgan Fk Pike 44 5/15/50 OSUM 12334 shiner {Notropis boops), 1893-1995. Locations by number are: (1) Mau- Morgan Fk Pike 1 4/26/64 OSUM 17883 mee River; (2) Blanchard River; (3) Auglaize River; (4) Great Miami Left Fk Pike 1 4/27/63 OSUM 21062 River; (5) Big Walnut Creek; (6) Paddy's Run Creek; (7) O'Bannon Left Fk Pike 1 4/26/64 OSUM 17876 Creek; (8) White Oak Creek system; (9) Sunfish Creek system; (10) Scioto Brush Creek; and (11) Turkey Creek system. Larger dots and Turkey Cr Scioto 3 9/13/27 OSUM 10873 circles for the White Oak Creek and Sunfish Creek systems reflect a Turkey Cr Scioto ? 9/18/27 UMMZ 086011 wider distribution of collections among several tributaries of each Turkey Cr Scioto 23 7/14/28 OSUM 10874 system rather than total numbers collected. Inset: historic range of L. Miami R bigeye shiner in North America (Lee and others 1980). O'Bannon Cr Clermont 1 7/19/79 USFWS G. Miami R Montgomery ? pre-1900 Trautman (1981) Paddy's Run Cr Hamilton 2 7/23/72 Bauer & others in the Sunfish Creek system and in Turkey Creek, where (1978) they had been known since 1922 and 1927, respectively (Table 1, Fig. 1). Then, in 1972,1973, and 1979, respectively, * Indentation indicates that a stream is a lower order tributary of the less bigeye shiners were discovered at three new sites: indented stream above. Paddy's Run Creek, Scioto Brush Creek, and O'Bannon ** Usually the number collected and counted in the field; lacking those data, the number of specimens in the museum collection (X2 = number collected Creek (Table 1, Fig. 1). However, only one or two speci- on the same date at two different sites; ? = data not available). mens were collected at each site, and follow-up studies '** USFWS = US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Ecological Services, Columbus, OH; OSUM = Ohio State University Museum of Biological to determine the extent of those populations were not Diversity, Columbus (with specimen catalogue number); UMMZ = University done at the time. of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor (with specimen catalogue The decline of the bigeye shiner in Ohio can be at- number); JCU = John Carroll University, Dept of Biology, Cleveland (with specimen catalogue number or via A.M. White, personal communication); tributed both to natural and to anthropogenic causes. ODW = Ohio Division of Wildlife, District 4, Fish Management Section Prior to the Pleistocene Epoch, the Eastern, Ozark, and stream survey records; OUVC = Ohio University Vertebrate Collection, Ouachita highlands were continuous and extended Athens (with specimen catalogue number). 1 UMMZ 192571 was originally IU (Indiana Univ) 9186 and was erroneously farther north into what are now the Central Lowlands cited by Trautman (1981) as CAS (California Academy of Science) 9186 (D. W. regions of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois (Mayden 1987). The Nelson, Univ of Michigan Museum of Zoology, personal communication). 44 BIGEYE SHINER IN OHIO VOL. few relict populations (Fig. 1). Historically, siltation of poorly documented. Therefore, to assess the current stream bottoms and higher water turbidity that accom- status of the bigeye shiner in Ohio, we conducted an ex- panied agricultural development of the lowland parts tensive review of the ichthyological literature, museum of the state may have eliminated those relict popula- collections, and stream fish databases maintained by state tions and contributed to the decline of larger bigeye and federal agencies for the whole state. Beginning in shiner populations persisting in unglaciated Ohio (Traut- 1985, we initiated seining surveys to more fully document man 1981). bigeye shiner populations in Paddy's Run Creek, O'Bannon Despite periodic stream fish surveys conducted by Creek, Turkey Creek, the Scioto Brush Creek system, and the Ohio Division of Wildlife and an increasingly exten- the Sunfish Creek system. During the course of these sive, statewide program of stream fish surveys initiated surveys, a previously unknown population of bigeye by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency in 1979, shiners was discovered by the Ohio Environmental no previously unknown populations of bigeye shiners Protection Agency in the East Fork of White Oak Creek were reported in Ohio between 1975 and 1985, and the (R. E. Sanders, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, extent of recently discovered populations in Paddy's Run personal communication), so we expanded our survey Creek, O'Bannon Creek, and Scioto Brush Creek remained to include the White Oak Creek system (Table 2, Fig. 2).

