Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 Monroe, Noble and Washington Counties, Ohio

Little Muskingum River at the Hune Covered Bridge (RM 21.2) Ohio EPA Technical Report AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Division of Surface Water Assessment and Modeling Section April 2020 TMDL DEVELOPMENT | AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016

Monroe, Noble and Washington counties, Ohio

April 2020 Ohio EPA Report DSW/AMS 2015-LMUSK-2

Prepared by: State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216‐1049

Division of Surface Water Southeast District Office 2195 East Front Street Logan, Ohio 43138

Ecological Assessment Section Groveport Field Office 4675 Homer Ohio Lane Groveport, Ohio 43125

Mike DeWine, Governor State of Ohio Laurie A. Stevenson, Director Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table of Contents Report Summary ...... 7 Recommendations ...... 15 Aquatic Life Use ...... 15 Stream Improvements ...... 17 Rich Fork (Monroe County, Wayne Township) ...... 17 Indian Run (Monroe County, Bethel Township) ...... 17 Clear Fork (Monroe County, Washington, Bethel and Franklin Townships) ...... 18 Introduction ...... 21 Study Area Description ...... 26 Location and Scope ...... 26 Beneficial Uses ...... 26 Ecoregions, Geology, and Soils ...... 26 Land Cover and Land Use ...... 27 Land Cover ...... 27 Results ...... 27 Recreation Use ...... 27 Sediment ...... 30 Point Source and Nonpoint Source Impacts ...... 33 NPDES ...... 33 Coal, Oil and Gas ...... 33 Spills ...... 36 Surface Water Chemistry ...... 38 Water Quality Sonde Exceedance ...... 40 Physical Habitat Quality for Aquatic Life ...... 42 Little Muskingum River ...... 42 Little Muskingum River Tributaries ...... 43 Biological Quality ...... 44 Fish Community ...... 44 Macroinvertebrate Community ...... 53 Coldwater Streams ...... 66 Fish Tissue Contamination ...... 68 Fish Advisories ...... 68 Fish Tissue/Human Health Use Attainment ...... 68 Fish Contaminant Trends ...... 69 Acknowledgements ...... 72 Works Cited ...... 73

I

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Tables Table 1 — Aquatic life use attainment status for stations sampled in the Little Muskingum River watershed based on data collected June - September 2015, and July – August 2016. The IBI, MIwb and ICI are scores based on the performance of the biotic community. The QHEI is a measure of the ability of the physical habitat of the stream to support a biotic community. The Little Muskingum River watershed is located in the Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) ecoregion. If biological impairment has occurred, the cause(s) and source(s) of the impairment are noted...... 9 Table 2 — Use designation recommendations for water bodies in the Little Muskingum River basin. Designations based on the 1978 and 1985 water quality standards appear as asterisks (*). A plus sign (+) indicates a confirmation of a current designation and a triangle (▲) denotes a new recommended use based on the findings of this study. Streams evaluated in the 2015 - 2016 study are highlighted...... 19 Table 3 — Sampling locations in the Little Muskingum River watershed, 2015 - 2016...... 23 Table 4 — Little Muskingum River watershed HUC-12 watersheds...... 26 Table 5 — A summary of E. coli data for the 18 locations in the Little Muskingum River study area sampled May through August 2015. Recreation Use Attainment Status is based on comparing the recreation season geometric means to the applicable PCR Class A geometric mean criterion (126 cfu) and the Class B geometric mean criterion (161 cfu)...... 29 Table 6 — Chemical parameters measured above the screening levels in samples collected by Ohio EPA from surficial sediments in the Little Muskingum River, July 22, 2015. Contamination levels were determined for parameters using Ohio's SRVs, consensus-based sediment quality guidelines (MacDonald, et.al. 2000) and ecological screening levels (U.S. EPA 2003). None of the values exceeded the SRV, TEC or PEC...... 32 Table 7 — Facilities that reported water withdrawals from the Little Muskingum River watershed for hydraulic fracturing during 2014 and 2015. Data from Ohio DNR-Division of Soil and Water Resources...... 34 Table 8 — Spills reported to Ohio EPA in the Little Muskingum River watershed from 2002 to 2016...... 37 Table 9 — Exceedances of Ohio WQS criteria (OAC 3745-1) for chemical/physical water parameters measured in grab samples taken from the Little Muskingum River watershed, April 2015-March 2016. R is Recommended...... 38 Table 10 — Surface water quality parameters associated with fluids from oil and gas development were greater than the 95th percentile for WAP headwater sites in samples where selenium exceeded the Outside Mixing Zone Average water quality criterion (bold values)...... 40 Table 11 — Exceedances of Ohio Water Quality Standards criteria (OAC 3745-1) for chemical and physical parameters derived from diel monitoring. Sonde water quality monitors recorded hourly readings throughout the deployment (7/28/15-7/30/15). Consequently, exceedances can be presented as both a measure of magnitude and duration. The duration is the count of consecutive hours that exceeded the criteria. The magnitude of an exceedance is presented as the most extreme value measured that exceeds the criteria and is presented in parentheses after the duration. Rolling 24-hour averages were calculated using the hourly readings for comparison against the average D.O. criteria. Applicable water quality criteria include: minimum D.O.a, average D.O.b, maximum temperaturec, pHd and specific conductancee...... 42 Table 12 — Mean QHEI and substrate scores for tributaries to the Little Muskingum River, 2015 - 2016...... 43 Table 13 — Fish community summaries based on pulsed D.C. electrofishing conducted by Ohio EPA in the Little Muskingum River watershed, 2015 – 2016. Note: stream and stream segments designated coldwater were not given a narrative evaluation as these narratives are based on warmwater communities...... 46 Table 14 — Species associations based on indicator species analysis for the four fish community groups in the Little Muskingum River watershed...... 51 Table 15 — Fish species with pollution tolerance categories not observed in previous Ohio EPA surveys of the Little Muskingum River watershed...... 53 Table 16 — Summary of macroinvertebrate data collected from artificial substrates (quantitative sampling) and natural substrates (qualitative sampling) in the Southeast Ohio River Tributary study area, June to October 2015...... 55

II

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table 17 — Uncommonly collected sensitive macroinvertebrate taxa and all freshwater mussel locations in the Little Muskingum River watershed, 2015 – 2016...... 60 Table 18—Freshwater mussel species found in the Little Muskingum River watershed during the 1999 mussel survey conducted by Mike Hoggarth and Dan Rice...... 62 Table 19 — Temperature and coldwater taxa summary of CWH-recommended streams, Little Muskingum River watershed, 2015...... 67 Table 20 — Updates to attainment status for the Little Muskingum study area in Ohio’s 2018 Integrated Report. Attainment status was finalized with the approval of the 2018 Integrated Report...... 69 Table 21 — Proportions of samples with PCB detections in the Little Muskingum river fish tissue data. Approximately one-third of samples had PCB detections overall, with an apparent reduction in detection frequency in 2015 compared to 1995 and 2009, although the small sample sizes and change in species composition between years can confound the trends observed in these results. For any given species, detection frequency appears steady between years, considering the small sample sizes involved...... 71 Table 22 — Select fish tissue mercury data from 2015 Little Muskingum sampling (mg/kg). The shading indicates the advisory category that each sample falls into. Green = two meals per week, yellow = one meal per week, orange = one meal per month...... 72 Table 23 — Select fish tissue PCB data from 2015 Little Muskingum basin sampling (mg/kg). The shading indicates the advisory category that each sample falls into. Blue = unrestricted...... 72

III

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Figures Figure 1 — Indian Run (top) and Clear Fork (bottom) are potential streams for habitat improvement projects...... 17 Figure 2 — Sampling locations in the Little Muskingum River watershed, 2015 - 2016...... 22 Figure 3 — The Little Muskingum River watershed before and after National Forest designation and subsequent reforestation efforts...... 27 Figure 4 — Horizontal well locations (black arrows indicate the direction and length of the well) in the Little Muskingum River watershed...... 35 Figure 5 — Crude oil spill in Clear Fork of the Little Muskingum River, Jan. 29, 2017...... 36 Figure 6 — Graph of average daily stream flow relative to the daily median streamflow (USGS 03115400 Little Muskingum River at Bloomfield) for the sampling season...... 39 Figure 7 — Graph of average daily streamflow (USGS 03115400 – Little Muskingum River at Bloomfield OH) relative to the median streamflow, including the average and normal daily air temperature (NOAA - GHCND: USC00334927) for the sampling season...... 41 Figure 8 — Little Muskingum River RM 9.5 at Cow Run Rd., summer 2015...... 43 Figure 9 — Scatterplot showing the relationship between the QHEI and the IBI for Western Allegheny Plateau reference sites (grey points) and Little Muskingum River watershed sites (orange points). The solid orange line is the fitted regression line for the Little Muskingum River watershed sites, and the stippled lines are drawn from quantile regression at the 90th, 50th and 10th quantiles from reference sites...... 45 Figure 10 — Nonmetric multidimensional scaling show that community groups are well separated in ordination space, indicating environmental significance in the Little Muskingum River watershed in 2000 and the 2015 – 2016 survey. Fitted environmental vectors indicate a strong association with gradient and drainage area...... 49 Figure 11 — Fish community groups in the Little Muskingum River watershed based on hierarchical cluster analysis...... 50 Figure 12—Muskellunge caught in the Little Muskingum River in 2008 by local fisherman Brad Stalder...... 52 Figure 13 — Fish community performance has remained very good - exceptional in the Little Muskingum River watershed for more than three decades...... 53 Figure 14 — Nonmetric multidimensional scaling show that community groups are well separated in ordination space, indicating environmental significance in the Little Muskingum River watershed the 2015 – 2016 survey. Fitted environmental vectors indicate a strong association with gradient...... 54 Figure 15 — The Little Muskingum River at Cow Run Rd. (RM 9.5)...... 64 Figure 16 — Longitudinal trend of the number of EPT and pollution-sensitive taxa in the qualitative samples in the Little Muskingum River 2000 – 2016...... 65 Figure 17 — EPT taxa numbers have improved across drainage ranges between 2000 and 2015 in the Little Muskingum watershed. There is a weak positive association between number of EPT taxa and drainage area. Gray-shaded regions are 95 percent confidence intervals. The three circled sites were exceptional in numbers of EPT and pollution-sensitive taxa collected for their size...... 65 Figure 18 — Monthly average temperatures at 15 of the sites being recommended the CWH or EWH and CWH ALU were highest in July at 20.14 °C...... 66 Figure 19 — Mercury concentrations in fish tissue in the Little Muskingum river, 1995-2015, selected species...... 70 Figure 20 — Total PCB concentrations in fish tissue in the Little Muskingum river, 1995-2015, selected species. PCBs were detected in freshwater drum in 1995 and 2009. All other values represent non-detects valued at 100 percent of the highest reporting limit of the individual PCB aroclors assessed in each sample. Detection limits were reduced by the laboratory in 2015, resulting in the reduced PCBs values reported for that year...... 71

IV

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

List of Acronyms ALU aquatic life use CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second cfu colony forming units CSO combined sewer overflow CWA Clean Water Act DC direct current DELT deformities, erosions, lesions, tumors D.O. dissolved oxygen ECBP Eastern Corn Belt Plains EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera EWH exceptional warmwater habitat GIS geographic information system GPS Global Positioning System HHEI headwater habitat evaluation index HUC hydrologic unit code IBI index of biotic integrity I/I inflow and infiltration ICI invertebrate community index IP Interior Plateau IPS Integrated Prioritization System LRAU large river assessment unit LRW limited resource water MGD million gallons per day MIwb Modified Index of well‐being NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OAC Ohio Administrative Code ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources ORC Ohio Revised Code PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCR primary contact recreation PEC probable effects concentration QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index RM river mile SCR secondary contact recreation SRV sediment reference value

V

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

SSO sanitary sewer overflow TALU tiered aquatic life use TDS total dissolved solids TEC threshold effects concentration TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen TMDL total maximum daily load TSS total suspended solids UAA use attainability analysis VOC volatile organic compound WAU watershed assessment unit WQS water quality standards WWH warmwater habitat WWTP wastewater treatment plant

VI

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Report Summary Rivers and streams in Ohio sustain aquatic life populations and support a variety of beneficial uses such as recreation and water supply (public, industrial and agricultural). Ohio EPA evaluates each waterway to determine the appropriate beneficial use designations and determine if the assigned uses are appropriate and are meeting the goals of the federal Clean Water Act. In 2015 – 2016, Ohio EPA evaluated a total of 72 sampling locations within the Little Muskingum River watershed in Monroe, Noble and Washington counties for aquatic life or recreation use potential. The Little Muskingum River was evaluated in 2015 at twelve monitoring locations and was verified exceptional warmwater habitat (EWH) aquatic life use (ALU) with biological fish and macroinvertebrate scores ranging from very good to exceptional. Forty-four tributaries were also evaluated in the Little Muskingum River watershed during the 2015 survey. All sites were fully meeting their assigned or recommended aquatic life use except Sycamore Creek which was impacted by an oil spill in 2015 (Table 1). Of the 44 tributaries assessed, 43 streams or stream segments were recommended to carry a more protective ALU to maintain the high-quality communities observed within them. Forty-one streams or stream segments were verified or recommended the EWH ALU. Thirty-one of these streams or stream segments also had a strong coldwater fish or macroinvertebrate assemblage and were recommended dual EWH and CWH ALUs. An additional two streams were recommended the CWH ALU and three streams or segments were verified Warmwater Habitat (WWH). The exceptional nature of aquatic communities in the Little Muskingum River watershed is in large part due to its location within the Wayne National Forest, and the hilly, rugged terrain which has precluded development since the 1930s. Twenty-three streams listed as unverified WWH in the water quality standards and numerous undesignated streams were not able to be assessed during the 2015 survey. These streams more than likely would meet EWH, CWH or both aquatic life use criteria and should be assessed during future surveys. These streams should also be evaluated if there’s any type of future discharge or construction permitted activity such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), stormwater permits or 401 activity such as pipeline crossings or stream modifications. Maintaining the exceptional quality of these coldwater and other headwater streams is critical in protecting the exceptional downstream use of the Little Muskingum River. Instream habitat reflected a maturing watershed with excellent mainstem habitat (QHEI = 78.2 ± 5.3) and good to excellent tributary habitat (QHEI = 69.2 ± 9.4). A typical mainstem reach consisted of long, deep pools with extensive submerged large woody debris with gravel and sand substrates, and short riffle – run complexes with gravel and small cobbles. The tributaries were more variable; overall, the excellent habitat in the Little Muskingum River watershed is the foundation for the exceptional aquatic community. The major drivers of fish community composition in the watershed are gradient and drainage area, which is expected in largely intact systems. The lack of external stressors combined with excellent habitat places the Little Muskingum River watershed as one of the highest quality watersheds in the state of Ohio. The fish community performed better than Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) reference condition and has remained at very good to exceptional levels for more than three decades. Even as community performance has remained at such a high level, there is evidence of continued recovery from the watershed’s deforested past. Seventeen species of fish were recorded in the 2015 – 2016 survey that were not observed in the 2000 survey, including the state endangered Ohio lamprey as well as bigeye chub and bluebreast darter, all of which are intolerant to pollution.

Page 1 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Similar trends were observed in the macroinvertebrate community, where stream gradient was the major driver of community composition. The very good to exceptional community included 44 uncommonly collected taxa, including 26 uncommon Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) taxa. EPT and pollution-sensitive taxa richness in both the mainstem and the tributaries increased to well above EWH expectations since previously sampled in 2000. Ohio EPA collected surficial sediment samples at seven locations in the Little Muskingum River watershed in July 2015. Analysis of the sediment metal or nutrient parameters revealed no human health or aquatic life concerns. Organic chemical parameters were tested at all seven sampling locations and resulting in detections of 2-acetylaminofluorene at Little Muskingum River RM 30.2, fluoranthene (0.81 mg/kg) at Fifteenmile Creek RM 0.1, and diethyl phthalate at Archers Fork RM 1.8. Fluoranthene and 2- acetylaminofluorene are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) that are associated with coal tar and petroleum products. The detection of fluoranthene is likely from a crude oil spill that occurred on an upstream tributary, Sycamore Fork, in early July 2015. Biological sampling was conducted in Sycamore Fork and in the receiving stream, Fifteenmile Creek, after the spill and subsequent clean-up. Compared to an upstream control site, the spill appeared to have a negative impact on the biological community in lower Sycamore Fork and in Fifteenmile Creek. Follow-up sampling in 2016 revealed full recovery in Fifteenmile Creek but the fish community scores were below the recommended EWH ALU for Sycamore Fork. An oil spill also occurred in 2017 in the lower section of Clear Fork. Both of these spills as well as future spills should have follow-up biological and chemical monitoring to determine if there is lingering impairment in the watershed. Additional signatures of the presence of fluids from oil and gas extraction were detected in surface water chemistry samples at two sites. Hundreds of conventional gas wells are located in the watershed but more recently, at least 19 horizontal wells for oil and gas production have been drilled in the watershed. Exceedances of the selenium water quality criterion occurred at Fifteenmile Creek RM 3.85 (4.9 µg/L) and Straight Fork RM 5.98 (4.9 µg/L). Relatively high values of selenium, as well as barium, strontium, and TDS (a proxy for salinity) can be found in fluids associated with the production of natural gas wells in the gas and oil plays of Ohio. Elevated levels, greater than the 95th percentile of WAP headwater sites, of the previously mentioned parameters were detected in the same samples that produced the selenium exceedances, indicating the presence of oil and gas fluids in nearby streams. Currently, no apparent long- term effects on the aquatic biota have been noted, but chronic exposure will put these communities at risk. Several new pipeline construction projects across the northern portion of the watershed also pose a threat to habitat and water quality due to sedimentation and potential contamination from spills. The hydraulic fracturing process for the horizontal wells also requires a tremendous amount of water. Withdrawals from the Little Muskingum River and tributaries could temporarily impact biological communities, especially during summer low-flow conditions. Eighteen locations did not meet applicable criterion for recreation use, and no definitive link to direct sources of human origin were apparent. Nearly the entire watershed is unsewered, so failing home septic systems could be a source of elevated bacterial counts. Concentrated farming in the narrow valleys is also a potential source as well as high concentrations of wildlife such as ducks, geese and mammals.