TABLE 2

Physical characteristics, number of sampling sites, and month/year sampled for streams sampled by Ohio Division of Natural Areas and Preserves during bigeye shiner survey, 1985-1995*

Stream** Mean Gradient Length Drainage Area Number of Sites* Month/Year Sampled (m/km) (km) (km2)

Paddy's Run Cr 3.8 10.3 41.6 2(0) 9/93 O'Bannon Cr 4.5 19.3 151.4 7(1) 3/90, 9/93, 7/95 White Oak Cr 2.3 78.3 606.8 8(3) 3/90 Miranda Run 10.1 1.4 15.4 1(0) 3/90 Stony Run1 10.7 3.4 6.6 1(1) 3/90 Sterling Run 1.6 17.4 73.7 1(1) 3/90 North Fk 1.0 33.8 175.4 3(3) 3/90 East Fk 1.4 35.4 209.3 7(2) 10/87n, 3/90 Turkey Cr 7.5 21.4 124.5 6(5) 9/88, 2/90, 11/94 Odell Cr 12.9 5.9 14.4 2(0) 2/90 Harber Fk 17.3 5.1 15.8 2(0) 2/90 Pond Lick Run 17.5 4.5 13.9 1(0) 2/90 Mackletree Run 13.7 6.2 15.8 1(1) 2/90 Lampblack Run 21.4 4.0 7.3 1(0) 2/90 Sunfish Cr 1.9 42.4 374.5 6(1) 9/86, 8/88, 1/90, 3/90 Chenoweth Fk 7.5 15.2 77.8 6(3) 8/88, 12/89, 1/90 Carter Run 14.7 6.4 19.7 2(1) 8/88, 12/89 Morgan Fk 12.3 12.5 189.8 3(3) 3, 1/90 Left Fk 9.3 5.9 74.8 3(0) 3, 1/90 Right Fk 15.2 6.4 25.5 3(2) 1, 1/90 Middle Fkttt 6.6 3.5 25.3 2(1) 1, 1/90 Grassy Fk 9.4 4.8 15.7 3(1) 3/90 Kincaid Cr 5.9 5.0 29.0 1(0) 8/88, 6/90 L. Sunfish Cr+ 4.3 3.4 9.5 1(0) 1/90 Scioto Brush Cr 1.4 57.6 708.4 10(0) 9-10/85 McCullough Cr 10.8 7.4 51.4 1(0) 9-10/85 East Br 10.6 3.5 24.8 1(0) 9-10/85 Bear Cr 12.1 10.9 50.1 1(0) 9-10/85 South Fk 4.0 29.1 291.6 3(0) 9-10/85 Rocky Fk 8.0 17.8 60.8 1(0) 9-10/85 Rarden Cr 8.9 10.6 47.6 2(0) 9-10/85

* Mean gradient, length, and drainage area from ODNR (I960) unless otherwise noted. Indentation indicates that a stream is a lower order tributary of the less indented stream above; tributaries are listed in order from mouth to headwaters. '""Numbers in parentheses indicate sites at which bigeye shiners were found. 1 Determined directly from US Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic maps using the same methods described in ODNR (I960). n Sampled by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1+1 The Middle Fork is not named in ODNR (I960) or on US Geological Survey 7.5-minute Morgantown quadrangle map. It drains out of Pike Lake in Pike State Park, and its physical characteristics were determined directly from the Morgantown quadrangle using the same methods described in ODNR (I960). OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE D. L. RICE, M. D. BARNES, AND G. J. PHINNEY 45

Reg To

FIGURE 2. Map of southwestern Ohio showing sites sampled by the Ohio Division of Natural Areas and Preserves during bigeye shiner survey, 1985-1995. Open circles show sites where no bigeye shiners were found, solid circles sites where 1-39 bigeye shiners were found, and solid triangles sites where 40 or more bigeye shiners were found. Locations by number are: (1) Paddy's Run Creek; (2) O'Bannon Creek; (3) White Oak Creek (a = North Fork and b = East Fork); (4) Turkey Creek; (5) Scioto Brush Creek; (6) Sunfish Creek (a = Chenoweth Fork and b = Morgan Fork). Locations by capital letter are: (A) Mill Creek; (B) Indian Creek; (C) Bullskin Creek; (D) Straight Creek; (E) Eagle Creek; (F) Ohio Brush Creek.

STUDY AREAS km2 in northwestern Scioto County and eastern Adams Paddy's Run Creek is a third order tributary of the County (Table 2, Fig. 2). The watershed is predominantly Great Miami River and drains 41.6 km2 in northwestern forested with an intermixture of agriculture. Sunfish Creek is a fourth order tributary of the Scioto River and Hamilton and southwestern Butler counties (Table 2, 2 Fig. 2). The watershed is primarily agricultural, although drains 374.5 km in western Pike County and extreme the stream has received effluents from two small chemi- southern Ross County (Table 2, Fig. 2). The watershed is cal plants in Butler County (Bauer and others 1978). mostly forested, occupying parts of , O'Bannon Creek is a third order tributary of the Little with an intermixture of agriculture, especially along the Miami River and drains 151.4 km2 in northwestern Cler- lower half of the mainstem. The Turkey, Scioto Brush, mont County (Table 2, Fig. 2). The watershed is still and Sunfish creek watersheds lie within the distinctive, partly agricultural with isolated woodlots and wooded unglaciated Blue Grass Region, which is centered in riparian corridors, but the area has been experiencing Kentucky and extends across the Ohio River into those extensive highway and commercial construction activity parts of Adams, Scioto, Pike, and Ross counties where associated with the expansion of the Loveland suburb of topographic relief ranges from approximately 152 m to Cincinnati. White Oak Creek is a fourth order tributary 396 m above mean sea level. This is the largest contiguous of the Ohio River and drains 606.8 km2 in Brown and area of Ohio having a maximum relief greater than 152 m. Highland counties (Table 2, Fig. 2). Agriculture is the pre- Part of the Allegheny Front Escarpment, it is bordered dominant land use in the watershed, with the original on the west by the Ohio Brush Creek system and on the forests reduced to isolated woodlots and wooded ri- east by the Allegheny or Appalachian Plateau. Trautman parian corridors. The Paddy's Run, O'Bannon, and White (1981) characterized the upland streams of this region as Oak creek watersheds lie within the glaciated Till Plains supporting a clearwater fauna in which the bigeye Region of southwestern Ohio, where topographic relief shiner and the rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides) ranges from approximately 130 m to approximately 320 m were prominent. above mean sea level (Trautman 1981). Turkey Creek is a third order tributary of the Ohio MATERIALS AND METHODS River and drains 124.5 km2 in southwestern Scioto We employed a twofold approach to assess the cur- County (Table 2, Fig. 2). The mostly forested watershed rent distribution and status of the bigeye shiner in Ohio. is part of . Scioto Brush Creek is a First, we examined all available historical records of the fifth order tributary of the Scioto River and drains 708.4 species in the state, including the extensive fish collections 46 BIGEYE SHINER IN OHIO VOL. 98

of Trautman (1981) from 1925 to 1955, museum col- Table 3 lections at the Ohio State University Museum of Bio- logical Diversity, the University of Michigan Museum of Recent collections of the bigeye shiner (Notropis boopsj Zoology, the Ohio University Vertebrate Collection, the in Ohio, 1986-1995* John Carroll University collection, and the stream fish survey records of the Ohio Department of Natural Re- Stream** Location Number*** Date sources (Division of Wildlife and Division of Natural Areas and Preserves), the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This task Sunfish Cr Pike Co., Mifflin Twp. 1 3/22/90 was greatly facilitated using the Ohio Natural Heritage Grassy Fk Pike Co., Mifflin Twp. 1 1/17/90 Inventory database, which tracks threatened and en- Chenoweth Fk Pike Co., Sunfish Twp. 15 8/22/88 dangered species, at the Ohio Division of Natural Areas Chenoweth Fk Pike Co., Sunfish Twp. 7 1/18/90 Chenoweth Fk Pike Co., Sunfish Twp. 1 1/18/90 and Preserves and the statewide stream fish database ini- Carter Run Pike Co., Sunfish Twp. 5 12/13/89 tiated by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency in Morgan Fk Pike Co., Benton Twp. 2 8/1/861' 1979- Records for which the identification of the species Morgan Fk Pike Co., Benton Twp. 48 8/22/88 was doubtful, or for which the date or location were Morgan Fk Pike Co., Benton Twp. 48 8/22/88 imprecise or lacking, were rechecked at their sources (for Morgan Fk Pike Co., Benton Twp. 5 1/10/90 example, museum specimens or field data sheets) and Morgan Fk Pike Co., Benton Twp. 39 1/10/90 Pike Co., Benton Twp. were rejected if they could not be clarified. Three reports Right Fk 176 1/11/90 Right Fk Pike Co., Benton Twp. 15 1/11/90 of bigeye shiners in the Auglaize, Tiffin, and St. Joseph Middle Fk Pike Co., Benton Twp. 3 1/11/90 river systems in northwestern Ohio in 1958 and I960 Turkey Cr Scioto Co., Nile Twp. 26 9/2/88 were thus disregarded. Our examination yielded reports Turkey Cr Scioto Co., Nile Twp. 3 9/2/88 of bigeye shiners from only five stream systems since Turkey Cr Scioto Co., Nile Twp. 1 2/13/90 1941 (Table 1, Fig. 1): Paddy's Run Creek, O'Bannon Creek, Turkey Cr Scioto Co., Nile Twp. 15 2/13/90 Scioto Co., Nile Twp. Turkey Cr 3 2/13/90 Turkey Creek, Scioto Brush Creek, and Sunfish Creek. Scioto Co., Nile Twp. Turkey Cr 34 2/14/90 Scioto Co., Nile Twp. Second, we conducted seining surveys in each of the Turkey Cr 347 11/22/94 Scioto Co., Nile Twp. above five stream systems to determine longitudinal Mackletree Run 11 2/14/90 Brown Co., Scott Twp. distribution and relative abundance of bigeye shiners White Oak Cr 8 3/14/90 Brown Co., Scott Twp. in each (Table 2, Fig. 2). Since the bigeye shiner is a White Oak Cr 1 9/30/92 Brown Co., Washington Twp. East Fk 25 10/6/87t1 small pelagic pool species, we used 1.8 m X 3.6 m or 1.8 Brown Co., Washington Twp. East Fk 6 3/8/90 m X 3.0 m straight minnow seines with 28.6 mm or 30.2 Brown Co., Washington Twp. East Fk 2 3/8/90 mm Ace mesh to capture it at all locations. A seine was Brown Co., Pike Twp. North Fk 7 3/8/90 Highland Co., Clay Twp. hauled by two people as rapidly as possible through a North Fk 5 3/8/90 Highland Co., Clay Twp. pool, keeping the lead line on the bottom and trying to North Fk 5 3/14/90 Brown Co., Scott Twp. surround schools of fish and "herd" them toward the Stony Run 3 3/14/90 Brown Co., Scott Twp. Sterling Run 1 3/14/90 nearest streambank where the seine could be landed Clermont Co., Goshen Twp. O'Bannon Cr 1 3/15/90 and the fish examined. Only pools were sampled. We Clermont Co., Goshen Twp. O'Bannon Cr 2 9/13/93 attempted to standardize sampling effort by continuing to Clermont Co., Goshen Twp. O'Bannon Cr 19 7/13/95 make consecutive seine hauls until all accessible parts of Clermont Co., Goshen Twp. O'Bannon Cr 6 7/14/95 a pool had been covered, such that each sampling site (Table 2, Fig. 2) would represent a whole pool habitat. However, deep water and large boulders at several sites * All collections by Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural prevented such thorough coverage. We usually began Areas and Preserves unless otherwise noted. ** Indentation indicates that a stream is a lower order tributary of the less sampling in each stream system at sites where bigeye indented stream above. shiners had been previously reported, then attempted to *** Collections made on the same date at different sites in a stream are listed delimit longitudinal distribution by sampling upstream separately. f Ohio State University Museum of Biological Diversity (OSUM 66265). and downstream from those sites until we failed to tf Collection made by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (R. E. Sanders, encounter additional bigeye shiners (Fig. 2). Most sites Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication). were sampled only once unless otherwise noted in the discussion. At each site we made qualitative observations on stream substrates, water clarity, and streamflow. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Bigeye shiners and all other species of fish captured Review of Historical Database: 1893-1985 were identified and counted in the field. Fish which The distribution of the bigeye shiner in Ohio was first were retained as voucher specimens from new sites mapped out by Trautman (1957) in his statewide fish sur- were fixed in 10% formalin and deposited at the Ohio veys from 1925 to 1955 (Table 1, Fig. 1). From 1955 to State University Museum of Biological Diversity. 