Page 2 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table 1 — Aquatic life use attainment status for stations sampled in the Little Muskingum River watershed based on data collected June - September 2015, and July – August 2016. The IBI, MIwb and ICI are scores based on the performance of the biotic community. The QHEI is a measure of the ability of the physical habitat of the stream to support a biotic community. The Little Muskingum River watershed is located in the Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) ecoregion. If biological impairment has occurred, the cause(s) and source(s) of the impairment are noted. Assessment Drain. IBI MIwbb River Station Location Unit Area 2015/201 2015/201 ICIc QHEI Statusd Causes Sources Milea (05030201) (mi²) 6 6 Little Muskingum River (06-400-000) EWH (v) dst. Rich Fork, at Twp. Rd. 42 C01K50 06 03 57.8 48W 56 8.9 ns E 72 Full (Stonehouse Rd.) C01K49 Plainview Rd. 06 03 51.8 62W 52 9.3 ns E 76.5 Full Twp. Rd. 1003/1004, adj. 303045 06 03 48.83 66 W 56 9.5 48 79.5 Full Mechanicsburg Rd. 609350 at ford, upst. Witten Fork 06 03 47.2 70 W 53/56 8.8*/8.9ns 48 82 Full C01K48 Twp. Rd. 600, dst. Biglick Run 06 05 42.5 120 W 54 9.7 E 83 Full Twp. Rd. 38A, upst. Clear Fork C01K47 07 03 37.5 149 W 54 8.9 ns E 65.8 Full (Knowlton Bridge) 609380 At gage, St. Rte. 260 07 03 30.2 210 B 51 9.5 44 ns 76.5 Full Co. Rd. 406 (Rinard Covered C01K43 07 03 25.8 217 B 48/50 9.5/10.1 E 78.8/80 Full Bridge) Tice Rd. Twp. Rd. 34 (Hune Covered C01K41 07 03 22.2 230 B 47 ns 10.6 48 87.8 Full Bridge) C01S01 at Dart, dst. Archers Fork, at ford 07 05 17.2 253 B 48 9.7 E 76.3 Full C01K40 at Sitka, at Twp. Rd. 19 (Cow Rd.) 07 05 9.5 287 B 54 10.5 48 86.5 Full 609340 at Co. Rd. 9 07 05 5.4 303 B 45 ns 10 E 72 Full Cranenest Fork (06-458-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended 204090 adj. Twp. Rd. 8 06 02 12.4 5.2 H 48 ns - E 70.25 Full Cranenest Fork (06-458-000) EWH – Recommended 609320 dst. Pratts Run, at Co. Rd. 28 06 02 10.5 8.9 H 50 - E 81 Full Twp. Rd. 358 (Cranenest Rd.), C01L03 06 02 4.0 20 W 58 9.0 ns E 86.25 Full dst. Wolfpen Run Tributary to Cranenest Fork (06-458-004) CWH – Recommended 303321 adj. Six Points Rd. (Co. Rd. 9) 06 02 0.1 2.2 40 - E 78.5 Full

Page 3 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Assessment Drain. IBI MIwbb River Station Location Unit Area 2015/201 2015/201 ICIc QHEI Statusd Causes Sources Milea (05030201) (mi²) 6 6 Laurel Run (06-458-003) EWH and CWH – Recommended 303320 Cranes Nest Rd. (Twp. Rd. 358) 06 02 0.1 1.1 48 ns - E 60.5 Full Wolfpen Run (06-458-002) EWH and CWH – Recommended 303318 Cranes Nest Rd. (Twp. Rd. 358) 06 02 0.1 1.6 H 50 - E 62.5 Full Willison Run (06-458-001) EWH and CWH – Recommended 303319 adj. Willison Run Rd. 06 02 0.3 1.7 46ns - E 57 Full Rich Fork (06-451-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended C01K96 adj. Edwina Rd. 06 01 4.2 5.1 H 52 - E 80 Full C01K94 adj. Edwina Rd., dst. Left Prong 06 01 2.7 9.7 H 58 - E 85.8 Full Rich Fork (06-451-000) WWH (v) C01K93 St. Rte. 26, at mouth 06 01 0.1 22.4 W 46 8.5 E 60.8 Full Left Prong Rich Fork (06-452-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended 204084 adj. Twp. Rd. 263 06 01 0.1 4 56 - VGns 68.8 Full Town Fork (06-450-000) EWH – Recommended 609300 at Twp. Rd. 63 06 01 0.1 9.6 H 52 - E 76 Full Brister Fork (06-453-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended west of Edwina, at Barber Ridge 204086 06 01 0.1 3 48ns - E 68.8 Full Rd. Wolfpen Run (06-457-000) EWH and CWH - Recommended southeast of Hilltop, adj. Twp. C01L02 06 03 0.3 3.3 46ns - E 61 Full Rd. 350 Buhrs Run (06-456-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended 303322 at Stonehouse Rd. (Co. Rd. 42) 06 03 0.2 2 46ns - E 77.5 Full Witten Fork (06-440-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended adj. to St. Rte. 255, dst. tributary 204074 06 04 9.2 4.9 46 ns - E 73 Full at RM 9.3 609400 upst. Millers Fork 06 04 7.2 8.9 56 - E 79 Full

Page 4 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Assessment Drain. IBI MIwbb River Station Location Unit Area 2015/201 2015/201 ICIc QHEI Statusd Causes Sources Milea (05030201) (mi²) 6 6 Witten Fork (06-440-000) EWH – Recommended 204072 at ford, dst. Alum Run 06 04 6.2 18.2 H 54 - E 74.5 Full 609390 at St. Rte. 800, dst. Trail Run 06 04 1.1 42 W 58 9.3 ns E 84.75 Full Woods Run (06-448-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended C01K91 at Benwood, Benwood Rd. 06 04 0.1 2.0 H 52 - E 73.5 Full Millers Fork (06-447-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended north of Antioch, adj. Twp. Rd. 204080 06 04 3.4 3.3 H 54 - E 71.25 Full 457 Alum Run (06-446-000) CWH – Recommended 303323 at Benwood Rd. 06 04 0.2 1.8 -/44 - E -/51 Full Walnutcamp Run (06-445-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended C01K90 at Twp. Rd. 503 ford 06 04 0.4 2.3 H 58 - E 75 Full Dismal Creek (06-444-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended C01K88 at Twp. Rd. 470 06 04 1.8 5.7 H 52 - E 81 Full Wildcat Run (06-443-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended 204079 at Barnes Run Rd., near mouth 06 04 0.2 1.4H 56 - E 55.25 Full Dogskin Run (06-442-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended 204077 at Alexis, adj. Co. Rd. 11 06 04 0.5 3.6 H 52 - E 59.75 Full Trail Run (06-441-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended northeast of Brownsville, at Twp. C01K86 06 04 0.9 4.4 H 50 - E 69.25 Full Rd. 526 Little Trail Run (06-441-001) EWH and CWH – Recommended 303324 at Twp. Rd. 530 06 04 0.8 2.0 H 54 - E 70.75 Full Biglick Run (06-437-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended C01K83 at mouth, at Twp. Rd. 562 06 05 0.1 4.4 H -/48 - E 78 Full Browns Run (06-429-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended adj. Browns Run Rd. (Twp. Rd. 303325 06 05 0.2 2.8 52 - E 67.25 Full 592)

Page 5 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Assessment Drain. IBI MIwbb River Station Location Unit Area 2015/201 2015/201 ICIc QHEI Statusd Causes Sources Milea (05030201) (mi²) 6 6 Straight Fork (06-428-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended lane off Straight Fork Rd., dst. C01K70 06 05 5.6 5.8 H 56 - E 75.25 Full Long Run adj. St. Rte. 26, dst. Adams 204061 06 05 3.1 9.8 H 50 - E 78.5 Full Hollow Oldcamp Run (06-427-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended C01K68 at Twp. Rd. 2705, Oldcamp Rd. 06 05 0.2 4.3 H 56 - E 60 Full Clear Fork (06-430-000) WWH (v) C01K77 adj. Swazey Rd. 07 01 23.3 5.0 H 48 - E 69 Full 204066 at Twp. Rd. 834 07 01 20.8 9.9 H 44 - E 63.5 Full Clear Fork (06-430-000) EWH–Recommended upst. Quail Run, at Sycamore 609370 07 01 13.7 19.4 H 48ns - E 64.5 Full Valley, St. Rte. 260 609360 at St. Rte. 26 07 01 0.1 48 W 48ns 9.2ns E 73.5 Full Indian Run (06-433-000) EWH–Recommended C01K82 at Marr, St. Rte. 260 07 01 0.1 5.8 H 52 - E 52 Full Little Indian Run (06-433-001) EWH and CWH – Recommended 303326 adj. Little Injun Rd. (Co. Rd. 9) 07 01 0.3 2.1 50 - E 56 Full Rias Run (06-432-000) EWH – Recommended northeast of Marr, adj. Co. Rd. C01K80 07 01 0.2 2.3 H 50 - E 61.5 Full 13 Witten Run (06-431-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended north of Bloomfield, at Co. Rd. C01S04 07 01 2.3 7.8 H 54 - VGns 75 Full 105 C Wilson Run (06-426-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended east of Bloomfield, adj. Wilson 204059 07 03 0.3 3.4H 51 - E 71.75 Full Run Rd. Wingett Run (06-416-000) WWH (v) near town of Wingett, at St. Rte. C01K61 07 03 0.1 5.3 H 44 - E 67.75 Full 26 Archers Fork (06-420-000) CWH – Recommended dst. Irish and Jackson Runs, dst. C01K67 07 02 7.4 5.8 44 - E 69.5 Full Twp. Rd. 14

Page 6 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Assessment Drain. IBI MIwbb River Station Location Unit Area 2015/201 2015/201 ICIc QHEI Statusd Causes Sources Milea (05030201) (mi²) 6 6 Archers Fork (06-420-000) EWH – Recommended C01K66 upst. Cady Run, Twp. Rd. 36 07 02 5 9.3 H 54 - E 71.75 Full adj. Co. Rd. 14, at Oxbow Lane C01K64 07 02 1.8 16 H 55 - VGns 85.75 Full (Twp. Rd. 604) Irish Run (06-425-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended 204057 adj. Twp. Rd. 58 07 02 0.7 3.3 H 50 - E 75 Full Hog Run (06-415-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended 303328 upst. St. Rte. 26, Twp. Rd. 643 07 05 0.2 0.8 54 - E 55.75 Full Bear Run (06-414-000) EWH – Recommended C01K60 southwest of Dart, at Martin Rd. 07 05 0.1 3.9 H 50 - E 68 Full Fifteenmile Creek (06-410-000) EWH – Recommended MG/ C01K56 at Helsop, Twp. Rd. 12 07 04 3.8 11 H 54/48 ns - 82.25 Full VG ns 38*/ 609410 at mouth, St. Rte. 26 07 04 0.1 20 H 52/46 ns - 75 Full E Sycamore Fork (06-413-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended 204049 adj. Twp. Rd. 363 07 04 0.9 2.9 48NS/50 - E/- 52.5 Full at Fifteenmile Creek Rd., and G*/ C01K59 07 04 0.1 4.5 48ns/44* - 71.75 Partial Oil/Tar Balls Oil Spill Heldman Rd. VGns Deans Fork (06-412-000) EWH and CWH – Recommended C01K58 at mouth, Co. Rd. 12 07 04 0.1 2.2 H 50 - E 64.75 Full Goss Fork (06-411-000) EWH– Recommended C01K57 at mouth, adj. Twp. Rd. 24 07 04 0.1 4.1 H 54 - E 79 Full Mill Fork (06-410-001) EWH and CWH – Recommended 303327 adj. Mill Fork Rd. (Twp. Rd. 37) 07 04 0.6 2.0 H 58 - E 71.25 Full Moss Run (06-408-000) EWH– Recommended C01K52 at Alexander Rd. (Twp. Rd. 584) 07 05 0.1 4.6 H 48ns - E 50.75 Full Little Eightmile Creek (06-400-001) EWH and CWH – Recommended adj. Little Eightmile Rd. (Twp. Rd. 303329 07 05 1 1.5 H 56 - E 54 Full 131)

Page 7 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Assessment Drain. IBI MIwbb River Station Location Unit Area 2015/201 2015/201 ICIc QHEI Statusd Causes Sources Milea (05030201) (mi²) 6 6 Eightmile Creek (06-405-000) EWH – Recommended C01K51 at Dell, Co. Rd. 9, at farm ford 07 05 0.1 5.8 H 56 - E 56 Full a River Mile (RM) represents the Point of Record (POR) for the station, not the actual sampling RM. b MIwb is not applicable to headwater streams with drainage areas < 20 mi2. c A narrative evaluation of the qualitative sample based on attributes such as EPT taxa richness, number of sensitive taxa, and community composition was used when quantitative data was not available or considered unreliable. E = Exceptional; VG = Very Good; G = Good; MG = Marginally Good; HF = High Fair; F = Fair; LF = Low Fair; P = Poor; VP = Very Poor. d Attainment status is based on the recommended aquatic life use designation. B Boat = biocriteria apply; W = Wading biocriteria apply; H = Headwaters biocriterion applies. ns Nonsignificant departure from biocriterion (<4 IBI or ICI units, or <0.5 MIwb units). * Significant departure from WAP biocriterion (< 39 IBI, < 7.8 MIwb, or < 30 ICI); underlined values indicate a narrative biocriterion score of poor or very poor.

Page 8 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Recommendations Aquatic Life Use The streams in the Little Muskingum River watershed currently listed in the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS) are assigned one or more of the following aquatic life use designations: CWH, EWH and WWH. Most aquatic life use designations of the streams in this survey have not been previously verified using biological data. This study used biological data to evaluate aquatic life uses for streams in the Little Muskingum River watershed. Forty-five streams in the Little Muskingum River watershed were evaluated for aquatic life and recreational use potential in 2015 and 2016 (Table 2). Significant findings of this survey include the following:

• The EWH designation currently assigned to the Little Muskingum River mainstem was verified. • In addition, eight tributary streams are recommended EWH: Town Fork, Rias Run, Bear Run, Goss Fork, Eightmile Creek, Moss Run, Indian Run, and Fifteenmile Creek. All sites sampled in these streams fully attained the EWH biocriteria. • Exceptional fish and macroinvertebrate communities were observed in 28 streams that were surveyed where populations of coldwater fish or macroinvertebrate taxa were also documented. The following 28 streams are recommended as EWH and CWH: Straight Fork, Oldcamp Run, Wilson Run, Woods Run, Millers Fork, Dismal Creek, Wildcat Run, Dogskin Run, Trail Run, Little Trail Run, Biglick Run, Witten Run, Irish Run, Deans Fork, Sycamore Fork, Mill Fork, Hog Run, Browns Run, Little Indian Run, Left Prong Rich Fork, Brister Fork, Buhrs Run, Wolfpen Run (tributary to Little Muskingum River), Wolfpen Run (tributary to Cranenest Fork), Willison Run, Laurel Run, Walnutcamp Run and Little Eightmile Creek. • Three streams had segments recommended EWH with specific segments recommended as CWH. o Witten Fork downstream from the confluence with Millers Fork at RM 7.12 supported an exceptional fish and macroinvertebrate community. The fish and macroinvertebrate community upstream of the confluence with Millers Fork was indicative of a coldwater community, possessing multiple coldwater adapted fish and macroinvertebrates. o Archers Fork downstream from the Cady Run confluence at RM 4.94 supports an exceptional fish and macroinvertebrate community, transitioning to a coldwater community in the upstream reach where multiple coldwater macroinvertebrate taxa and a population of a coldwater fish species were documented. o Cranenest Fork downstream from the confluence of the unnamed tributary to Cranenest Fork at RM 11.37 supported an exceptional fish and macroinvertebrate community. The fish and macroinvertebrate community upstream of the confluence of the unnamed tributary at RM 11.37 was indicative of an EWH and coldwater community possessing multiple coldwater macroinvertebrate taxa and a population of coldwater fish species. • Clear Fork supported exceptional macroinvertebrates and very good fish communities in the lower 13.7 miles (Long Run Road to the mouth) and is recommended EWH. Clear Fork upstream from Long Run experienced significant riparian loss and was verified WWH. • Rich Fork, upstream of the confluence with Town Run (RM 1.36) possesses exceptional fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages and supports a population of southern redbelly dace in addition to five cumulative coldwater macroinvertebrate taxa. Thus, Rich Fork upstream RM 1.36 is recommended as EWH and CWH. Rich Fork downstream of the confluence of Town Run (RM 1.36) experienced significant riparian loss and was verified WWH.

Page 9 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

• Two streams are recommended CWH based upon the presence of coldwater macroinvertebrates and fish. These streams include a tributary to Cranenest Fork (entering at RM11.37), and Alum Run. • Wingett Run had good fish communities and exceptional macroinvertebrate communities so the current WWH designation was verified. • Follow-up monitoring should be conducted in streams where spills occurred in 2015-2017 which include Clear Fork, Sycamore Fork, Cranenest Fork, tributary to Long Run and tributary to Rich Fork to determine if oil, brine and diesel spills continue to impact these streams. If any additional spills occur in the watershed, biological and chemical monitoring should be conducted to determine impairment. • Twenty-three streams listed as unverified WWH in the water quality standards (see Table 2) and numerous undesignated streams were not able to be assessed during the 2015 survey. These streams more than likely would meet EWH, CWH or both aquatic life use designations and should be assessed as part of future surveys. These streams should also be evaluated if there’s any type of future discharge or construction permitted activity such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), stormwater permits or §401 authorized activity such as pipeline crossings or stream modifications. Maintaining the exceptional quality of these coldwater and other headwater streams is critical in protecting the exceptional downstream use of the Little Muskingum River.

All streams or stream segments in the Little Muskingum River basin study area should retain or be assigned the Primary Contact Recreation (PCR) use. In addition, all streams in the study area should retain or be assigned the Agricultural Water Supply (AWS) and Industrial Water Supply (IWS) uses.

The Little Muskingum River watershed is one of the highest quality watersheds in the state of Ohio and could be a candidate for state Scenic River status if there was local public support. The Little Muskingum River flows through densely wooded areas of Wayne National Forest and has a total of 73 species of fish including breeding populations of Muskellunge, a state listed Species of Concern. There are also populations of state endangered Ohio lamprey and numerous species that are sensitive to pollution including bigeye chub, black redhorse, river redhorse, silver shiner, rosyface shiner, mimic shiner, channel shiner, stonecat madtom, brindled madtom, slenderhead darter, dusky darter, blackside darter, sand darter, variegate darter, banded darter and bluebreast darter. A total of 22 species of mussels have been documented from the Little Muskingum River watershed including two species listed by Ohio DNR as Species of Concern (salamander mussel and deertoe) and one listed as State Threatened (threehorn wartyback) (Hoggarth, 1999).

Page 10 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Stream Improvements While most streams in the Little Muskingum River watershed are exceptional, potential stream restoration projects have been identified for several WWH streams that had direct habitat alterations, likely preventing them from attaining a more diverse community. As a general guideline, landowners who would like to maintain the exceptional nature of the watershed should continue to maintain wooded riparian buffers consisting of native species or allow these areas to revegetate if these protective buffers are not in place. Livestock should also be fenced out of natural waterways to limit stream bank erosion, damage to habitat and to prevent direct input of animal waste into the stream, a potential source of harmful pathogens and nutrients. Rich Fork (Monroe County, Wayne Township) Rich Fork, downstream of the confluence with Town Run (RM 1.36) had habitat conditions starkly different than the upstream reaches. The biological potential of the lower reach was limited, mostly due to the significant presence of bedrock, a

natural feature. This reach was further impacted due to the lack of a wooded Figure 1 — Indian Run (top) and Clear Fork (bottom) are potential riparian and shade along the stream. streams for habitat improvement projects. Biological evidence of nutrient enrichment included unproportionally large numbers of stonerollers and bluntnose minnows. Decaying filamentous algae, and high stream shading was negatively affecting the stream. Allowing a wide wooded riparian buffer to mature would provide shade, cooling the stream, astemperatures well as reduc (27.7ing the ˚C) runoff at the thattime is of likely sampling contributing indicated to that the the lack of enrichment. Indian Run (Monroe County, Bethel Township) Indian Run, a small drainage stream recovering from previous channelization, has an exceptional fish and macroinvertebrate community but fair habitat. The channelized stream has little wooded riparian buffer, lack of depth and low sinuosity (Figure 1). The stream flows through an agricultural landscape without a substantial wooded riparian zone. A wide, mature wooded riparian buffer would shade the stream, and

Page 11 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

combined with the continual recovery from channelization (improved sinuosity and connection to floodplain) would improve the general stream quality of Indian Run. Little Indian Run, a tributary to Indian Run is a CWH stream, and would likely be a source of southern redbelly dace and coldwater macroinvertebrate taxa. Clear Fork (Monroe County, Washington, Bethel and Franklin Townships) The upper section of Clear Fork had extensive riparian removal and a heavy concentration of livestock with free access to the creek. Clear Fork would benefit from livestock exclusion fencing projects as well as increased wooded riparian protection. Landowners who would like assistance with fencing livestock out of waterways and development of alternative livestock watering systems may be able to receive funding through local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) offices, or state funding such as 319 grants for nonpoint source pollution, H2Ohio funding or Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Program (WRRSP) funding through Ohio EPA – Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance (DEFA).

Page 12 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table 2 — Use designation recommendations for water bodies in the Little Muskingum River basin. Designations based on the 1978 and 1985 water quality standards appear as asterisks (*). A plus sign (+) indicates a confirmation of a current designation and a triangle (▲) denotes a new recommended use based on the findings of this study. Streams evaluated in the 2015 - 2016 study are highlighted.

Use Designations Water Body Segment Aquatic Life Habitat Water Supply Recreation Comments SRW WWH EWH MWH SSH CWH LRW PWS AWS IWS BW PCR SCR | | | | | | | | Little Muskingum river * + + + + Mill run * * * * Coal run * * * * Lick run * * * * Long run * * * * Eightmile creek ▲ */+ */+ */+ Potpie run * * * * Little eightmile creek ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Cow run * * * * Moss run ▲ */+ */+ */+ Baker run * * * * Fifteenmile creek ▲ */+ */+ */+ Mill fork ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Goss fork ▲ */+ */+ */+ Deans fork ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Sycamore fork ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Bear run ▲ */+ */+ */+ Hog run ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Archers fork -upst. of Cady Run ▲ */+ */+ */+ (RM 4.94) - Cady Run (RM ▲ */+ */+ */+ 4.49) to the mouth Ward branch * * * * Coal run * * * * Cady run * * * * Jackson run * * * * Irish run ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Wingett run */+ */+ */+ */+ Haught run * * * * Sackett run * * * * Tice run * * * * Wilson run ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Clear fork- headwaters to long */+ */+ */+ */+ run rd (RM 13.7) -RM 13.7 to mouth ▲ Witten run + ▲ + + + Rias run ▲ */+ */+ */+ Indian run ▲ */+ */+ */+ Little indian run ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Robinson run * * * * Death run * * * * Devoa run * * * * Oldcamp run ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Straight fork ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Browns run ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Biglick run ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Pigeonroost run * * * * Rockcamp run * * * * Laurel run * * * * Witten fork - upst. Millers fork ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ (RM 7.12)

Page 13 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Use Designations Water Body Segment Aquatic Life Habitat Water Supply Recreation Comments SRW WWH EWH MWH SSH CWH LRW PWS AWS IWS BW PCR SCR | | | | | | | | - Millers fork (RM ▲ */+ */+ */+ 7.12) to mouth Trail run ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Little trail run ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Dogskin run ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Wildcat run ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Dismal ceek ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Walnutcamp run ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Alum run ▲ */+ */+ */+ Millers fork ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Woods run ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Coal run * * * * Haren run * * * * Buhrs run ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Wolfpen run ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Rich fork-upst. Town fork (RM ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ 1.36) -(RM 1.36) to mouth */+ */+ */+ */+ Town fork ▲ */+ */+ */+ Brister fork ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Left prong ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ Cranenest fork-upst trib to Craneset Fork at ▲ ▲ */+ */+ */+ RM 11.37 -dst trib to Craneset fork at ▲ */+ */+ */+ RM 11.37 to mouth Willison run ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Wolfpen run ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Laurel run ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Unnamed tributary at ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Cranenest fork RM 11.37 Mutton run * * * * SRW = state resource water; WWH = warmwater habitat; EWH = exceptional warmwater habitat; MWH = modified warmwater habitat; SSH = seasonal salmonid habitat; CWH = coldwater habitat; LRW = limited resource water; PWS = public water supply; AWS = agricultural water supply; IWS = industrial water supply; BW = bathing water; PCR = primary contact recreation; SCR = secondary contact recreation.

Page 14 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Introduction During 2015 and 2016, Ohio EPA conducted a water quality survey in the Little Muskingum River watershed located in Monroe, Noble and Washington counties. Only one NPDES permitted facility discharges sanitary wastewater, industrial process water and/or industrial storm water into the Little Muskingum River. This survey included a water resource assessment of 45 streams in the Little Muskingum River watershed using standard Ohio EPA protocols as described in the Notice to Users section of the companion data appendices document. Included in this study were assessments of the biological, surface water and recreation condition. A total of 72 biological, 56 water chemistry, and 18 bacterial stations were sampled (Figure 2 and Table 3). Specific objectives of the evaluation were to: 1) Systematically sample and assess the principal drainage networks of the Little Muskingum River in support of the TMDL process. 2) Gather ambient environmental information (biological, chemical and physical) from designated water bodies, to assess current beneficial uses (for example, aquatic life, recreational, water supply). 3) Collect fish tissue samples at selected stations. 4) Verify the appropriateness of existing, unverified beneficial use designations and recommend designations for unlisted water bodies. 5) Establish baseline ambient biological conditions at selected reference stations to evaluate the effectiveness of future pollution abatement efforts. 6) Document any changes in biological, chemical and physical conditions of the study areas where historical information exists, thus expanding Ohio EPA’s database for statewide trends analysis (305[b]). The findings of this evaluation may factor into regulatory actions taken by Ohio EPA (for example, NPDES permits, Director’s Final Findings and Orders, or the Ohio Water Quality Standards-Ohio Administrative Code [OAC] 3745-1) and may eventually be incorporated into State Water Quality Management Plans, the Ohio Nonpoint Source Assessment, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and the biennial Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (305[b] and 303[d] report).

Page 15 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Figure 2 — Sampling locations in the Little Muskingum River watershed, 2015 - 2016.

Page 16 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table 3 — Sampling locations in the Little Muskingum River watershed, 2015 - 2016. Station ID Stream Name River Mile Location Sample Typea Latitude Longitude C01K50 Little Muskingum River 57.8 dst. Rich Fork, at Twp. Rd. 42 (Stonehouse Rd.) F2, MQ, C, B 39.693188 -81.139181 C01K49 Little Muskingum River 51.8 Plainview Rd. F2, MQ, N, D, B, Sn 39.655300 -81.120000 303045 Little Muskingum River 48.83 Twp. Rd. 1003/1004, adj. Mechanicsburg Rd. F2, MQ, C, B 39.646140 -81.083724 609350 Little Muskingum River 47.2 at ford, upst. Witten Fork F2, T, MQ 39.633900 -81.067800 C01K48 Little Muskingum River 42.5 Twp. Rd. 38A, upst. Clear Fork (Knowlton F2, MQ, N, D, B 39.616985 -81.104737 Bridge) 204033 Little Muskingum River 40.9 Twp. Rd. 600, dst. Biglick Run B 39.607149 -81.122984 C01K47 Little Muskingum River 37.5 at gage, St. Rte. 260 F2, T, MQ, C, B 39.593600 -81.154699 C01K45 Little Muskingum River 34.6 Co. Rd. 406 (Rinard Covered Bridge) Tice Rd. MQ, C, B 39.566900 -81.153300 609380 Little Muskingum River 30.2 Twp. Rd. 34 (Hune Covered Bridge) F2, MQ, N, D, B, Sn 39.563100 -81.203899 C01K43 Little Muskingum River 25.8 at Dart, dst. Archers Fork, at ford F2, MQ, C, B 39.536900 -81.222800 C01K41 Little Muskingum River 22.2 at Sitka, at Twp. Rd. 19 (Cow Rd.) F2, T, MQ, C, B 39.511100 -81.247199 C01S01 Little Muskingum River 17.2 at Co. Rd. 9 F2, MQ, N, D, B, R, Sn 39.483952 -81.271453 C01K40 Little Muskingum River 9.5 dst. Rich Fork, at Twp. Rd. 42 (Stonehouse Rd.) F2, MQ, C, B 39.448100 -81.336400 609340 Little Muskingum River 5.43 Plainview Rd. F2, T, MQ, N, D, B 39.409400 -81.358599 204090 Cranenest Fork 11.9 adj. Twp. Rd. 8 F, Mq, C, H 39.715000 -80.983600 609320 Cranenest Fork 10.5 dst. Pratts Run, Co. Rd. 28 F, Mq, C 39.723900 -81.013899 C01L03 Cranenest Fork 4 Twp. Rd. 358 Crane Nest Rd. ford, dst. Wolfpen F2, MQ, N, D, B 39.736769 -81.107371 Run 303321 Trib to Cranenest Fork RM 7.27 0.1 Sixpoints Rd. (Co. Rd. 9) F, Mq 39.725000 -80.997000 303320 Laurel Run 0.1 Cranes Nest Rd. (Twp. Rd. 358) F, Mq 39.726000 -81.039000 303318 Wolfpen Run 0.1 Cranes Nest Rd. (Twp. Rd. 358) or adj. Twp. Rd. F, Mq 39.736000 -81.107000 350 303319 Willison Run 0.3 adj. Wilson Run Rd. (Twp. Rd. 102) F, Mq 39.716000 -81.142000 C01K96 Rich Fork 4.2 adj. Edwina Rd. F, Mq, C, H 39.725800 -81.192800 C01K94 Rich Fork 2.7 adj. Edwina Rd., dst. Left Prong F, Mq, C, H 39.713100 -81.176899 C01K93 Rich Fork 0.1 St. Rte. 26 at mouth F2, MQ, N, D, B 39.700600 -81.142799 204084 Left Prong Rich Fork 0.1 adj. Twp. Rd. 263 F, Mq, C 39.713100 -81.180000 609300 Town Fork 0.1 Twp. Rd. 263 F, Mq, C, H 39.708900 -81.155300 204086 Brister Fork 0.1 Barber Ridge Rd. (Co. Rd. 77) F, Mq, H 39.728000 -81.171000 C01L02 Wolfpen Run 0.3 Wolf Pen Rd. F 39.687230 -81.143090 303322 Buhrs Run 0.17 Stonehouse Rd. (Co. Rd. 42) F, Mq 39.663000 -81.127000 204074 Witten Fork 9.2 adj. to St. Rte. 255, dst. trib at RM 9.3 F, Mq, C, H 39.688900 -81.006100 609400 Witten Fork 7.2 upst. Millers Fork F, Mq, C 39.675600 -81.007799 204072 Witten Fork 6.2 at ford dst. Alum Run F, Mq, C 39.658600 -81.009999 609390 Witten Fork 1.1 at St. Rte. 800, dst. Trail Run F2, MQ, N, D, B, R, Sn 39.631100 -81.052799 C01K91 Woods Run 0.12 upst. Benwood Road (Co. Rd. 10) F, Mq 39.685000 -81.001000

Page 17 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Station ID Stream Name River Mile Location Sample Typea Latitude Longitude 204080 Millers Fork 3.4 at Twp. Rd. 470 F, Mq, C, H 39.694400 -81.061400 303323 Alum Run 0.17 Benwood Rd. (Co. Rd. 10) F, Mq 39.662000 -81.007000 C01K90 Walnutcamp Run 0.44 Twp. Rd. 503, at ford F, Mq 39.660000 -81.022000 C01K88 Dismal Creek 1.8 at Twp. Rd. 470 F, Mq, C, H 39.666400 -81.048899 204079 Wildcat Run 0.2 Barnes Run Rd. (Co. Rd. 11) F, Mq 39.643000 -81.042000 204077 Dogskin Run 0.5 adj. Barnes Run Rd. (Co. Rd. 11) F, Mq, H 39.636000 -81.031000 C01K86 Trail Run 1 Twp. Rd. 526 dst. Little Trail Run, adj. St. Rte. F, Mq, C, H 39.619700 -81.050000 800 303324 Little Trail Run 0.75 Twp. Rd. 530 crossing F, Mq, H 39.613000 -81.037000 C01K83 Biglick Run 0.2 gravel road at mouth, Twp. Rd. 562 F, Mq 39.612500 -81.107799 303325 Browns Run 0.2 adj. Twp. Rd. 592 F, Mq 39.620000 -81.121000 C01K70 Straight Fork 5.6 lane off Straight Fork Rd., dst. Long Run F, Mq, C, H 39.658300 -81.187499 204061 Straight Fork 3.1 adj. St. Rte. 26, dst. Adams Hollow F, Mq, N, D, H 39.641700 -81.176700 C01K68 Oldcamp Run 0.3 lane near mouth, gas well, Twp. Rd. 319/38A F, Mq, C, H 39.593300 -81.138899 C01K77 Clear Fork 23.3 adj. Swazey Rd. F, Mq, C 39.762500 -81.285300 204066 Clear Fork 20.8 at Twp. Rd. 834 F, Mq, C 39.733900 -81.277199 609370 Clear Fork 13.7 upst. Quail Run, at Sycamore Valley, St. Rte. 260 F, Mq, N, D 39.662800 -81.249399 609360 Clear Fork 0.1 at St. Rte. 26 F2, MQ, N, D, B, Sn 39.602500 -81.162799 C01K82 Indian Run 0.1 at Marr, at St. Rte. 260 F, Mq, C, H 39.629400 -81.225600 303326 Little Indian Run 0.2 adj. Little Injun Rd. (Co. Rd. 59) F, Mq 39.627000 -81.243000 C01K80 Rias Run 0.2 Death Ridge-Rias Run Rd. (Co. Rd. 13) F, Mq 39.642000 -81.212000 204068 Witten Run 3.6 adj. Witten Creek Rd., dst. trib C 39.596400 -81.232500 C01S04 Witten Run 2.2 adj. Witten Creek Rd., near Co. Rd. 105C MQ, C, R, H 39.600600 -81.209200 204059 Wilson Run 0.3 adj. Wilson Run Rd. (Twp. Rd. 136) F, Mq 39.559000 -81.168000 C01K61 Wingett Run 0.3 St. Rte. 26 F, Mq, C 39.538600 -81.240000 C01K67 Archers Fork 7.4 dst. Irish and Jackson Runs, dst. Twp. Rd. 14 F, Mq, C, H 39.502500 -81.183600 C01K66 Archers Fork 5 upst. Cady Run, Twp. Rd.36 F, Mq, C 39.483546 -81.205883 C01K64 Archers Fork 1.83 adj. Co. Rd. 14 @ Oxbow Lane Twp. Rd. 604 F2, MQ, N, D, B, R, Sn 39.475000 -81.241399 204057 Irish Run 0.7 adj. Twp. Rd. 58 F, Mq, C, H 39.512017 -81.176584 303328 Hog Run 0.15 St. Rte. 26 (upst. side) F, Mq 39.486000 -81.271000 C01K60 Bear Run 0.3 southwest of Dart, at mouth, at Martin Rd. F, Mq, C, H 39.473100 -81.282199 C01K56 Fifteenmile Creek 3.8 at Helsop, Twp. Rd. 12 F, Mq, C, H 39.516400 -81.284699 609410 Fifteenmile Creek 0.1 at mouth, St. Rte. 26 F2, MQ, N, D, B, Sn 39.477800 -81.294399 204049 Sycamore Fork 0.9 Roberts Run Rd. F, Mq 39.542500 -81.284700 C01K59 Sycamore Fork 0.4 at mouth, at town of Fifteen F, Mq, C 39.530600 -81.281100 C01K58 Deans Fork 0.1 at Co. Rd. 12 F, Mq, C 39.524700 -81.288899 C01K57 Goss Fork 0.1 at mouth, adj. Twp. Rd. 24 F, Mq, C 39.498900 -81.298100 303327 Mill Fork 0.6 adj. Mill Fork Rd. (Twp. Rd. 37) F, Mq, H 39.497000 -81.308000