1971, periodic surveys by Trautman (1981), the Ohio On 6 October 1987, during the course of our surveys, Division of Wildlife, John Carroll University, and Ohio an Ohio Environmental Protection Agency survey collect- University continued to report bigeye shiners from the ed 25 bigeye shiners from one site on the East Fork of Sunfish Creek system, including the mainstem, Cheno- White Oak Creek (Table 3, Fig. 2). Therefore, we expanded weth Fork, Morgan Fork, and the Left Fork of Morgan our survey to cover the whole White Oak Creek system. Fork (Table 1), but the species was not reliably reported OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE D. L. RICE, M. D. BARNES, AND G. J. PHINNEY 47 from any other site in the state. Although Trautman date sampled, the stream exhibited low flow conditions (1981) reported that a population continued to flourish and was reduced to a series of intermittent pools 0.3-0.6 in Turkey Creek during this period, we found no m deep. Water clarity was high enough for the bottoms museum speeimens or field data with specific collection of pools to be clearly visible, and the streambed con- dates and locations. Three records of the species from sisted of fractured limestone bedrock overlain by gravel, northwestern Ohio reported by the Ohio Division of sand, and silt, especially in pools. Compared to the other Wildlife in 1958 and I960 were considered unreliable streams in which we found populations of bigeye shiners, due to unclear location data and were not listed in Paddy's Run Creek has a relatively small drainage area of Table 1. These included Sugar Creek in the Auglaize River 41.6 km2 (Table 2) and appears to lack the large perennial system (Putnam County), "Miller Creek" (possibly Mill pool habitats required by bigeye shiners. The species may Creek) in the Tiffin River system (Fulton County), and be present in areas of the stream we did not sample, but the West Branch of the St. Joseph River (Williams County). it seems more likely that the two specimens collected These records, if accurate, may indicate the persistence of by Bauer and others (1978) in 1972 were strays from the relict populations in northwestern Ohio into the 1960s, Great Miami River. This raises the possibility that one or but it remains for future surveys to determine whether more relict populations may still exist in the Great Miami such populations still exist. This seems unlikely due to River or its tributaries. Continued surveys by the Ohio extensive agricultural development in northwestern Environmental Protection Agency and others may even- Ohio and resultant heavy silt loading to streams. tually locate these populations. In 1972, Bauer and others (1978) collected two big- eye shiners at the mouth of Paddy's Run Creek near its O'Bannon Creek confluence with the Great Miami River, the first record We sampled seven sites on the mainstem of O'Bannon from the Great Miami River system in this century. Bauer Creek from a point at Loveland (O'Bannonville Road and others (1978) believed these two to be intruders bridge) upstream to the State Route 132 bridge at Goshen from the Great Miami River rather than members of a on three dates in 1990, 1993, and 1995 (Table 2, Fig. 2). population residing in Paddy's Run Creek. In 1973, Dr. We collected a total of 28 bigeye shiners on three differ- A.M. White of John Carroll University collected one big- ent dates at only one site consisting of three pools in the eye shiner from Scioto Brush Creek about 0.5 km up- middle reach of the stream, about 1.5 km downstream stream of its confluence with the Scioto River (at the of the Gaynor Road bridge (Table 3, Fig. 2). Our most State Route 104 bridge), a first record for the Scioto Brush downstream sampling site was the same site at which Creek system. In 1979, L. MacLean of the US Fish and one bigeye shiner was collected in 1979 (Table 1). Wildlife Service collected one bigeye shiner from The channel of O'Bannon Creek has cut down to O'Bannon Creek about 1.5 km upstream of its con- underlying limestone bedrock throughout its length. Pool fluence with the , a first record for the substrates varied from boulders and fractured bedrock Little Miami River system (Table 1, Fig. 1). slabs at our most downstream sampling site to sand and In 1979, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency gravel overlying bedrock at our other sites, including the began a statewide stream fish sampling program, the three pools in which we collected bigeye shiners. Pools most extensive effort since Trautman's (1957) 1925-1955 at each site were relatively large in size (<1.6 m deep), surveys. From 1979 through 1995, 13 164 collections with moderately high water turbidity (such that the were made statewide at 4 919 sites in 961 Ohio streams, streambed could not be seen in the deepest parts of primarily by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, pools), and silt deposition in areas of slower current. the Ohio Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, and Qualitatively, habitat in pools where we collected big- the Ohio Division of Wildlife. In southwestern Ohio, the eye shiners appeared to be similar to habitats in pools only region 'where bigeye shiners have been reported both above and below with respect to pool size, sub- since 1941, collections were made at multiple sites on strate, and water turbidity. most third and higher order streams where potential Although bigeye shiners may be present at sites we bigeye shiner habitat might occur. These included the did not sample in O'Bannon Creek, the three pools below Great Miami River system, the Little Miami River system, the Gaynor Road bridge appear to support the main the Scioto River system, and other Ohio River tribu- population in the stream. Prior to Pleistocene glaciation, taries such as Mill Creek, Indian Creek, Bullskin Creek, the area now drained by O'Bannon Creek may have Straight Creek, Eagle Creek, and Ohio Brush Creek (R. E. resembled the upland terrain of the present Bluegrass Sanders, Ohio Division of Wildlife, personal Region of Ohio (Fig. 2). After glaciation leveled this terrain communication) (Fig. 2). This effort reported bigeye in southwestern Ohio, bigeye shiners apparently in- shiners from only one site in the East Fork of White Oak vaded from the south or east during the post-Pleistocene Creek in 1987 (Table 3), after we had begun our surveys to inhabit O'Bannon Creek and perhaps adjacent third in Paddy's Run Creek, O'Bannon Creek, Turkey Creek, the or fourth order streams now draining the Till Plains Scioto Brush Creek system, and the Sunfish Creek system. Region. Habitats in these streams may have been less than optimal for the species even before increased siltation Paddy's Run Creek due to agricultural and urban construction activities We sampled two sites in Paddy's Run Creek (Fig. 2) during the 19th and 20th centuries. The present popu- above and below New Haven Road, Hamilton County, on lation of bigeye shiners may thus be a remnant of a larger 14 September 1973 but found no bigeye shiners. On the pre-settlement population and should be monitored 48 BIGEYE SHINER IN OHIO VOL. 98 carefully in view of the potential silt hazard posed by of Roosevelt Lake, Shawnee State Forest, in March 1990 extensive recent construction activities in the watershed. and November 1994 (Table 3, Fig. 2 triangle). Smaller numbers of bigeye shiners "were collected downstream White Oak Creek of Roosevelt Lake (Table 3, Fig. 2), where great pool We sampled 21 sites in the White Oak Creek system depths (>1.5 m) and uneven streambeds of fractured during March 1990 and collected a total of 38 bigeye bedrock and boulders made seining inefficient except shiners at 10 sites (Table 2, Table 3, Fig. 2). The largest during low flow periods. No bigeye shiners were col- numbers of bigeye shiners were collected in the lower lected in Odell Creek, Pond Lick Run, or Harber Fork. North Fork below Buford (17), the lower East Fork at Harber Fork consisted of long shallow riffles and runs two sites near Sardinia (8), and the upper mainstem with no pool development, whereas Odell Creek and above Georgetown (9) (Table 3). The Ohio Environ- Pond Lick Run consisted of shallow bedrock pools mental Protection Agency collected 25 bigeye shiners in connected by shallow riffles and runs. the East Fork at a site near Sardinia in 1987 (Table 3). The channel of Turkey Creek has cut down to under- Pool substrates in the upper White Oak Creek system, lying sandstone bedrock, and pool substrates consisted particularly in the North and East forks, consisted pri- of fractured bedrock, sandstone slabs, and boulders. marily of sand and gravel with exposure of underlying Pool depths varied seasonally but typically ranged from limestone bedrock at several sites. Pools were relatively 0.3 to 1.3 m. Siltation in Turkey Creek appeared to be large (<1.3 m deep) with moderately high water turbidity relatively low. The watershed is mostly forested, and little (such that the streambed could not be seen in the deepest or no silt deposition was observed in areas of slower parts of pools) and silt deposition in areas of slower current. Water clarity in pools was high, and the stream- current. Although the depths and sizes of pools appear bed and schools of fish could plainly be seen during to be adequate to continue to support a population of seining. In larger pools downstream of Roosevelt Lake, bigeye shiners, agricultural siltation may be limiting the deep water and boulders inhibited seining efficiency, abundance of the species compared to the larger popu- and clear water appeared to enable schools of fish to lations encountered in the Turkey Creek and Sunfish see and easily evade the seine. In addition, approxi- Creek systems. mately half of the bigeye shiners collected at our most In the lower mainstem of White Oak Creek, below downstream site on 2 September 1988 were young-of- Georgetown, the streambed consisted predominantly of the-year which could easily pass through the seine mesh. limestone bedrock and fractured slabs of bedrock. Consequently, the abundance of bigeye shiners in lower Commercial gravel dredging has also eliminated most of Turkey Creek is probably underrepresented in our seine the deep pool habitats in this section of the stream. Dur- collections. At the mouth of Pond Lick Run, the mainstem ing periods of low rainfall, much of the this lower sec- channel had been bulldozed, apparently for commercial tion dries up or is reduced to a series of shallow, isolated gravel removal, eliminating pool habitats and depositing pools, whereas deep pools persist in the upper mainstem a layer of silt. and North and East forks. We did not survey the lower Turkey Creek drains part of the unglaciated Blue 6.5 km of the mainstem. This section is a backwater of Grass Region of Ohio (Fig. 2). This is the largest contigu- the Ohio River and exhibited deep, turbid water un- ous part of the state having maximum topographic relief likely to support bigeye shiners. greater than 152 m, and it is characterized by clear up- Like O'Bannon Creek, White Oak Creek drains part of land streams with deep pools (Trautman 1981). the glaciated Till Plains Region. After the Pleistocene, Physiographically, the Blue Grass Region may resemble bigeye shiners apparently invaded the system from the upland terrain in the core part of the bigeye shiner's south or east, but even then habitat conditions for the range in Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas species may have been less than optimal. Bigeye shiners more than any other region in Ohio. Ample suitable habi- may have been more abundant in the system and oc- tat and the location of most of the watershed within a cupied the whole mainstem above Ohio River pool be- managed forest area should assure continued viability of fore agricultural development of the watershed in- the Turkey Creek population of bigeye shiners into the creased silt input to the stream and gravel dredging near future. However, channel alterations such as the eliminated lower mainstem pool habitats. The present gravel removal at the mouth of Pond Lick Run should be population of bigeye shiners in the White Oak Creek discontinued, and management decisions for Shawnee system, like that in O'Bannon Creek, may be a declining State Forest and Shawnee State Park should take into remnant of a larger pre-settlement population and account habitat requirements of the species. should be monitored carefully. Scioto Brush Creek Turkey Creek We sampled 19 sites in the Scioto Brush Creek system We sampled 13 sites in the Turkey Creek system from in 1985 (Table 2, Fig. 2). Although ample habitat in the US Route 52 at the edge of the Ohio River floodplain to form of deep pools, clear water, and silt-free substrates a point just above Turkey Creek Lake in Shawnee State was present, we collected no bigeye shiners. The one Park in 1988, 1990, and 1994 (Table 2, Fig. 2). We col- bigeye shiner collected in the lower mainstem in 1973 lected a total of 440 bigeye shiners from five sites in the may have been a stray from the Scioto River, perhaps mainstem and one site in Mackletree Run, with the largest having washed out of Sunfish Creek. Nevertheless, the number (381) being collected from one site just upstream location of the Scioto Brush Creek watershed in the OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE I). L. RICE, M. D. BARNES, AND G. J. PHINNEY 49