Page 18 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Station ID Stream Name River Mile Location Sample Typea Latitude Longitude C01K52 Moss Run 0.1 at mouth, Twp. Rd. 584 Alexander Rd. F, Mq, C, H 39.461601 -81.324417 303329 Little Eightmile Creek 0.95 adj. Little Eightmile Rd. (Twp. Rd. 131) F, Mq 39.457000 -81.347000 C01K51 Eightmile Creek 0.1 at Dell, Co. Rd. 9, at farm ford F, Mq, C 39.415300 -81.348899 a F = one-pass fish; F2 = two-pass fish; T = fish tissue; Mq =qualitative macroinvertebrate; MQ = quantitative macroinvertebrate; C = surface water chemistry; D = Datasonde; Sn = sentinel; B = bacteria; S = sediment chemistry; N = nutrient; H = Hobo temperature sensor; R = reference site.

Page 19 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Study Area Description Location and Scope The Little Muskingum River watershed study area consists of 10 United States Geological Survey (USGS) HUC-12 watersheds covering 315 mi2 (Table 4). The study area is in Monroe, Noble and Washington counties in southeast Ohio. The rural study area, dominated by Wayne National Forest, includes the municipalities of Reno and Woodsfield. The mainstem flows through the unincorporated communities of Bloomfield, Rinard Mills and Dart, entering the Ohio River just east of Marietta.

Table 4 — Little Muskingum River watershed HUC-12 watersheds. HUC-12 HUC-12 Name Area (Mi2) 50302010601 Rich Fork 22.4 50302010602 Cranenest Fork 26.3 50302010603 Wolfpen Run-Little Muskingum River 21.2 50302010604 Witten Fork 42.4 50302010605 Straight Fork-Little Muskingum River 36.7 50302010701 Clear Fork Little Muskingum River 48.8 50302010702 Archers Fork 18.6 50302010703 Wingett Run-Little Muskingum River 36.3 50302010704 Fifteen Mile Creek 20.5 50302010705 Eightmile Creek-Little Muskingum River 41.7 Beneficial Uses Beneficial use designations assigned to streams within this study area include aquatic life and recreation. The current use designations for the Little Muskingum River watershed are EWH, WWH, CWH, PCR, AWS and IWS. Ecoregions, Geology, and Soils The Little Muskingum River watershed lies entirely within the unglaciated Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) ecoregion. Two subecoregions are in the study area: the Permian Hills and the Monongahela Transition Zone (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). The WAP ecoregion is underlain with bedrock comprised primarily of horizontally-bedded sedimentary rock. This rock contains bituminous coal (containing bitumen or asphalt), which has been mined since the early 1800s in Ohio. Streams of this ecoregion are generally cool, with moderate to high gradients. The Monongahela Transition Zone subecoregion comprises 10.7 percent of the study area. Bituminous coal mining is still common in this subecoregion. The clayey soils of this subecoregion are erosion-prone which is exacerbated by the rough, broken terrain. As a result, streams in the Monongahela Transition zone are generally more turbid than other streams in the WAP. The Permian Hills subecoregion defines the remaining 89.3 percent of the study area. This subecoregion is hilly, and generally cooler and more forested than the Monongahela Transition zone. Coal mining likely occurred in this subecoregion historically but is more common in the Monongahela Transition zone. The streams are typically high gradient, and have developed “on the underlying Permian shale, sandstone, and coal” (Omernik & Griffith, 2008). The top five soil types, encompassing nearly 70 percent of the soil types in the watershed, are Gilpin- Upshur, Gilpin-Westmoreland, Gilpin-Summitville-Upshur, Upshur, and Guernsey-Upshur. These soils are moderately deep to deep soils that are generally well-drained (Soil Survey Staff, 2004).

Page 20 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Land Cover and Land Use Land Cover Land use and land cover have an important influence on water quality conditions found in the study area. Overall, forested cover types were dominant, comprising 82 percent of the watershed. Hay and pasture lands, and to a smaller extent row crops, made up nine percent of the land cover. Only 0.3 percent of the watershed is developed. The watershed is almost entirely within the Wayne National Forest – Marietta Unit. Twenty percent (approximately 44,000 acres) of the land in the watershed is federally owned property. The national forest, established in 1934, reforested lands that were primarily used for agriculture (Figure 3).

Little Muskingum River Little Muskingum River

Credit: US Forest Service

Figure 3 — The Little Muskingum River watershed before and after National Forest designation and subsequent reforestation efforts.

Results Recreation Use Water quality criteria for determining attainment of recreation uses are established in the Ohio Water Quality Standards (OAC 3745-1-37) based upon the presence and quantity of bacteria indicators (Escherichia coli) in the water column. New revisions to the recreation use rule in Ohio became effective on Jan. 4, 2016. However, since sampling protocols for this survey were designed and carried out when the previous rules were in effect, the assessment of data and determination of recreation use attainment status provided in this section were based on the prior rules. E. coli bacteria are microscopic organisms that are present in large numbers in the feces and intestinal tracts of humans and other warm-blooded animals. E. coli typically comprises approximately 97 percent of the organisms found in the fecal coliform bacteria of human feces (Dufor, 1977). However, there is currently no simple way to differentiate between human and animal sources of coliform bacteria in surface

Page 21 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

waters, although methodologies for this type of analysis are becoming more practicable. These microorganisms can enter water bodies where there is a direct discharge of human and/or animal wastes or may enter water bodies along with runoff from soils where these wastes have been deposited. E. coli bacteria can also become entrained within stream sediments and may remain viable for some time. Therefore, sediment re-suspension during storm events can also result in elevated numbers of E. coli bacteria in the water column. Pathogenic organisms are typically present in the environment in such small amounts that it is impractical to monitor them directly. Fecal indicator bacteria by themselves, including E. coli, are usually not pathogenic. However, some strains of E. coli can be pathogenic, capable of causing serious illness. Although not necessarily agents of disease, fecal indicator bacteria such as E. coli may indicate the potential presence of pathogenic organisms that enter the environment through the same pathways. When E. coli are present in high numbers in a water sample, it invariably means the water has received fecal matter from one source or another. Swimming or other recreational-based contact with water having a high fecal coliform or E. coli count may result in ear, nose and throat infections, as well as stomach upsets, skin rashes and diarrhea. Young children, the elderly and those with depressed immune systems are most susceptible to infection. All the streams of the Little Muskingum River study area evaluated in this survey are designated with the PCR use in OAC Rules 3745-13, 3745-16 and 3745-1-24. Water bodies with a designated recreational use of PCR “...are waters that, during the recreation season, are suitable for one or more full-body contact recreation activities such as, but not limited to, wading, swimming, boating, water skiing, canoeing, kayaking and SCUBA diving” [OAC 3745-1-07 (B)(3)(b)]. There are three classes of PCR used to reflect differences in the potential frequency and intensity of use. Streams designated PCR Class A typically have identified public access points and support, or potentially support, primary contact recreation. Streams designated PCR Class B support, or potentially support, occasional primary contact recreation activities. Streams designated PCR Class C support, or potentially support, infrequent primary contact recreation activities such as, but not limited to, wading. All streams assessed for recreation use during this survey are designated Class B PCR waters. Water bodies with a designated recreational use of Secondary Contact Recreation (SCR) “are waters that result in minimal exposure potential to water borne pathogens because the waters are: rarely used for water-based recreation such as, but not limited to, wading; situated in remote, sparsely populated areas; have restricted access points; and have insufficient depth to provide full body immersion, thereby greatly limiting the potential for water based recreation activities” [OAC 3745-1-07 (B)(3)(c)]. The E. coli criteria that apply to PCR Class A, B, or C streams include a geometric mean criterion of 126, 161 or 206 colony forming units (cfu) per 100 mL, respectively, to be met during the recreation season. The E. coli criterion that applies to SCR streams includes a geometric mean of 1,030 cfu per 100 ml to be met during the recreation season. The geometric mean is based on two or more samples and is used as the basis for determining attainment status when more than one sample is collected. Summarized bacteria results are listed in Table 5, and the complete dataset is reported in Appendix Table D. Eighteen locations in the Little Muskingum River study area were sampled for E. coli seven to 13 times, from May 5 – August 5, 2015. Evaluation of E. coli results revealed that all 18 of the sites sampled failed to attain the applicable geometric mean criterion or exceeded more than 10 percent of the allowable single sample maximum value, indicating impairment of the recreation use on a watershed-wide scale and non- attainment of the recreation use.

Page 22 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table 5 — A summary of E. coli data for the 18 locations in the Little Muskingum River study area sampled May through August 2015. Recreation Use Attainment Status is based on comparing the recreation season geometric means to the applicable PCR Class A geometric mean criterion (126 cfu) and the Class B geometric mean criterion (161 cfu). River Recreation # of Geometric Maximum Attainment Potential Source(s) Station ID Location Mile Use Samples Mean Value Status of Bacteria1 Rich Fork (HUC 05030201-06-01) C01K93 Rich Fork 0.10 PCR Class B 8 214 2,500 Non AG, HSTS Cranenest Fork (HUC 05030201-06-02) C01L03 Cranenest Fork 4.00 PCR Class B 7 265 2,800 Non HSTS Wolfpen Run-Little Muskingum River (HUC 05030201-06-03) C01K50 Little Muskingum River 57.80 PCR Class A 8 294 4,200 Non HSTS C01K49 Little Muskingum River 51.80 PCR Class A 11 122 4,700 Non HSTS, AG 303045 Little Muskingum River 48.83 PCR Class A 10 345 5,500 Non HSTS Witten Fork (HUC 05030201-06-04) 609390 Witten Fork 1.10 PCR Class B 11 282 4,000 Non HSTS, AG Straight Fork-Little Muskingum River (HUC 05030201-06-05) C01K48 Little Muskingum River 42.50 PCR Class A 7 270 7,500 Non HSTS, AG 204033 Little Muskingum River 40.90 PCR Class A 10 158 10,000 Non HSTS Archers Fork (HUC 05030201-07-02) C01K64 Archers Fork 1.83 PCR Class B 12 263 970 Non AG Wingett Run-Little Muskingum River (HUC 05030201-07-03) C01K47 Little Muskingum River 37.50 PCR Class A 11 221 10,000 Non HSTS C01K45 Little Muskingum River 34.60 PCR Class A 12 172 8,400 Non HSTS 609380 Little Muskingum River 30.20 PCR Class A 13 111 1,700 Non HSTS C01K43 Little Muskingum River 25.80 PCR Class A 13 179 1,300 Non HSTS C01K41 Little Muskingum River 22.20 PCR Class A 13 101 2,400 Non AG Fifteen Mile Creek (HUC 05030201-07-04) 609410 Fifteen Mile Creek 0.10 PCR Class B 13 349 1,200 Non HSTS, AG Eightmile Creek-Little Muskingum River (HUC 05030201-07-05) C01S01 Little Muskingum River 17.20 PCR Class A 13 100 2,000 Non HSTS, AG C01K40 Little Muskingum River 9.50 PCR Class A 13 112 770 Non HSTS, AG 609340 Little Muskingum River 5.43 PCR Class A 13 151 2,000 Non AG 1 Potential Sources: AG = agriculture; CAFO = concentrated animal feeding operation; HSTS = home sewage treatment system; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant; CSO = combined sewer overflows; SSO = sanitary sewer overflows; Urban = urban runoff.

Page 23 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Most sampling locations in the Little Muskingum River watershed are in areas without centralized sewage treatment. Non-attainment may be due to unsanitary conditions from poorly treated sewage because of failing home sewage treatment systems (HSTS). Another possible source of non-attainment is pasture and cropland runoff and livestock production. Small areas of row crops are evident in the floodplains of the Little Muskingum River watershed based on observations during the survey. Runoff from livestock manure application could be improved by the installation of buffers between the activity and the stream. Attainment of the recreation use standards for areas impacted by failing HSTS could be achieved through individual system improvements to reduce the discharge of bacteria. Two sampling locations, both on the Little Muskingum River, had extremely elevated maximum values. Little Muskingum River at Poulton at Township Road 575 (RM 40.90) and Little Muskingum River upstream Clear Fork at Knowlton bridge (RM 37.50) each had maximum values of 10,000 cfu. However, both samples were collected on June 18, 2015 when stream flows were elevated above the median flow and re-suspension of E. coli due to storm events likely occurred (Figure 7). Sediment Sampling locations were selected to determine background sediment quality, assess the impact from point sources and nonpoint source runoff, and to evaluate downstream transport and recovery. Samples were collected following the Sediment Sampling Guide and Methodologies, 3rd Edition (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). Following these guidelines, it is more likely to collect a representative sample that is composed of > 30 percent silt and clay particles. These fine-grained particles are much more physically, chemically and biologically reactive than coarse material such as sand and gravel; they hold more interstitial water and have unbalanced electrical charges that can attract contaminants. Sediment sample results were evaluated using Tier I procedures for aquatic life described in the Guidance on Evaluating Sediment Contaminant Results (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). Numeric Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQG) that are used include Ohio Sediment Reference Values (SRV) for metals contained in the Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2008) and toxicity values in the Development and Evaluation of Consensus-based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems (MacDonald, Ingersoll, & Berger, 2000). When contaminants are present in concentrations above the SQGs, either appropriate treatment options should be explored to remediate the problem or consideration should be given to investigate if bioavailability affects toxicity, which would likely require more assessment. Ohio EPA collected sediment samples at seven locations in the Little Muskingum River watershed on July 22, 2015. Sampling locations were co-located with biological sampling sites. Samples were analyzed for metals, nutrients and semi-volatile organic compounds. Specific chemical parameters and results of their analysis are listed in Appendix Table C. All sediment sampling occurred in areas within the stream channel, where sparse deposits of fine-grained material existed. These areas comprised only a small fraction of the bottom substrates of the streams surveyed. Bottom substrates in these stream segments were dominated by sand and gravel material. The sparse deposits of fine-grained material in the Little Muskingum River watershed contributed to low exposure levels of potential sediment contaminants to biological communities. Metals and nutrient levels are presented in Table 6 with none exceeding the SRV, threshold effects concentration (TEC) or probable effects concentration (PEC) guideline values. Organic chemical parameters were tested at all seven sampling locations and most samples were reported as “not detected” except for 2-acetylaminofluorene (0.76 mg/kg) at Little Muskingum River in Bloomfield at State Route 260, fluoranthene (0.81 mg/kg) detected at Fifteenmile Creek at State Route 26 and diethyl phthalate (1.83

Page 24 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

mg/kg) detected at Archers Fork at Township Road 604. Fluoranthene and 2-acetylaminofluorene are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) that are associated with coal tar and petroleum products. Several spills have been reported within the Fifteen Mile Creek watershed which includes crude oil and fracking wastewater. Crude oil spills were reported on the mainstem of Fifteenmile Creek in both 2008 and 2015. Crude oil spills have also occurred in Clear Fork upstream from Little Muskingum River in Bloomfield and are a likely source of the 2-acetylaminofluorene. Diethyl phthalates are used to make plastics more flexible and are found throughout the environment. They are common in household items such as toothbrushes, automobile parts, tools, toys, and are also found in cosmetics and aspirin.