Blue Grass Region between the Turkey Creek and Sun- were dry. We sampled three sites in the Left Fork on 16 fish Creek watersheds suggests that bigeye shiners might August 1988 and 10 January 1990 (Table 2, Fig. 2) and occur in the system. We may have missed one or more collected no bigeye shiners, although the species was small populations during our survey, so the Scioto Brush collected there in 1963 and 1964 (Table 1). When we Creek system should be monitored regularly to try to sampled the Left Fork in 1988 and 1990, deep pool locate such populations and target them for protection. habitats were scarce compared to Morgan Fork and the Right Fork. The bigeye shiner population in the Morgan Sunfish Creek Fork part of the Sunfish Creek system appears to be We sampled 30 sites in the Sunfish Creek system in centered in Morgan Fork and the lower Right Fork. It ap- 1986, 1988, 1989, and 1990 and collected a total of 366 parently expands upstream during higher flow periods bigeye shiners at 12 sites (Table 2, Table 3, Fig. 2). The into the Middle Fork, the upper Right Fork, and probably largest numbers of bigeye shiners were collected in the Left Fork and retreats downstream to larger perennial Morgan Fork and the Right Fork of Morgan Fork (Table pools in the lower Right Fork and in Morgan Fork during 3, Fig. 2 triangles). low flow periods. On 22 August 1988, we collected 48 bigeye shiners We collected 28 bigeye shiners at four sites in the at each of two sites in Morgan Fork, one at a hanging Chenoweth Fork part of the Sunfish Creek system, in- footbridge just upstream of the Benton Township Volun- cluding five at one site in Carter Run, a second order teer Fire Department and one approximately 0.8 km up- tributary (Table 2, Table 3, Fig. 2). We collected 22 of stream of Wilson Bridge on Morgan Fork Road, Benton these specimens at two sites in the lower 5 km of Township, Pike County (Table 3). On that date, ex- Chenoweth Fork from the mouth of Carter Run to the tremely low flow had reduced the stream to isolated confluence with Sunfish Creek on 22 August 1988 and pools. Most of the shallower pools contained only a few 18 January 1990 (Table 3, Fig. 2). In August 1988, low flow centimeters of water, and the majority of bigeye shiners had reduced the stream to isolated pools 0.3-0.5 m deep. were collected in larger pools 1.0-1.3 m deep. At the site Water in the pools was clear, and pool substrates con- upstream of Wilson Bridge, an adjacent landowner had sisted primarily of sandstone cobbles with little visible removed gravel from the channel, eliminating natural silt deposition. Most of the bigeye shiners collected were riffle-pool habitat. Most of the bigeye shiners collected young-of-the-year. In January 1990, streamflow was at this site came from a pool just upstream of the gravel relatively higher, with pools ranging from 0.6 m to 1.2 m removal area. Water clarity in pools at both sites was deep and exhibiting some silt deposition in areas of high, and pool substrates consisted primarily of sand- slower current. For approximately 11 km upstream from stone gravel and cobbles with little visible silt deposition. the mouth of Carter Run, Chenoweth Fork has been Many of the bigeye shiners collected on this date were channelized to accommodate construction of US Route young-of-the-year. We sampled the site at the hanging 32. We sampled two sites in this section but collected no bridge again during higher flow conditions on 10 January bigeye shiners. Substrates consisted primarily of sand- 1990. Pools were all connected, and we collected only stone cobbles covered by a thin layer of silt, and pool 5 bigeye shiners (Table 3). Concentration of fish in a few habitats were absent or poorly developed. On 23 August deep pools by low flow in August 1988 had apparently 1988, during low flow conditions, the lower 8 km of the increased their susceptibility to capture by seine, but it channelized section were reduced to isolated pools 0.3- also demonstrated the importance of deep pools to the 0.5 m deep, while most of the upper 3 km of channelized survival of bigeye shiner populations during low flow section were completely dry. We collected one bigeye conditions. In addition, we collected 39 bigeye shiners shiner at one site just upstream of the channelized on 10 January 1990 at one site consisting of two deep section (Table 3, Fig. 2). The bigeye shiner population in pools just downstream of the confluence of the Left the Chenoweth Fork part of the Sunfish Creek system and Right forks of Morgan Fork (Table 3). appears to be centered in the lower 5 km of mainstem On 11 January 1990, we collected 176 bigeye shiners below the channelized section. As evidenced by the at one site consisting of two pools in the Right Fork of single specimen collected above the channelized section, Morgan Fork just downstream of the Middle Fork con- the population may have been more widely distributed fluence (Table 3). Flow conditions were relatively high, longitudinally before channelization eliminated deep with continuous flow between pools, which were 0.5- pool habitats along approximately 75% of the stream's 1.2 m deep. Water clarity in these pools was high, and length. pool substrates consisted primarily of sandstone gravel We sampled six sites in the mainstem of Sunfish and cobbles with little visible silt deposition. We had Creek but collected only one bigeye shiner in the upper sampled this site during extremely low flow conditions on part of the stream