Page 25 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table 6 — Chemical parameters measured above the screening levels in samples collected by Ohio EPA from surficial sediments in the Little Muskingum River, July 22, 2015. Contamination levels were determined for parameters using Ohio's SRVs, consensus-based sediment quality guidelines (MacDonald, et.al. 2000) and ecological screening levels (U.S. EPA 2003). None of the values exceeded the SRV, TEC or PEC. Fifteen Mile Witten

Little Muskingum Little Muskingum Little Muskingum Archers Fork, Clear Fork, Creek, Fork, Value River, RM 51.8 River, RM 30.13 River, RM 17.2 RM 1.83 RM 0.29 RM 0.12 RM 1.15

Parameter Station ID: Station ID: Station ID: Station ID: Station ID: Station ID: Station ID: erence

(mg/kg) C01K49 609380 C01S01 C01K64 609360 609410 609390 Sediment Ref (SRV) Threshold Effect Conc.(TEC) Effect Probable Conc.(PEC) Aluminum 11,300 12,300 9,210 8,550 8,780 8,070 8,330 53,000 Ammonia 77 59 85 110 43 44 49 Arsenic 4.47 4.49 5.48 4.82 6.07 6.22 5.07 19 9.79 33 Barium 137 150 129 132 116 143 124 360 Cadmium 0.303 0.288 0.295 0.311 0.289 0.309 0.248 0.8 0.99 4.98 Calcium 2,850 2,430 2570 3,050 3,000 4,190 1,890 27,000 Chromium 13.1 14 11.5 11.1 12.1 11.3 10.8 53 43.4 111 Copper 13.2 13 11.8 12.4 12.8 10.5 9.61 33 31.6 149 Iron 19,000 21,900 19,300 18,100 19,700 18,800 17,500 51,000 Lead 12.3 12.4 12.5 13.3 12.8 13.9 12.4 47 35.8 128 Magnesium 2,640 2,690 2,490 2,500 2,490 2,670 2,050 9,900 Manganese 630 873 729 656 872 704 756 3,000 Mercury 0.03 0.033 0.026 0.038 0.023 0.032 0.016 0.12 0.18 1.06 Nickel 15.5 16.2 13.7 13.6 14.8 12.8 12 61 22.7 48.6 Phosphorus 511 447 454 488 524 373 352 Potassium 1,190 1,280 < 1,450 < 1,460 < 1,160 < 1,150 < 1,020 14,000 Selenium 0.43 0.32 0.49 0.5 0.33 0.36 0.43 2.3 Silver 0.054 0.049 0.048 0.041 0.044 0.045 0.043 0.43 Sodium < 2,890 < 2,680 < 3,620 < 3,650 < 2,910 < 2,880 < 2,550 Strontium 25 24 23 11 23 33 26 250 Zinc 56.1 57 56.3 54.5 52.6 55.8 48.5 170 121 459 Sediment Substrate Type % Solids 57 64.1 53.65 47 62.85 60.05 62 % Sand, coarse 0 0 0 0 0 51 39 % Claypan soil 10 8.1 8.2 8.2 4.1 2 4.1 % Clay 18 24 16 12 18 16 20 % Clay, medium 10 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.1 4.1 % Silt, coarse 21 27 39 35 31 6.1 4.1 % Silt, medium 4.1 8.1 6.1 10 10 12 6.1 % Silt, fine 24 18 18 18 22 4.1 16 % Silt, very fine 12 8.1 6.1 10 8.1 4.1 6.1

Page 26 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Point Source and Nonpoint Source Impacts NPDES The Little Muskingum River watershed has one individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facility that discharges wastewater from a sanitary wastewater plant called Deerfield Estates WWTP. The watershed also has 17 general NPDES permits. General NPDES permits cover numerous facilities that have similar operations and types of discharges. These include 14 construction storm water permits, two industrial materials (sand and gravel) permits and one industrial storm water permit for a recycled material manufacturer. Washington County Commissioners – Deerfield Estates WWTP (Ohio EPA Individual NPDES Permit # 0PG00064; outfall 001) The Deerfield Estates wastewater treatment plant is located at 137 Cornerstone Drive, Marietta, Washington County. The Estates have approximately 200 residents. The WWTP is an extended aeration plant with chlorination, disinfection and de-chlorination. The plant, built in 1993, is designed to treat 22,000 gallons per day of domestic wastewater. After treatment, the WWTP discharges to the Little Muskingum River at RM 2.14. Between January 2011 and December 2015, the WWTP had two total suspended solids, dissolved oxygen and biological oxygen demand NPDES permit limit violations. In addition, there were three pH and 12 E. coli limit violations. Ammonia exceeded the NPDES limit five times but only during the winter months. A Notice of Violation was issued in June of 2011. Ohio EPA most recently conducted an NPDES compliance inspection on April 19, 2017. The facility's discharge appeared to be in compliance with the NPDES permit. Coal, Oil and Gas Coal mining in the watershed began in the 1870s. Small-scale coal mining occurred throughout the watershed, and the coal was used primarily for individual or local use. The number 9 - 12 coal seams were mined for nearly a century, before ceasing in the early 1960s. In addition, two very small commercial coal mining operations existed in the watershed. One mined the Meig’s #9 coal seam in the upper reaches of Moss Run in 1930s. This was an underground mine with a drift entry. The other is Christman Quarry, primarily a limestone mining operation that mines the coal overburden commercially in the headwaters of Clear Fork. There was no apparent impact from these mining operations on the streams detected during this survey. Oil and gas have been the primary resources extracted from the watershed. Southeast Ohio is the second oldest oil producing region in the United States to Pennsylvania (Miller, 1943). The first well drilled in the basin was in 1861 in the Cow Run watershed. To date, there have been more than 9,000 wells drilled in the 315 mi2 watershed (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2014). A commonly used well design in the area is the Exempt Mississippi Well (EMW). EMWs were drilled before 1980 in specific geologic layers where the gas is extracted and used locally. EMW operators are allowed to discharge brine water onto the land surface as long as it does not enter a waterway, in accordance with Ohio Revised Code 1509.22 (C) (1). There are numerous EMW wells within the watershed and some have released brine water into area streams. Oil and gas development in Ohio has experienced a dramatic increase recently with the use of hydraulic fracturing. The Marcellus and Utica shale plays cover much of the eastern part of Ohio and underlay the entire watershed. Most of the shale oil and gas extraction occurs in the easternmost part of the state, within the Utica shale. Ohio EPA and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil & Gas Resources

Page 27 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Management regulates different components of the hydraulic fracturing process. An explanation of the regulatory authority can be found on the following web links: Ohio EPA and ODNR. Hydraulic fracturing allows for large volumes of natural gas and associated liquids to be extracted at one well head location. Each well pad can accommodate numerous wells. The Little Muskingum River watershed now has at least 19 horizontal wells under construction or drilled and producing oil or gas (Figure 4). Hydraulic fracturing requires large quantities of fresh water, along with sand and chemical lubricants when fracking a well. The water used in the fracturing process usually comes from a stream, river, reservoir or lake near the drill site, or in some cases, from a local municipal water plant. According to FracTracker Alliance (2014), Monroe and Noble County wells use between 8 to 10 million gallons of fresh water per well. A well needs to be fracked on a periodic basis to help retain a consistent production rate, which necessitates significant additional water withdrawal from area surface waters. Wastewater produced during hydraulic fracturing is called backflow water and is characterized by the high concentrations of total dissolved solids. The wells that produce the most backflow water in this specific watershed are at the intersection of Belmont, Noble and Monroe counties (Auch, 2015) which borders the northwest section of the Little Muskingum River watershed, above Clear Fork. Many chemicals could be added to the water to aid in the hydraulic fracturing process. The website FracFocus.org lists the numerous chemicals that could be used and their purpose and also discloses chemicals used at specific wells, here. Under Ohio law, backflow wastewater is not permitted to be discharged to surface waters (for example, streams, rivers or lakes) and must be properly disposed of at deep injection wells sites which are regulated by ODNR (OAC 1501:9-3). Ohio’s water withdrawal regulations are contained in Ohio Revised Code 1521.16 requiring anyone with the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons a day of water to register with the ODNR, Division of Soil and Water Resources. The registration is not a permit to withdraw water nor does it place any restrictions on withdrawals such as during droughts or low-flow conditions (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2015). Reported water withdrawals from the Little Muskingum River watershed decreased from 87.18 million gallons in 2014 to 20.36 million gallons in 2015 for hydraulic fracturing (Table 7).

Table 7 — Facilities that reported water withdrawals from the Little Muskingum River watershed for hydraulic fracturing during 2014 and 2015. Data from Ohio DNR-Division of Soil and Water Resources. Total (million Facility Stream Type RM Year gallons) Clear Fork Pond 24.8 2014 1.1 Eclipse Clear Fork Pond 25.2 2014 1.51 Resources Trib. to Clear Fork (RM 23.55) Pond (in stream) 0.4 2014 3.88 Trib. to Clear Fork (RM 24.18) Pond 0.3 2014 7.15 Hall & Ross Clear Fork Stream 16.45 2014 43.66 HG Energy Trib. to Long Run (Straight Fork) at RM 0.54 Pond (in stream) 0.2 2014 29.88 EdgeMarc Little Muskingum River Stream 49.9 2015 20.36 Grand Total: 107.54

Page 28 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Figure 4 — Horizontal well locations (black arrows indicate the direction and length of the well) in the Little Muskingum River watershed.

Page 29 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Spills From 2002 to 2016, 18 spills were reported in the Little Muskingum River watershed (Table 8). Some of the spills were accidental and some were deliberate. Two recent court cases involved convictions for illegal dumping of brine water in the watershed. In 2013, the owner of the RCA Oil Company was sentenced for illegally discharging 800,000 gallons of brine wastewater into Rockcamp Run. In 2016, the owner of the Hercher Oil Company was sentenced for illegally discharging approximately 50 gallons of oily brine wastewater, weekly, over a period of time into a roadside ditch near Rias Run. During the 2015 water quality Figure 5 — Crude oil spill in Clear Fork of the Little survey, landowners in the Fifteenmile Creek Muskingum River, Jan. 29, 2017. watershed reported to Ohio EPA field staff that they observed a brine hauler truck illegally discharging wastewater into Sycamore Fork, a tributary of Fifteenmile Creek, adjacent to County Road 37. On Jan. 29, 2017, Ohio EPA responded to a reported crude oil release from a brine/oil tank that discharged into Clear Fork of the Little Muskingum River impacting 9.5 miles of the creek (Figure 5). The spill occurred when an employee mistakenly left a valve open on a 100-barrel storage tank. Additional spills of oil, gas, drill cuttings or brine water were reported due to rupturing holding tanks, automobile accidents, brine tanker leaks and well pad leaks. However, these spills were contained onsite and did not impact waterways in the watershed. Sycamore Fork and Fifteenmile Creek were affected by an oil spill in July 2015. Oil entered Sycamore Fork near the mouth and evidence in the form of a sheen and tar balls was observed up to the mouth of Fifteenmile Creek. In order to gauge the potential effects of the spill on biological integrity, an upstream Sycamore Fork sample was added as a control. Follow-up sampling in 2016 revealed full recovery in Fifteenmile Creek but the fish community scores were below the recommended EWH ALU for Sycamore Fork which resulted in partial attainment.

Page 30 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table 8 — Spills reported to Ohio EPA in the Little Muskingum River watershed from 2002 to 2016. Spill Waterway Spill Location Product Amount Released Latitude Longitude Year (Gallons) 2002 Headwaters Oldcamp Run Old Camp Rd. (Twp. Rd. 65) Crude Oil 125 39.56556 -81.10283 2002 Little Muskingum River St. Rte. 26, north of Marietta Oil 150 39.53944 -81.23583 2003 Drainage ditch to LMR North of St. Rte. 26 near Wingett Run (Co. Rd. 64) Crude Oil 100 39.54053 -81.23564 2007 Archers Fork Co. Rd. 9 Crude Oil 2000 39.46200 -81.21042 2007 Moss Run tributary North of St. Rte. 26 near Moss Run Rd. (Twp. Rd. 133) Crude Oil 200 39.48269 -81.30908 2007 Upper Archers Fork Trib. Jackson Run Rd. (Co. Rd. 14) Crude Oil 150 39.49997 -81.19450 2008 Mill Fork (Fifteen Mile Creek) Mill Fork Rd. (Co. Rd. 37) Crude Oil 100 39.49356 -81.30092 2008 Little Muskingum River Co. Rd. 9 and Co. Rd. 20 Sewage unk 39.39511 -81.37592 2008 Trib. to Eightmile Creek Bowerstock Rd. (Twp. Rd. 535) Crude Oil 500 39.43972 -81.31156 2010 Little Muskingum River Near Co. Rd. 523 and Co. Rd. 25 Crude Oil 200 39.47450 -81.27850 2010 Storm runoff ditch to LMR Co. Rd. 324 and St. Rte. 26 Crude Oil 250 39.57769 -81.16578 2012 Trib. to Woods Run (RM0.24) St. Rte. 255 near Co. Rd. 10 Crude Oil 1680 39.68992 -80.99889 2014 Headwaters Bear Run Co. Rd. 25 and Co. Rd. 9 Brine 300 39.44367 -81.25572 2014 Hobley Hollow Creek Hobley Hollow Rd. Crude Oil 170 39.41300 -81.37500 2015 Fifteen Mile Creek Fifteen Mile Creek Rd. and St. Rte. 26 Crude Oil 168 39.53889 -81.28386 2015 Trib. to Long Run Co. Rd. 73 and Co. Rd. 13 Oil & Brine 2730 39.65714 -81.20147 2015 Trib. to Rich Fork Barber Ridge Rd. Crude Oil 100 39.72978 -81.17983 2016 Cranenest Fork St. Rte. 26 and St. Rte. 800 Diesel Fuel 1200 39.73153 -81.11503

Page 31 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Surface Water Chemistry Surface water chemistry samples were collected from the Little Muskingum River watershed between April 2015 and March 2016 at 56 locations (Table 3). Stations were established in free-flowing sections of the stream and samples were primarily collected from bridge crossings. Water samples were collected and preserved using appropriate methods, as outlined in the Surface Water Field Sampling Manual for water column chemistry, bacteria and flows (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2013; Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). United States Geological Survey (USGS) flow data from the Little Muskingum River (USGS 03115400 at Bloomfield, OH) was used to express flow trends in the watershed (Figure 6). Surface water samples were analyzed for metals, nutrients, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), semi-volatile organic compounds, organochlorinated pesticides, bacteria, pH, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (D.O.), percent D.O. saturation and suspended and dissolved solids (Appendix B). Parameters in exceedance of the Ohio WQS criteria are reported in Table 9.

Table 9 — Exceedances of Ohio WQS criteria (OAC 3745-1) for chemical/physical water parameters measured in grab samples taken from the Little Muskingum River watershed, April 2015-March 2016. R is Recommended. Station ID RM Sampling Location Parameter (value - mg/L unless noted) Little Muskingum River (EWH, PCR, AWS, IWS) 609380 30.13 At USGS gage, St. Rt. 260 Iron (5710 µg/L)B Rich Fork (EWH-R/CWH-R, PCR, AWS, IWS) C01K96 4.00 Adj. Edwina Rd Dissolved Oxygen (4.7)A C01K94 2.70 Adj. Edwina Rd, dst. Left Prong Dissolved Oxygen (4.9)A Witten Fork (EWH-R, PCR, AWS, IWS) 609390 1.15 at St. Rt. 800, dst. Trail Run Iron (16300 µg/L)B Straight Fork (CWH-R/EWH-R, PCR, AWS, IWS) C01K70 5.98 Long Run Rd ust. Long Run Selenium (4.9 µg/L)C Clear Fork (EWH, PCR, AWS, IWS) 609360 0.29 at St. Rt. 26 Iron (9430 µg/L)B Fifteenmile Creek (EWH, PCR, AWS, IWS) C01K56 3.85 at Helsop, Twp. Rd. 12 Selenium (4.9 µg/L)c A Exceedance of the applicable minimum D.O. criteria – CWH- 6.0 mg/L, EWH - 5.0 mg/L, WWH: 4.0 mg/L. B Exceedance of the statewide water quality criteria for the protection of agricultural uses C Exceedance of the aquatic life Outside Mixing Zone Average water quality criterion D Exceedance of the maximum temperature criteria. Three sites exceeded the iron criterion for the protection of agricultural use including Little Muskingum River RM 30.13 (5,710 µg/L); Clear Fork RM 0.29 (9,430 µg/L); and Witten Fork RM 1.15 (16,300 µg/L). Increased nonpoint runoff from rain events on June 17 – 18 and July 6 are the likely cause of the iron exceedances. In all cases the exceedances are anomalously high compared to the other sampling events throughout the sampling season and were collected during, or just after, said rain events.

Page 32 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

USGS 03115400 Little Muskingum River at Bloomfield 10,000

1,000

100

10

1 Daily Mean Discharge 2015 Chemistry 2015 Bacteria Median Daily Statistic (44 years)

0. Aug Dec Apr Aug Dec Apr 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016

Figure 6 — Graph of average daily stream flow relative to the daily median streamflow (USGS 03115400 Little Muskingum River at Bloomfield) for the sampling season.

Two sites on Rich Fork (RM 2.7 and 4.2) had a single exceedance of the CWH minimum dissolved oxygen criteria (4.9 and 4.7 mg/L respectively). These appear to be anomalous, as the average D.O. concentrations at both sites were 9.4 at RM 4 and 8.9 at RM 2.7. These acute low D.O. conditions have not appeared to be negatively affecting aquatic life, as both sites were fully meeting EWH biocriteria. Selenium exceedances of the Outside Mixing Zone Average water quality criterion was reported at two sites. Straight Fork RM 5.98 and Fifteenmile Creek RM 3.85 had a single exceedance at 4.9 µg/L. Relatively high values of selenium, as well as barium, strontium and TDS (a proxy for salinity) can be found in fluids associated with the production of natural gas wells in the shale gas plays of Ohio (Vengosh, Jackson, Warner, Darrah, & Kondash, 2014). Elevated levels, greater than the 95th percentile of WAP headwater sites, of the previously mentioned parameters were reported from the same samples that produced the selenium exceedances (Table 10); indicative of the presence of fluids related to oil and gas development in

Page 33 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

the surface waters of these streams. Currently, no apparent long-term effects on the aquatic biota have been noted, but chronic exposure will put these communities at risk.