at the mouth of Grassy Fork near 16 August 1988, when pools were 0.3-0.5 m deep, and Latham, Mifflin Township, Pike County (Table 2, Table 3, collected no bigeye shiners. We collected 15 bigeye Fig. 2). Ample deep pool habitat was present in the shiners about 1 km farther upstream on 11 January mainstem, but at all sites on all dates sampled we ob- 1990 in three pools at the Armstrong Hollow Road served silt deposition and elevated water turbidity in bridge (Table 3). These pools exhibited habitat conditions pools. Although most of the Sunfish Creek watershed is similar to those at the downstream site. When we ob- forested, agricultural development on the floodplain of served this site during low flow on 16 August 1988, it and the mainstem appears to contribute enough silt to limit all of the Right Fork above the Middle Fork confluence the abundance and distribution of bigeye shiners in this 50 BIGEYE SHINER IN OHIO VOL. 98

part of the system. We sampled two sites on minor CONCLUSIONS tributaries of the upper mainstem, Kincaid Creek and In Ohio, bigeye shiners appear to be most abundant Little Sunfish Creek, but collected no bigeye shiners at in deep clearwater pools in streams with drainage areas either site (Table 2, Fig. 2). Both streams appeared to lack ranging from 77.8-209-3 km2, including the North and large pool habitat and to experience some siltation. East forks of White Oak Creek, Turkey Creek, and the Like Turkey Creek, Sunfish Creek drains part of the Morgan and Chenoweth forks of Sunfish Creek (Table unglaciated Blue Grass Region of Ohio (Fig. 2). The main 2). Streams draining smaller areas tend to be intermittent bigeye shiner population appears to be centered in and to lack the deep pool habitats required by bigeye Morgan Fork and the lower Right Fork of Morgan Fork, shiners, especially during low flow periods. Streams where ample deep pool habitats and clear water are draining larger areas, such as the mainstems of White present. A smaller population, probably a remnant of a Oak and Sunfish creeks, may currently be subject to more much larger population, persists in the lower un- siltation than the species can tolerate, although these channelized section of Chenoweth Fork. Bigeye shiners streams may once have supported much larger populations. appear to have been more widely distributed in the Mean stream gradient may also play a role in the mainstem of Sunfish Creek earlier in this century distribution of bigeye shiners in Ohio in that higher (Table 1), but agricultural siltation appears to have streamflow velocities associated with higher gradient marginalized habitat in this part of the system. The Morgan streams such as Morgan Fork, its Right Fork, Chenoweth Fork and Chenoweth Fork populations should continue Fork, and Turkey Creek may keep silt flushed from to be viable into the near future. However, both popula- pools more efficiently than in streams with lower mean tions should be monitored regularly, and further channel gradients, such as O'Bannon Creek and White Oak Creek alterations such as the gravel removal in Morgan Fork (Table 2). However, higher gradient headwater streams and the channelization in Chenoweth Fork should be may lack deep perennial pool habitats. prohibited. In addition, management decisions for Pike Large perennial pools may be important not only as State Forest and Pike State Park should take into account normal habitat but also as refugia to which bigeye shiner habitat requirements of the species. populations can retreat during low flow periods. In Ohio, bigeye shiner populations are isolated in a few up- Association of Bigeye Shiners and Rosyside Dace land areas and separated zoogeographically by turbid During our surveys from 1985-1995, we encountered lowland streams through which they cannot migrate. bigeye shiners sharing pool habitats with rosyside dace During an extreme low flow period, if pools in a stream in Morgan Fork, the Right Fork of Morgan Fork, the Middle supporting a bigeye shiner population were to com- Fork of Morgan Fork, and Grassy Fork in the Sunfish Creek pletely dry up and the population become extirpated, system. We also encountered rosyside dace in the Left the stream could not be recolonized via lowland Fork of Morgan Fork, Little Sunfish Creek, and the North streams by bigeye shiners from another population cen- Fork of Sunfish Creek, as well as in Odell Creek (Turkey ter. During historical times in Ohio, bigeye shiner popu- Creek system) at sites where we collected no bigeye lations in some streams may have been extirpated not shiners. only by increased silt loading but also by lowered water The rosyside dace is listed as threatened in Ohio tables and dewatering of the streams during droughts. (ODNR 1997). In Ohio, Trautman (1981) found it only in Elimination of suitable upland habitat by Pleistocene clearwater upland streams of the Blue Grass Region glaciation and increased silt loading due to agricultural where elevations were greater than 183 m above mean development appear to be the major factors limiting the sea level, and he noted that it was a common associate abundance and distribution of bigeye shiners in the Till of the bigeye shiner at those sites. Surveys of rosyside Plains Region of southwestern Ohio. Populations in dace conducted by Rice and Phinney (1985) in head- O'Bannon Creek and the White Oak Creek system ap- water streams in the Blue Grass Region of Ohio, including pear to be smaller and more restricted in longitudinal the Turkey Creek and Sunfish Creek systems, did not distribution than populations in the Turkey Creek and collect bigeye shiners in any of the streams where rosy- Sunfish Creek systems and are thus in more danger of side dace were collected. further decreases or extirpation. Suitable upland habitat In our 1985-1995 surveys, the numbers of bigeye and ample large clearwater pool habitats account for shiners/rosyside dace collected were 140/20 in Morgan the larger and more widely distributed populations of Fork, 191/5 in the Right Fork of Morgan Fork, 3/3 in the bigeye shiners in the Blue Grass Region. Location of the Middle Fork