Table 10 — Surface water quality parameters associated with fluids from oil and gas development were greater than the 95th percentile for WAP headwater sites in samples where selenium exceeded the Outside Mixing Zone Average water quality criterion (bold values). Site Date Selenium Barium Strontium TDS Sodium Chloride (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L (mg/L) (mg/L) Fifteenmile Creek RM 3.85 20-May-15 0.5 109 302 258 27 56.2 25-Jun-15 2.3 108 293 272 28.3 70.2 14-Jul-15 2.5 118 321 282 34.6 71.9 C01K56 12-Aug-15 1.5 132 341 292 29.3 74.5 16-Sep-15 4.9 222 561 658 50.6 200 Straight Fork RM 5.98 25-Jun-15 0.5 83 301 240 11.3 24.1 14-Jul-15 0.5 86 300 234 10.2 16 C01K70 12-Aug-15 4.9 154 607 654 78.7 219 16-Sep-15 0.5 99 367 310 23.9 60.7

Water Quality Sonde Exceedance Multi-parameter water quality sondes were deployed to monitor temperature, dissolved oxygen (D.O.), pH and specific conductance (conductivity). Temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH are influenced by diel (24- hour) patterns. These diel patterns have the greatest impact on streams during critical conditions such as stable, low streamflow. Specific conductance is not influenced by the same diel triggers but is monitored because it is a strong indicator of changes in streamflow. Under normal conditions, specific conductance is inversely proportional to stream flow. The water quality sondes collect readings hourly to monitor these parameters throughout the diel cycle. Grab readings differ because they only represent one point on the diel cycle. While they are effective at characterizing water quality parameters that change based on hydrologic regime or season, they can miss or not fully characterize parameters that exhibit changing diel patterns. Thirteen sites were sampled with water quality sondes in the study area. Sonde sites were chosen primarily for geographic coverage, as there are few point sources or historic issues in the watershed. Critical conditions for temperature and dissolved oxygen are times when flows are low, temperatures are high, and daylight is long. Streams are most sensitive to organic and nutrient enrichment during these conditions. To capture these conditions, sondes are typically deployed during low flow conditions from June to September. Sondes were deployed at all sites in the study area from July 28-30, 2015. As shown in Figure 7, this time period captured an appropriate combination of low flows and warm air temperatures for the season. Air temperatures were well above normal and streamflow well below, making the deployment an excellent snapshot of the critical condition. Summary plots of all data collected are included in Appendix E of this document. The plots exhibit hourly readings of temperature, D.O., pH and specific conductance. Ohio promulgates water quality standards through Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-1. The data collected during the sonde deployments were sufficient to evaluate exceedances of the standards for the protection of aquatic life including: maximum daily temperature, minimum D.O., 24-hour average D.O., pH and specific conductivity. Absolute minima or maxima exceedances are compared directly to hourly readings reported from the water quality sondes. The 24-hour average for D.O. is calculated as a rolling 24- hour average of the hourly data. An exceedance of the water quality criteria does not represent stream

Page 34 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

impairment; rather if biological impairment is present, the exceedances help develop a body of evidence that identifies conditions stressful to aquatic life. A summary of the exceedances is presented in Table 11. Sites in the Little Muskingum watershed are generally unimpacted and well-shaded, which is demonstrated by the few water quality exceedances recorded during the sonde survey. The temperature exceedances documented at the most upstream Little Muskingum mainstem site and on Rich Fork were isolated instances where canopy cover was limited, providing less shade to the channel. This increased light availability did not, however, cause excess primary production, likely due to the lack of nutrients upstream. The minimum dissolved oxygen exceedances in Archers Fork are indicative of a lack of primary production at the site. Unlike all other sampling locations in the study area, there was a general lack of diurnal D.O. swings in Archers Fork, leading to a fairly depressed D.O. signature. However, the velocity and riffles present in the stream provided sufficient aeration, preventing sustained D.O. exceedances. There were no documented exceedances of the pH or specific conductance water quality criteria in the Little Muskingum watershed recorded during the sonde deployment.

Figure 7 — Graph of average daily streamflow (USGS 03115400 – Little Muskingum River at Bloomfield OH) relative to the median streamflow, including the average and normal daily air temperature (NOAA - GHCND: USC00334927) for the sampling season.

Page 35 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table 11 — Exceedances of Ohio Water Quality Standards criteria (OAC 3745-1) for chemical and physical parameters derived from diel monitoring. Sonde water quality monitors recorded hourly readings throughout the deployment (7/28/15-7/30/15). Consequently, exceedances can be presented as both a measure of magnitude and duration. The duration is the count of consecutive hours that exceeded the criteria. The magnitude of an exceedance is presented as the most extreme value measured that exceeds the criteria and is presented in parentheses after the duration. Rolling 24-hour averages were calculated using the hourly readings for comparison against the average D.O. criteria. Applicable water quality criteria include: minimum D.O.a, average D.O.b, maximum temperaturec, pHd and specific conductancee. Station ID RM Location Parameter (D.O. in mg/L, Temp in °C) Little Muskingum River Exceptional Warmwater Habitat C01K49 51.8 Co. Rd. 47 (Foraker Covered Bridge) Temp. max.: (2)29.5 C01K48 42.5 Greenbriar Rd. None 609380 30.2 At Bloomfield, St. Rte. 260 None C01S01 17.2 At Dart, dst. Archers Fork at ford None 609340 5.43 Co. Rd. 9 None Cranenest Fork Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (Recommended) C01L03 4 Cranenest Rd. (Twp. Rd. 357) at ford dst. None Wolfpen Run Rich Fork Warmwater Habitat (Existing) C01K93 0.1 Near mouth, St. Rte. 26 Temp. max.: 5(30.7); 4(30.7) Witten Fork Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (Recommended) 609390 1.1 St. Rte. 800 None Straight Fork Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (Recommended) 204061 3.1 Adj. St. Rte. 26, dst. Adams Hollow None Clear Fork Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (Recommended) 609370 13.7 At Sycamore Valley, St. Rt. 260 None 609360 0.1 Near mouth, St. Rt. 26 None Archers Fork Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (Recommended) C01K64 1.83 Twp. Rd. 604 (Oxbow Rd) near Bowerstock D.O. min.: (2)4.8, (3)4.7, (2)4.8 Cemetery Fifteenmile Creek Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (Recommended) 609410 0.1 At mouth, St. Rt. 26 None Notes: a The General Ohio River basin daily maximum temperature criteria apply; See OAC 3745-1-07, Table 7-14(G). b Applicable minimum 24-hour average D.O. criterion –WWH: 5.0 mg/L; EWH: 6.0 mg/L. c Applicable minimum D.O. criterion –WWH: 4.0 mg/L; EWH: 5.0 mg/L. d The criteria for pH is 6.5-9.0 S.U. e The criteria for specific conductivity is 2400 µS/cm. Physical Habitat Quality for Aquatic Life Little Muskingum River Instream habitat conditions were evaluated at 12 Little Muskingum River locations and were excellent at all sites. The average QHEI score for all Little Muskingum River mainstem sites was 78.2, consistent with excellent overall habitat quality. A typical mainstem reach consisted of long, deep pools with extensive submerged large woody debris, gravel and sand substrates, and short riffle–run complexes with gravel and small cobbles. Water willow was common in shallow river margins providing excellent refuge for minnows and sunfish. The excellent habitat in the Little Muskingum River is the foundation for the existence of a very good to exceptional fish community.

Page 36 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

One mainstem site of note is at RM 9.5 near Cow Run Road (Figure 8). The habitat is defined by long riffle-run complexes and relatively short, deep pools. This reach produced several fish species associated with fast, deep runs and riffles not found at other sites; those species present included the bluebreast darter, river chub and state endangered Ohio lamprey. These infrequent complexes of excellent riffles and runs are likely the source habitat for many numbers of riffle and run species and should be protected.

Little Muskingum River Tributaries The surveyed tributaries to the Little Figure 8 — Little Muskingum River RM 9.5 at Cow Run Rd., summer 2015. Muskingum River generally had excellent habitat, with an average QHEI of 69.5. Some variation among QHEI scores and submetric scores were observed between WWH, CWH, and EWH streams (Table 12).

Table 12 — Mean QHEI and substrate scores for tributaries to the Little Muskingum River, 2015 - 2016. Channel Bank Erosion Aquatic Life Use Substrate Cover Morphology and Riparian Pool Quality Riffle Quality QHEI (n) (mean) (mean) (mean) (mean) (mean) (mean) (mean) EWH (17) 15.4 14.6 15.6 7.8 8.1 4.3 71.5 EWH and CWH (19) 15.6 13.8 15.1 7.7 7.2 3.8 71.8 WWH (8) 13.6 12.1 13.2 6.0 6.5 3.3 70.5 CWH (15) 16.3 11.2 14.3 7.4 5.6 4.2 63.8 Lower QHEI scores in CWH streams is likely due in part to the usage of the exceptional coldwater ALU, but also due to stream size. The fact that the IBI is positively correlated with the QHEI means the usage of the EWH and CWH ALU will bias the average QHEI scores higher to those streams with a higher IBI (the EWH and CWH streams). These smaller streams had less instream cover and poorer pool quality. Being at the head of the stream continuum, there is less opportunity for instream cover such as woody debris to accumulate. This position could also limit the ability for high quality pools (> 0.7 m) to form. Two WWH streams had direct habitat alterations that are likely preventing them from attaining a more protective ALU. Rich Fork downstream of the confluence of Town Run (RM 1.36) had habitat conditions starkly different than the upstream reaches. The biological potential of the lower reach was limited naturally due to the significant presence of bedrock but was further depressed due to the lack of a wooded riparian zone along the stream. Evidence of enrichment was indicated by unproportionally large numbers of stonerollers and bluntnose minnows, as well as decaying filamentous algae, and high water

negatively affecting the stream. Allowing a wide wooded riparian buffer to mature would shade and cool thetemperatures, stream, as well27.7 as˚C, reduce at the time the runoff, of sampling. another These likely findings source indicateof enrichment. that the lack of shading was Indian Run, a small drainage stream, recovering from previous channelization, has exceptional fish and macroinvertebrate communities and could have a coldwater biological community if improvements were

Page 37 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020 implemented. The channelized stream has no wooded riparian zone, a lack of depth and low sinuosity. The stream flows through an agricultural landscape with the wooded riparian zone removed from much of the stream. A wide, mature wooded riparian zone would shade the stream, and combined with the continual recovery from channelization (improved sinuosity) would improve the overall stream quality of Indian Run. Little Indian Run, a tributary to Indian Run is a CWH stream, and would likely be a source of southern redbelly dace and coldwater macroinvertebrate taxa. Biological Quality Fish Community Overview A total of 65,130 fish representing 72 species and eight hybrids were collected from the Little Muskingum River watershed between June and October 2015, and July 2016. The survey effort included 94 sampling events at 71 stations. Sampling locations were evaluated using EWH or WWH biocriteria. Overall, 100 percent of the sites sampled achieved their assigned EWH, WWH or CWH aquatic life use expectations (Table 13). Verified or recommended aquatic life uses should be retained. Relative numbers and species collected per location are presented in Appendix H, and IBI and MIwb scores in Appendix I. The extensive nature of forested cover types in the Little Muskingum River watershed, and the relatively undisturbed system, provides the opportunity for exceptional biological assemblages, at least on par with the reference population. When IBI scores from the Little Muskingum River watershed are compared to WAP reference sites of a comparable size, the mean IBI (37.89 ± 2.77 SE) from the Little Muskingum River watershed average about three points higher than the reference population after adjusting for differences in QHEI scores (Figure 9).

Page 38 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Figure 9 — Scatterplot showing the relationship between the QHEI and the IBI for Western Allegheny Plateau reference sites (grey points) and Little Muskingum River watershed sites (orange points). The solid orange line is the fitted regression line for the Little Muskingum River watershed sites, and the stippled lines are drawn from quantile regression at the 90th, 50th and 10th quantiles from reference sites.

Page 39 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table 13 — Fish community summaries based on pulsed D.C. electrofishing conducted by Ohio EPA in the Little Muskingum River watershed, 2015 – 2016. Note: stream and stream segments designated coldwater were not given a narrative evaluation as these narratives are based on warmwater communities. Station River Fish Relative Avg. Biomass QHEI IBI MIwb Narrative ID Stream Name Mile Species Number (kg) (2015/2016) (2015/2016) (2015/2016) Evaluation ALU C01K50 Little Muskingum River 57.7 28 1,475 4.7 72 56 8.9 Very Good EWH C01K49 Little Muskingum River 51.8 27 1,944 7.1 76.5 52 9.3 Exceptional EWH 303045 Little Muskingum River 48.8 27 1,784 6.5 79.5 56 9.5 Exceptional EWH 609350 Little Muskingum River 47.24 25 948 2.9 82 53/56 8.8/8.9 Very Good EWH C01K48 Little Muskingum River 42.5 30 1,495 6.9 83 54 9.7 Exceptional EWH C01K47 Little Muskingum River 37.5 27 842 5 65.8 54 8.9 Very Good EWH 609380 Little Muskingum River 30.13 30 785 25.5 76.5 51 9.5 Very Good EWH C01K43 Little Muskingum River 25.75 32 716 31.1 78.8/80 48/50 9.5/10.1 Exceptional EWH

C01K41 Little Muskingum River 21.23 34 1,243 17.1 87.8 47 10.6 Very Good EWH C01S01 Little Muskingum River 17.2 33 661 22.1 76.3 48 9.7 Exceptional EWH

C01K40 Little Muskingum River 9.5 37 1,172 28.3 86.5 54 10.5 Exceptional EWH

609340 Little Muskingum River 5.43 38 503 22.9 72 45 10.0 Very Good EWH

303329 Little Eightmile Creek 0.95 10 878 - 56 56 - Exceptional EWH and CWH

204090 Cranenest Fork 12.4 16 2,296 - 70.25 48 - Very Good EWH 609320 Cranenest Fork 10.45 21 928 - 81 50 - Exceptional EWH C01L03 Cranenest Fork 3.97 31 1,396 7.5 86.25 58 9.0 Very Good EWH 303321 Trib. To Cranenest Fork 0.05 13 678 - 78.5 40 - - CWH (11.37) 303320 Laurel Run 0.1 12 830 - 60.5 48 - Very Good- EWH and CWH 303318 Wolfpen Run (Trib to 0.05 12 454 - 62.5 50 - Exceptional EWH and CWH Cranenest Fork) 303319 Willison Run 0.3 18 2,400 - 57 46 - Very Good- EWH and CWH C01K96 Rich Fork 4 19 1,783 - 80 52 - Exceptional EWH and CWH C01K94 Rich Fork 2.7 20 1,177 - 85 58 - Exceptional EWH and CWH C01K93 Rich Fork 0.1 21 2,354 4.1 60.8 46 8.5 Good WWH 204084 Left Prong 0.1 16 1,770 - 68.8 56 - Exceptional - EWH and CWH 609300 Town Fork 0.05 19 1,616 - 76 52 - Exceptional EWH 204086 Brister Fork 0.1 14 1,594 - 68.8 48 - Very Good- EWH and CWH C01L02 Wolfpen Run (Trib to LMR) 0.32 13 1,812 - 61 46 - Very Good EWH and CWH

Page 40 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Station River Fish Relative Avg. Biomass QHEI IBI MIwb Narrative ID Stream Name Mile Species Number (kg) (2015/2016) (2015/2016) (2015/2016) Evaluation ALU 303322 Buhrs Run 0.17 15 656 - 77.5 46 - Very Good EWH and CWH 204074 Witten Fork 9 16 1,388 - 73 46 - Very Good EWH and CWH 609400 Witten Fork 7.82 20 514 - 79 56 - Exceptional EWH and CWH 204072 Witten Fork 6.2 20 956 - 64.5 54 - Exceptional EWH 609390 Witten Fork 1.15 30 714 5 84.75 58 9.3 Very Good EWH C01K91 Woods Run 0.12 14 1,284 - 73.5 52 - Exceptional EWH and CWH 204080 Millers Fork 3.4 19 2,030 - 71.25 54 - Exceptional EWH and CWH 303323 Alum Run 0.17 11 374 - -/51 -/44 - - CWH C01K90 Walnutcamp Run 0.44 25 736 - 75 58 - Exceptional EWH and CWH C01K88 Dismal Creek 1.75 18 1,068 - 81 52 - Exceptional EWH and CWH 204079 Wildcat Run 0.2 16 1,126 - 55.3 56 - Exceptional EWH and CWH 204077 Dogskin Run 0.5 15 1,016 - 59.8 52 - Exceptional EWH and CWH C01K86 Trail Run 0.9 23 1,592 2 69.25 50 - Exceptional EWH and CWH 303324 Little Trail Run 0.75 11 442 - 70.8 54 - Exceptional EWH and CWH C01K83 Biglick Run 0.03 13 530 - -/78 -/48 - Very Good EWH and CWH 303325 Browns Run 0.2 11 228 - 67.3 52 - Exceptional EWH and CWH C01K70 Straight Fork 5.74 15 1,578 - 75.25 56 - Exceptional EWH and CWH 204061 Straight Fork 3.1 23 1,292 - 78.5 50 - Exceptional EWH and CWH C01K68 Oldcamp Run 0.24 20 1,134 - 60 56 - Exceptional EWH and CWH C01K77 Clear Fork 23.3 18 1,296 - 69 48 - Very Good WWH 204066 Clear Fork 20.8 17 926 - 61.3 44 - Good WWH 609370 Clear Fork 13.36 29 3,444 0.1 64.5 48 - Very Good EWH 609360 Clear Fork 0.29 27 1,697 4.9 73.5 48 9.2 Very Good EWH C01K82 Indian Run 0.05 19 1,092 - 52 52 - Exceptional WWH 303326 Little Indian Run 0.3 19 2,722 - 56 50 - Exceptional EWH and CWH C01K80 Rias Run 0.2 15 1,552 - 61.5 50 - Exceptional EWH C01S04 Witten Run 2.34 18 1,494 3.6 75 54 - Exceptional EWH and CWH 204059 Wilson Run 0.3 21 1,906 - 71.8 51 - Exceptional EWH and CWH C01K61 Wingett Run 0.05 17 2,066 0.8 67.75 44 - Good WWH C01K67 Archers Fork 7.4 12 1,004 - 69.5 44 - - CWH C01K66 Archers Fork 4.96 15 474 - 71.75 54 - Exceptional EWH C01K64 Archers Fork 1.83 27 1,889 3.1 85.75 55 - Exceptional EWH 204057 Irish Run 0.7 11 933 - 75 50 - Exceptional EWH and CWH 303328 Hog Run 0.15 10 468 - 55.8 54 - Exceptional EWH and CWH C01K60 Bear Run 0.1 15 682 - 68 50 - Exceptional EWH C01K56 Fifteenmile Creek 3.85 19 1,050 - 82.25 54/48 - Very Good EWH