of Morgan Fork, 1/3 in Grassy Fork, 0/128 Turkey and Sunfish Creek systems in managed forest in the Left Fork of Morgan Fork, 0/10 in Little Sunfish areas should contribute to the continued viability of their Creek, 0/2 in the North Fork of Sunfish Creek, and 0/28 in populations, but localized factors such as gravel dredg- Odell Creek. Rosyside dace appear to be more common ing, channelization, and some floodplain agriculture in lower order streams than those in which bigeye continue to threaten them. shiners are more abundant, although there appears to The bigeye shiner in Ohio is a species existing on the be some habitat overlap in second and third order edge of its zoogeographical range. Currently unknown streams in systems where both species are common. populations may exist in other streams in southwestern Bigeye shiners and rosyside dace might best be or even northwestern Ohio, and continued surveys by characterized as occasional associates in upland streams the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the Ohio of the Blue Grass Region. Department of Natural Resources, and others will be OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE D. L. RICE, M. I). BARNES, AND G. J. PHINNEY 51 important in locating such populations. In stream systems Gorman OT. 1987. Habitat segregation in an assemblage of minnows with known populations of bigeye shiners, the popula- in an Ozark stream. In: Matthews W], I leins DC, editors. Com- munity and evolutionary ecology of North American stream fishes. tions should be monitored regularly and habitat-threatening Norman: Univ Oklahoma Pr. p 31-41. factors eliminated or regulated so that the species can Gorman OT. 1988. The dynamics of habitat use in a guild of Ozark continue to be a viable component of Ohio's fauna. minnows. Ecol Monogr 58(1): 1-18. Kirsch PH. 1895. A report upon investigations in the Maumee River ba- sin during the summer of 1893. Bull US Fish Comm l4(1894):315-37. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. Fish surveys in southern Ohio conducted by the Lee DS, Gilbert CR, Hocutt CH, Jenkins RE, McAllister DE, Stauffer JR, authors between 1985 and 1995 were done under the auspices of the and others. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Raleigh: North Carolina Mus Natural History. 867 p. Preserves. We thank the following for information and assistance: Robert Lehtinen S, Echelle AA. 1979. Reproductive cycle of Notropis boops M. Anderson (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of (Pisces: Cyprinidae) in Brier Creek, Marshall County, Oklahoma. Fish and Wildlife), Paul Botts (Illinois Field Office, The Nature Con- Am Midi Nat 102(2):237-43. servancy), William H. Busby (Kansas Biological Survey, Natural Heritage Mayclen RL. 1987. Historical ecology and North American highland Inventory), Ted M. Cavender (Ohio State University Museum of Bio- logical Diversity), Ronald R. Cicerello (Kentucky State Nature Preserves fishes. In: Matthews WJ, Heins DC, editors. Community and Commission), Holly Ferris (Oklahoma Chapter, The Nature Conservancy), evolutionary ecology of North American stream fishes. Norman: Michelle Hall (The Nature Conservancy of Alabama), Michelle Martin Univ Oklahoma Pr. p 210-22. Hedge (Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Nature Mettee MF, O'Neil PE, Pierson JM. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Preserves), Jan M. Johnson (Alabama Natural Heritage Program), Kerry Mobile basin. Birmingham: Oxmoor House. 820 p. R. Morris (Oklahoma Chapter, The Nature Conservancy), Douglas W. Miller RJ, Robison HW. 1973. The fishes of Oklahoma. Stillwater: Nelson (University of Michigan Museum of Zoology), Celine D'Onofrio Oklahoma State Univ Pr. 246 p. (Illinois Department of Conservation, Natural Heritage Program), [ODNR] Ohio Department of Natural Resources. I960. Gazetteer of Lawrence M. Page (Illinois Natural History Survey), Randall E. Sanders Ohio streams. Columbus: ODNR, Div of Water. 179 p. (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency), Steve Shively (Louisiana IODNR] Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Wildlife that are Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Natural Heritage Program), and considered to be endangered, threatened, of special interest, ex- Andrew M. White (John Carroll University, Department of Biology). tirpated, or extinct in Ohio. Columbus: ODNR, Div of Wildlife. 9 p. Osbum RC, Williamson EB. 1898. A list of the fishes of Franklin County, Ohio, with a description of a new species of Htbeostoma. LITERATURE CITED In: Ohio State Acad Science, 6th Annual Report, p 11-20. Bauer BH, Branson BA, Colwell ST. 1978. Fishes of Paddy's Run Creek Pflieger WL. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Jefferson City: Missouri Dept and the Dry Fork of the Whitewater River, southwestern Ohio. Conservation. 343 p. OhioJ Sci 78(3): 144-8. Rice, DL, Phinney GJ. 1985. Distribution and status of the rosyside Burr BM, Warren ML. 1986. A distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. dace, Clinostomus funduloides, Gerard (Cyprinidae), in southern Frankfort: Kentucky State Nature Preserves Comm, Sci Tech Ser, Ohio. OhioJ Sci 85(4):159-64. No. 4. 398 p. Robison HW, Buchanan TM. 1988. The fishes of Arkansas. Fayetteville: Cross FB, Collins JT. 1995. Fishes in Kansas. 2nd ed. Lawrence: Univ Univ Arkansas Pr. 536 p. Kansas Natural History Mus. 315 p. Smith CL, Powell CR. 1971. The summer fish communities of Brier Douglas NH. 1974. Freshwater fishes of Louisiana. Baton Rouge: Creek, Marshall County, Oklahoma. Am Mus Novitates No. 2458:1-30. Claitor's. 443 p. Smith PW. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. Urbana: Univ Illinois Pr. 683 p. Etnier DA, Starnes WC. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. Knoxville: Univ Trautman MB. 1957. The fishes of Ohio. Columbus: Ohio State Univ Tennessee Pr. 681 p. Pr. 683 p. Gerking SB. 1945. The distribution of the fishes of Indiana. Invest Trautman MB. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. 2nd ed. Columbus: Ohio State Indiana Lakes Streams 3:1-137. Univ Pr. 782 p.