Page 41 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Station River Fish Relative Avg. Biomass QHEI IBI MIwb Narrative ID Stream Name Mile Species Number (kg) (2015/2016) (2015/2016) (2015/2016) Evaluation ALU 609410 Fifteenmile Creek 0.12 21 908 1.9 71.75 52/46 - Very Good EWH C01K59 Sycamore Fork 0.9 12 1,322 - 52.5 48/50 - Very Good/ EWH and CWH Exceptional 204049 Sycamore Fork 0.1 12 936 - 71.75 48/44 - Very Good/ EWH and CWH Good C01K58 Deans Fork 0.02 12 588 - 64.75 50 - Exceptional EWH and CWH C01K57 Goss Fork 0.1 15 1,090 - 79 54 - Exceptional EWH 303327 Mill Fork 0.6 12 1,248 - 71.3 58 - Exceptional EWH and CWH 303329 Little Eightmile Creek 0.95 10 878 - 56 56 - Exceptional EWH and CWH C01K51 Eightmile Creek 0.1 17 1,488 - 54 56 - Exceptional EWH

Page 42 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

The ordination shown in Figure 10 is from non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS)1 of a distance matrix of assemblage data formed from Bray-Curtis distances. Plot symbols were color-coded based on groups suggested by hierarchical cluster analysis2 of the distance matrix. All analyses were completed using R (R Core Team, 2016). The groups are well clustered in ordination space indicating that the results from the two methods are in agreement. Two dominant environmental gradients are driving the separation of groups, drainage area and stream gradient, further corroborating the exceptional quality of the Little Muskingum River watershed.

Figure 10 — Nonmetric multidimensional scaling show that community groups are well separated in ordination space, indicating environmental significance in the Little Muskingum River watershed in 2000 and the 2015 – 2016 survey. Fitted environmental vectors indicate a strong association with gradient and drainage area.

Group one can generally be classified as small, cold headwater streams, group two are larger headwater streams, group three are larger wading streams, and group four is the Little Muskingum mainstem (Figure 11). The sites in group four were exclusively boat sites, indicating possible sampling gear bias on community composition for cluster analysis. Hierarchical clustering of just the wading methods preserved the initial groupings, indicating possible ecological significance of the initial groupings.

1 R development core team, vegan package 2.4-2 (Oksanen, et al., 2017). 2 hclust function in the R base package {stats}; linkage method = ward.D2

Page 43 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Figure 11 — Fish community groups in the Little Muskingum River watershed based on hierarchical cluster analysis.

Page 44 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Groups one and two are similar, though group one tends to be smaller coldwater streams. Species associations based on indicator species analysis3 suggest the groups are meaningful (Table 14). The two coldwater fish found in the watershed, southern redbelly dace and redside dace, have high specificity and fidelity to group one. Both species are also found in group two, the larger headwater to small wading streams, but not to the same extent. The assemblages from these streams are defined by pioneering species; namely johnny darters, stonerollers and white suckers. The larger sites in group three are of a size with perennial flow and well-developed pools, with brindled madtoms, banded darters, rosyface shiners and sand shiners being good indicators of this group. Several fish species have high fidelity and specificity to the larger mainstem sites in group four. These fish are the freshwater drum, sauger and saugeye, smallmouth redhorse, channel catfish, bigeye chub and channel shiner.

Table 14 — Species associations based on indicator species analysis for the four fish community groups in the Little Muskingum River watershed. Species Group A – Valuea B - Valueb Indicator Value P Southern Redbelly Dace 1 0.790 0.879 0.833 0.001 Western Blacknose Dace 1 0.651 1.000 0.807 0.001 Redside Dace 1 0.429 1.000 0.655 0.001 White Sucker 2 0.469 1.000 0.682 0.001 Johnny Darter 2 0.359 1.000 0.599 0.001 Stoneroller 2 0.299 1.000 0.547 0.001 Brindled Madtom 3 0.793 1.000 0.890 0.001 Banded Darter 3 0.537 1.000 0.733 0.001 Rosyface Shiner 3 0.579 0.750 0.659 0.008 Sand Shiner 3 0.429 1.000 0.655 0.008 Freshwater Drum 4 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.001 Saugeye 4 0.985 1.000 0.993 0.001 Smallmouth Redhorse 4 0.938 1.000 0.969 0.001 Bigeye Chub 4 0.918 1.000 0.958 0.001 Channel Catfish 4 1.000 0.833 0.913 0.001 Sauger 4 1.000 0.833 0.913 0.001 a P(Site Group|Species) The probability that the sampled site belongs to the site group given that the species has been found. The specificity, or positive predictive value, of the species as an indicator of the site group. b P(Species|Site Group) The probability of finding the species in the sites belonging to the group. The fidelity, or sensitivity, of the species as an indicator of the site group. Seventy percent of the species listed in Table 14 are either pollution sensitive or simple lithophilic spawners. Many of these fish are also specialized insectivores. Specialized insectivores and simple lithophils indicate instream habitat consistent with high water quality. The food base of specialized insectivores is sensitive to stream degradation. As the food base becomes less diverse, generalist feeders, such as omnivores, will replace the specialist insectivores. Simple lithophilic spawners require clean gravel or cobble substrates to successfully reproduce, and, as a result, are sensitive to siltation. Given the fish with the highest associations to the four groups in the Little Muskingum River watershed are generally pollution sensitive or simple lithophilic spawners is further proof of the exceptional nature of the watershed. The muskellunge is found in the Little Muskingum River and is listed as a Species of Concern by Ohio DNR Division of Wildlife (Ohio DNR, 2019). Adult specimens were collected throughout the mainstem of the Little Muskingum River up to the confluence with Clear Fork at RM 37.4. Juveniles were collected in some of the tributaries, namely Witten Fork, suggesting that a sustained breeding population resides in the

3 multipatt function from indicspecies R package (De Caceres and Legendre 2009)

Page 45 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

watershed, one of the few naturally sustainable populations in Ohio lentic systems. The muskellunge are large apex predators, meaning adults have no natural predators, and thus exert top- down regulation of the food chain (Becker, 1983) (Figure 12). These fish prefer clear waters with long deep pools, abundant submerged large woody debris, aquatic vegetation and sandy bottoms. This type of habitat is typical in the Little Muskingum River. Two adults and four ammocoetes of the Ohio lamprey, Ichthyomyzon bdellium, were collected during the survey. The two adults were collected from a long, deep riffle on the Little Muskingum River at RM 9.5. Two ammocoetes were found further upstream at RM 48.8 and two more were collected at Witten Fork at RM 1.15. Both sites have a drainage area between 40 and 65 mi2. This parasitic lamprey is an Ohio endangered fish, requiring clear water, with clean-bottomed riffles and runs of sand, detritus and gravel for ammocoete development (Trautman, 1981). Finding both life stages of the Ohio lamprey, during this survey and recent surveys by The Ohio State University, in the Little Figure 12—Muskellunge caught in the Little Muskingum River watershed is indicative of a stable population. Muskingum River in 2008 by local fisherman Brad Stalder. Trends The Little Muskingum River watershed was sampled extensively in 2000, as well at select locations sporadically in the 1980s and 1990s. Community performance, as expressed by the IBI, has remained at a very good to exceptional level, spanning over three decades (Figure 13). Even as community performance has remained very good to exceptional, there is evidence of continued recovery from the watershed’s deforested past. Seventeen species of fish were recorded in the 2015 – 2016 survey that were not observed in the 2000 survey (Table 15). Many of these species were collected in low numbers at only one or two sites, and due to their scarcity, it is plausible that they were present in the watershed in 2000. Big-eye chub were not previously collected (Hybopsis amblops) but were found at eight sites during the most recent survey. These highly intolerant fish were found at all the mainstem sites extending upstream to RM 42, at Greenbriar Rd. Other fish of note not found in previous surveys include bluebreast darter, variegate darter, river chub, and streamline chub. The common carp, a widespread naturalized non-indigenous fish, introduced to U.S. waters in 1831, was not observed in the watershed in the 2015 – 2016 survey. These fish were also uncommon in the 2000 survey, collected at four sites below RM 21. The generally excellent macrohabitat and recovered fish community of the Little Muskingum River may be providing enough competitive pressure that common carp can only persist in densities below detection. Although not yet fully documented, this reduction in common carp through time appears to be an emerging phenomenon in Ohio. The steady and significant reduction of this highly tolerant and exotic species is viewed as a positive trend, an observation supported by Kennard et al. (2005).

Page 46 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Figure 13 — Fish community performance has remained very good - exceptional in the Little Muskingum River watershed for more than three decades.

Table 15 — Fish species with pollution tolerance categories not observed in previous Ohio EPA surveys of the Little Muskingum River watershed. Species Pollution Tolerance Species Pollution Tolerance Bigeye Chub Intolerant Ohio Lamprey Intolerant Black Crappie Moderately Tolerant Quillback Moderately Tolerant Bluebreast Darter Intolerant River Chub Intolerant Bullhead Minnow Moderately Tolerant Streamline Chub Intolerant Channel Shiner Intolerant Suckermouth Minnow Moderately Tolerant Dusky Darter Moderately Intolerant Variegate Darter Intolerant Eastern Sand Darter Intolerant Walleye Moderately Tolerant Fathead Minnow Tolerant Western Mosquitofish Moderately Tolerant Least Brook Lamprey Moderately Tolerant Yellow Perch Moderately Tolerant Macroinvertebrate Community Overview The macroinvertebrate communities from 72 locations in the Little Muskingum River watershed were sampled between June and October 2015, with follow-up sampling at four locations in July 2016. Qualitative multi-habitat composite samples were collected from all sampling locations. Quantitative Hester-Dendy artificial substrate samples were collected from sites with drainage areas that were larger than 20 mi2. A summary of the macroinvertebrate data is presented in Table 16. The macroinvertebrate raw data are presented in Appendix Tables J and K. Data from sampling locations were evaluated using the ICI biological criterion or the narrative equivalent for the current or recommended EWH or WWH aquatic life use. CWH benchmarks were applied when appropriate. Overall, 100 percent of the sites sampled were achieving the applicable biocriterion for macroinvertebrates.

Page 47 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

The extensive nature of forested cover types in the Little Muskingum River watershed, and the relatively undisturbed system provides the opportunity for exceptional macroinvertebrate assemblages. Assemblages were grouped based on compositional similarities forming three clusters distinctly arrayed by gradient. Narratively, these clusters can be described as: 1) large headwater to small wading streams; 2) very small headwaters with high gradients; and 3) Little Muskingum River mainstem and larger wading sites (Figure 14).

Figure 14 — Nonmetric multidimensional scaling show that community groups are well separated in ordination space, indicating environmental significance in the Little Muskingum River watershed the 2015 – 2016 survey. Fitted environmental vectors indicate a strong association with gradient.

The exceptional quality of the Little Muskingum River is further elucidated by the number and distribution of uncommonly collected macroinvertebrate taxa. Forty-four uncommon taxa were collected in the watershed including 26 uncommon EPT taxa (Table 17). The collective presence and abundance of EPT invertebrates in the benthos is generally considered an indicator of high resource quality.

Freshwater mussels were surveyed in the Muskingum River watershed in 1999 by Mike Hoggarth, Ph.D. (Otterbein College) and Dan Rice (Ohio DNR chief zoologist) for a Wayne National Forest study (Hoggarth, 1999). A total of 22 species of mussels were found from 36 stations throughout the Little Muskingum River watershed (Table 18). Two of the mussel species listed by Ohio DNR Division of Wildlife as species of concern (salamander mussel (S. amigua) and the deertoe (T. truncate) and one species is listed as state threatened (threehorn wartyback (O. reflexa)).

Page 48 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table 16 — Summary of macroinvertebrate data collected from artificial substrates (quantitative sampling) and natural substrates (qualitative sampling) in the Southeast Ohio River Tributary study area, June to October 2015. EPT Sensitive Station Stream Dr. Ar. Qual. Ql./ Taxa Density CW Predominant Organisms on the Natural Substrates with Narrative ID RM (sq. mi.) Taxa Total Ql./Total Ql./Qt. Taxa Tolerance Category(ies) ICI Evaluation Little Muskingum River (06-400-000) C01K50 57.80 48.0 56 24 22 H 0 Isonychia mayflies, Chimarra caddisflies - Exceptional C01K49 51.8 62.0 59 22 23 H 0 Chimarra caddisflies, baetid mayflies - Exceptional 303045 48.83 66.75 60 27/28 23/27 H 0 Chimarra caddisflies, hydropsychid caddisflies, Corydalus 48 cornutus fishfly 609350 47.2 70.0 61 22/25 23/29 H 0 Chimarra caddisflies, hydropsychid caddisflies 48 C01K48 42.5 120.0 68 24 21 H 0 Chimarra caddisflies, hydropsychid caddisflies, Corydalus - Exceptional fishfly C01K47 37.5 149.0 60 22 21 H 0 Chimarra caddisflies, midges, heptageniids - Exceptional C01K45 34.64 201.0 66 27 25 H 0 Chimarra caddisflies, hydropsychid caddisflies, Corydalus - Exceptional fishfly 609380 30.2 210.0 65 27/31 24/31 H 0 Chimarra caddisflies, heptageniid mayflies 44ns C01K43 25.75 217.0 70 28 30 H 0 Hydropsychid caddisflies, Chimarra caddisflies - Exceptional C01K41 21.23 230.0 60 24/28 27/29 H 0 Chimarra caddisflies, hydropsychid caddisflies 48 C01S01 17.2 253.0 56 26 27 H 0 Chimarra caddisflies, Corydalus fishfly, heptageniid mayflies - Exceptional C01K40 9.5 287.0 79 32/32 34/38 H 0 Chimarra caddisflies, hydropsychid caddisflies, heptageniid 48 mayflies 609340 5.43 303.0 67 25 25 H 0 Isonychia mayflies, Chimarra caddisflies, hydropsychid - Exceptional caddisflies Cranenest Fork (06-458-000) 204090 12.40 4.4 47 21 19 M 3 Hydropsychid caddisflies - Exceptional 609320 10.45 10.1 66 28 26 H-M 3 Hydropsychid caddisflies, Isonychia mayflies - Exceptional C01L03 3.97 20.1 64 30 31 H 1 Isonychia mayflies, heptageniid mayflies, baetid mayflies, - Exceptional hydropsychid caddisflies Unnamed Trib to Cranenest Fork (11.37) (06-458-004) 303321 0.05 2.2 64 31 35 H-M 9 Optioservis riffle beetles, stoneflies, baetid mayflies - Exceptional Laurel Run (06-458-003) 303320 0.10 1.1 44 25 27 M 7 Stoneflies, Chimarra caddisflies, hydropsychid caddisflies - Exceptional Wolfpen Run (06-458-002) 303318 0.05 1.6 61 26 25 M 9 Baetid mayflies, stoneflies, midges - Exceptional Willison Run (06-458-001) 303319 0.30 1.7 62 23 23 M-L 4 Hydropsychid caddisflies, baetid mayflies, midges - Exceptional

Page 49 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

EPT Sensitive Station Stream Dr. Ar. Qual. Ql./ Taxa Density CW Predominant Organisms on the Natural Substrates with Narrative ID RM (sq. mi.) Taxa Total Ql./Total Ql./Qt. Taxa Tolerance Category(ies) ICI Evaluation Rich Fork (06-451-000) C01K96 4.00 5.2 48 20 15 H-M 2 Hydropsychid caddisflies, water penny beetle larvae - Exceptional C01K94 2.70 10.7 55 19 19 H-M 4 Hydropsychid caddisflies, baetid mayflies, midges - Exceptional C01K93 0.10 22.4 57 21 19 M 1 Hydropsychid caddisflies - Exceptional Left Prong Rich Fork (06-452-000) 204084 0.10 4.0 54 16 17 M 3 Midges, hydropsychid caddisflies - Very Good Town Fork (06-450-000) 609300 0.05 9.6 61 27 23 H 2 Baetid mayflies, hydropsychid caddisflies, heptageniid - Exceptional mayflies Brister Fork (06-453-000) 204086 0.10 2.9 71 31 32 M 7 Leuctra stoneflies, baetid mayflies, midges - Exceptional Wolfpen Run (06-457-000) C01L02 0.32 3.3 60 24 25 M 4 Hydropsychid caddisflies, Leuctra stoneflies, baetid and - Exceptional heptageniid mayflies Buhrs Run (06-456-000) 303322 0.17 2.0 51 24 23 L 7 Leuctra stoneflies, baetid and heptageniid mayflies, - Exceptional hydropsychid caddisflies Witten Fork (06-440-000) 204074 9.20 5.3 72 30 34 H-M 8 Hydropsychid caddisflies, heptageniid mayflies, baetid - Exceptional mayflies 609400 7.82 7.9 55 23 25 H-M 4 Hydropsychid caddisflies, perlid stoneflies - Exceptional 204072 6.20 18.2 55 24 24 H-M 3 Chimarra caddisflies, hydropsychid caddisflies, Isonychia - Exceptional mayflies 609390 1.10 42.0 68 26 23 H 0 Chimarra caddisflies, hydropsychid caddisflies - Exceptional Woods Run (06-448-000) C01K91 0.12 2.0 39 18 19 L 5 Baetid mayflies, heptageniid mayflies - Exceptional Millers Fork (06-447-000) 204080 3.40 3.3 57 21 19 M 6 Hydropsychid caddisflies, Isonychia mayflies, water penny - Exceptional beetle larvae Alum Run (06-446-000) 303323 0.17 1.8 53 22 28 L 7 Stoneflies, riffle beetles, heptageniid mayflies - Exceptional Walnutcamp Run (06-445-000) C01K90 0.44 2.3 57 29 27 M 7 Stoneflies, riffle beetle, baetid mayflies - Exceptional Dismal Creek (06-444-000) C01K88 1.75 5.5 48 26 23 H-M 1 Hydropsychid caddisflies, Isonychia mayflies - Exceptional

Page 50 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

EPT Sensitive Station Stream Dr. Ar. Qual. Ql./ Taxa Density CW Predominant Organisms on the Natural Substrates with Narrative ID RM (sq. mi.) Taxa Total Ql./Total Ql./Qt. Taxa Tolerance Category(ies) ICI Evaluation Wildcat Run (06-443-000) 204079 0.20 1.4 41 20 21 L 4 Leuctra stoneflies, midges, heptageniid mayflies - Exceptional Dogskin Run (06-442-000) 204077 0.50 3.6 48 24 25 M 6 Leuctra stoneflies, baetid mayflies - Exceptional Trail Run (06-441-000) C01K86 0.90 4.4 60 23 22 H 4 Hydropsychid caddisflies, water pennies - Exceptional Little Trail Run (06-441-001) 303324 0.75 2.0 60 20 23 M 4 Midges, blackflies, baetid mayflies, heptageniid mayflies - Exceptional Biglick Run (06-437-000) C01K83 0.03 4.4 51 22 20 M 5 Hydropsychid caddisflies, Leuctra stoneflies - Exceptional Browns Run (06-429-000) 303325 0.20 2.8 48 20 20 L 6 Baetid mayflies, heptageniid mayflies, Leuctra stoneflies - Exceptional Straight Fork (06-428-000) C01K70 5.60 5.8 58 25 25 M 5 Hydropsychid caddisflies, baetid mayflies - Exceptional 204061 3.10 10.2 61 24 23 H 2 Hydropsychid caddisflies, baetid mayflies - Exceptional Oldcamp Run (06-427-000) C01K68 0.30 4.2 63 25 24 H 3 Isonychia mayflies, hydropsychid caddisflies, baetid mayflies - Exceptional Clear Fork (06-430-000) C01K77 23.30 4.2 46 20 16 M-L 1 Hydropsychid caddisflies, baetid mayflies - Exceptional 204066 20.80 9.9 59 20 19 M 2 Baetid mayflies, hydropsychid caddisflies, Corydalus fishflies - Exceptional 609370 13.36 20.3 59 23 18 M 1 Baetid mayflies - Exceptional 609360 0.29 48.8 55 19 18 M 0 Hydropsychid caddisflies - Exceptional Indian Run (06-433-000) C01K82 0.05 5.8 56 21 20 H 3 Hydropsychid caddisflies, perlid stoneflies, baetid mayflies - Exceptional Little Indian Run (06-433-001) 303326 0.30 2.0 62 23 20 M 4 Baetid and heptageniid mayflies, hydropsychid caddisflies, - Exceptional midges Rias Run (06-432-000) C01K80 0.20 2.3 65 32 20 M 5 Leuctra stoneflies, hydropsychid caddisflies, baetid and - Exceptional heptageniid mayflies Witten Run (06-431-000) C01S04 2.34 7.8 50 17 16 H 4 Chimarra caddisflies, hydropsychid caddisflies - Very Good Wilson Run (204059) adj. Wilson Run Rd (Twp. Rd. 136) 204059 0.30 3.4 59 26 25 M 6 Baetid mayflies, hydropsychid caddisflies, Leuctra stoneflies - Exceptional Wingett Run (06-416-000) C01K61 0.05 5.3 50 22 18 H 5 Hydropsychid caddisflies, baetid mayflies - Exceptional

Page 51 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

EPT Sensitive Station Stream Dr. Ar. Qual. Ql./ Taxa Density CW Predominant Organisms on the Natural Substrates with Narrative ID RM (sq. mi.) Taxa Total Ql./Total Ql./Qt. Taxa Tolerance Category(ies) ICI Evaluation Archers Fork (06-420-000) C01K67 7.40 5.8 40 20 20 H 4 Hydropsychid caddisflies, baetid mayflies, heptageniid - Exceptional mayflies C01K66 4.96 9.3 57 22 20 M 3 Hydropsychid caddisflies, Isonychia mayflies, baetid mayflies - Exceptional C01K64 1.83 16.0 48 18 14 L 0 Hydropsychid caddisflies, Chimarra caddisflies - Very Good Irish Run (06-425-000) 204057 0.70 3.3 62 25 26 H 7 Hydropsychid caddisflies, baetid mayflies, heptageniid - Exceptional mayflies Hog Run (06-415-000) 303328 0.15 0.8 55 24 24 M-L 6 Mayflies, caddisflies, stoneflies - Exceptional Bear Run (06-414-000) C01K60 0.10 3.9 45 22 21 H 3 Leuctra stoneflies, baetid mayflies - Exceptional Fifteenmile Creek (06-410-000) C01K56 3.80 11.0 27 11 7 L 1 Heptageniid mayflies, hydropsychid caddisflies - Marginally Good 609410 0.10 20.5 46 16/18 16/15 H 1 Midges, Chimarra caddisflies 38 Sycamore Fork (06-413-000) 204049 0.90 2.9 69 25 23 H 2 Hydropsychid caddisflies, Isonychia mayflies - Exceptional C01K59 0.10 4.5 34 17 14 L 2 Baetid mayflies, midges - Very Good Deans Fork (06-412-000) C01K58 0.02 2.2 54 19 21 H-M 5 Hydropsychid caddisflies, baetid mayflies - Exceptional Goss Fork (06-411-000) C01K57 0.10 4.0 53 23 21 H 2 Baetid mayflies, hydropsychid caddisflies - Exceptional Mill Fork (303327) 303327 0.60 2.0 58 27 29 M 8 Baetid and heptageniid mayflies, hydropsychid and Chimarra - Exceptional caddisflies, Leuctra stoneflies Moss Run (06-408-000) C01K52 0.10 4.6 55 19 18 H-M 4 Baetid mayflies, hydropsychid caddisflies - Exceptional Little Eightmile Creek (06-400-001) 303329 0.95 1.5 51 22 24 M-L 7 Leuctra stoneflies, baetid and heptageniid mayflies, - Exceptional hydropsychid caddisflies Eightmile Creek (06-405-000) C01K51 0.10 5.8 57 19 18 H 3 Baetid mayflies - Exceptional Ql.: Qualitative sample collected from the natural substrates. Sensitive Taxa: Taxa listed on the Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxa List as MI (moderately intolerant) or I (intolerant). Qt.: Quantitative sample collected on Hester-Dendy artificial substrates, density is expressed in organisms per square foot. Qualitative sample relative density: L = Low; M = Moderate; H = High.

Page 52 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

CW: Cold Water. Tolerance Categories: VT = Very Tolerant; T = Tolerant; MT = Moderately Tolerant; F = Facultative; MI = Moderately Intolerant; I = Intolerant ICI values in parentheses are invalidated due to insufficient current speed over the artificial substrates or by disturbance. The station evaluation at these sites is based on the qualitative sample narrative evaluation.

Page 53 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table 17 — Uncommonly collected sensitive macroinvertebrate taxa and all freshwater mussel locations in the Little Muskingum River watershed, 2015 – 2016. Taxa Collection Location by River Mile Mayflies Acentrella nadineae Brister Fk 0.10; Wilson Run 0.30 Acentrella parvula L. Muskingum R. 30.13, 21.23, 9.5 Acentrella turbida Biglick Run 0.03; Brister Fk 0.10; Browns Run 0.20; Buhrs Run 0.17; Dogskin Run 0.50; Eightmile Ck 0.10; Hog Run 0.15; L. Eightmile Cr 0.95; L. Indian Run 0.30; L. Trail Run 0.75; Mill Fk 0.60; Rias Run 0.20; Sycamore Fk 0.10; Town Fk 0.05; Trib. to Cranenest Fk (7.27) 0.05; Walnutcamp Run 0.44; Wildcat Run 0.2; Wilson Run 0.3; Wolfpen Run 0.32, 0.05 Anafroptilum minor group sp Archers Fk 4.96; Bear Run 0.10; Clear Fk 0.29; Cranenest Fk 10.45; Dismal Cr. 1.75; Fifteenmile Cr. 3.85; Goss Fk 0.10; L. Muskingum R. 1 57.70, 51.80, 48.80, 42.50, 37.50, 34.64, 30.13, 25.75, 21.23, 17.20, 9.50; Millers Fk 3.40; Moss Run 0.07; Rias Run 0.20; Rich Fk 4.0; Sycamore Fk 0.90, 0.10;; Walnutcamp Run 0.44; Wingett Run 0.05; Witten Fk 9.0, 6.20; Woods Run 0.12 Plauditus dubius Mill Fk 0.60; Rias Run 0.20; Straight Fk 5.74; Town Fk 0.05; Willis Run 0.30 Plauditus virlis Rias Run 0.20; Willison Run 0.30; Wolfpen Run 0.32, 0.05 Choroterpes basalis Alum Run 0.17; Archers Fk 4.96; Biglick Run 0.03; Brister Fk 0.10; Browns Run 0.20; Cranenest Fk 10.45; Dogskin Run 0.50; Eightmile Cr. 0.10; Goss Fk 0.10; Hog Run 0.15; Laurel Run 0.10; Left Prong Rich Fk 0.10; L. Eightmile Cr. 0.95; L. Trail Run 0.75; Mill Fk 0.60; Moss Run 0.07; Oldcamp Run 0.24; Oldtown Cr. 4.00; Rias Run 0.20; Rich Fk 2.70; Straight Fk 5.74; Sycamore Fk 0.90; Trib. to Cranenest Fk (RM 7.27) 0.05; Walnutcamp Run 0.44; Wildcat Run 0.20; Wilson Run 0.30; Witten Fk 9.00; Witten Run 2.34; Woods Run 0.12 Habrophlebiodes sp. Alum Run 0.17; Cranenest Fk 12.40; Trib. to Cranenest Fk (RM 7.27) 0.05; Walnutcamp Run 0.44 Sparbarus lacustris L. Muskingum R. 48.80, 30.13, 25.75 Baetisca sp. Archers Fk 4.96, 1.83; Clear Fk 0.29; Cranenest Fk 10.45, 3.97; Dismal Cr. 1.75; Fifteenmile Cr. 3.85, 0.12; Irish Run 0.70; L. Muskingum R. 57.70, 51.80, 48.80, 47.24, 42.50, 37.50, 34.64, 30.13, 25.75, 21.23, 17.20, 9.50, 5.43; Oldcamp Run 0.42; Witten Fork 9.0, 7.82, 6.2, 1.15 Ephemera blanda Brister Fk 0.10; Rias Run 0.20 Ephemera varia Browns Run 0.20; Buhrs Run 0.17; Dogskin Run 0.50; Rias Run 0.20; Walnutcamp Run 0.44; Wildcat Run 0.20; Willison Run 0.30; Wolfpen Run 0.32 Dragonflies Boyeria grafiana Archers Fk 7.40; Brister Fk 0.10; Buhrs Run 0.17; Cranenest Fk 10.45; Dogskin Run 0.50; Irish Run 0.70; Laurel Run 0.10; Trib. to Cranenest Fk (7.27) 0.05; Walnutcamp Run 0.44, Witten Fk 9.0 Stoneflies Sweltsa sp Archers Fk 7.40; Brister Fk 0.10; Buhrs Run 0.17; Irish Run 0.70; Mill Fk 0.60; Millers Fk 3.40; Oldcamp Run 0.24; Rias Run 0.20; Sycamore Fk 0.10; Trail Run 0.90; Walnutcamp Run 0.44; Wildcat Run 0.20; Willison Run 0.30; Wilson Run 0.30; Witten Fk 9.00, 7.82; Witten Run 2.34; Wolfpen Run 0.32 Acroneuria carolinensis Alum Run 0.17; Archers Fk 7.40, 4.96, 1.83; Brister Fk 0.10; Browns Run 0.20; Buhrs Run 0.17; Dismal Cr. 1.75; Fifteenmile Cr. 3.85, 0.12; Hog Run 0.15; Irish Run 0.70; L. Eightmile Cr. 0.95; L. Muskingum R. 48.80; Laurel Run 0.10; Mill Fk 0.60; Sycamore Fk 0.10; Town Fk 0.05; Trib. to Cranenest Fk (RM 7.27) 0.05; Walnutcamp Run 0.44; Wildcat Run 0.20; Wingett Run 0.05; Witten Fk 7.82; Witten Run 2.34; Wolfpen Run 0.05; Woods Run 0.12 Neoperla sp Mill Fk 0.60; Straight Fk 3.10

Page 54 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Taxa Collection Location by River Mile Fishflies Nigronia fasciata Buhrs Run 0.17; Deans Fk 0.02; Eightmile Cr. 0.10; Hog Run 0.15; L. Eightmile Cr. 0.95; Mill Fk 0.60; Moss Run 0.07; Trib. to Cranenest Fk (RM 7.27) 0.05; Wildcat Run 0.20; Wingett Run 0.05; Witten Run 6.2; Wolfpen Run 0.32, 0.05 Caddisflies Dolophilodes distinctus Alum Run 0.17; Archers Fk 7.40; Bear Run 0.10; Biglick Run 0.03; Brister Fk 0.10; Browns Run 0.20; Buhrs Run 0.17; L. Eightmile Cr. 0.95; Laurel Run 0.10; Mill Fk 0.60; Wolfpen Run 0.05 Wormaldia moesta Cranenest Fk 12.40; Buhrs Run 0.17; Wilson Run 0.30 Psychomyia flavida Cranenest Fk 3.97; Dismal Cr. 1.75; Irish Run 0.70; L. Muskingum R. 30.13, 25.75, 21.23, 17.20, 9.50; Trib. to Cranenest Fk (RM 7.27) 0.05; Witten Fk 9.00, 7.82, 6.2; Wolfpen Run 0.32 Rhyacophila carolina Laurel Run 0.10 Glossosoma sp Laurel Run 0.10; Wolfpen Run 0.05 Ochrotrichia sp L. Muskingum R. 34.6 Ceraclea ancylus Clear Fk 20.80, 13.36; Cranenest Fk 3.97; Fifteenmile Cr. 0.12; L. Muskingum R. 57.70, 48.80, 47.24, 42.50, 34.64, 30.13, 25.75, 21.23, 17.20; Rich Fk 0.10; Witten Fk 1.15 Ceraclea flava or C. neffi L. Muskingum R. 47.24, 42.50, 17.20, 9.50, 5.43 Triaenodes ignitus Archers Fk 1.83; Clear Fk 23.30; Fifteenmile Cr. 3.85, 0.12; Goss Fk 0.10; Kingsbury Cr. 2.08; L. Muskingum R. 48.80, 25.75, 21.23; Moss Run 0.07; Town Fk 0.05; Witten Run 2.34 Triaenodes injustus Clear Fk 0.29; Fifteenmile Cr. 0.12; L. Muskingum R. 42.50, 37.50, 34.64, 30.13, 25.75, 21.23, 17.20, 9.50, 5.43; Witten Fk 1.15 Triaenodes melaca Archers Fk 1.83; Brister Fk 0.10; Clear Fk 23.30, 20.80, Cranenest Fk 3.97; Dismal Cr. 1.75; Dogskin Run 0.50; Goss Fk 0.10; Irish Run 0.70; L. Eightmile Cr. 0.95; L. Indian Run 0.30; L. Muskingum R. 57.70, 51.80, 48.80, 9.50; L. Trail Run 0.75; Mill Fk 0.60; Rich Fk 4.00, 2.70, 0.10; Straight Fk 5.74, 3.10; Town Fk 0.05; Trib. to Cranenest Fk (RM 7.27) 0.05; Willison Run 0.30; Witten Fk 9.00, 1.15 Moths Parapoynx sp L. Muskingum 25.75, 21.23, 17.20, 9.50, 5.43 Beetles Optioservus ampliatus Alum Run 0.17; Archers Fk 7.4, 4.96, 1.83; Brister Fk 0.10; Browns Run 0.20; Buhrs Run 0.17; Clear Fk 20.80; Cranenest Fk 12.4, 10.45, 3.97; Dismal Cr. 1.75; Dogskin Run 0.50; Goss Fk 0.10; Hog Run 0.15; Indian Run 0.05; Irish Run 0.70; L. Muskingum R. 57.7, 51.80, 47.24, 42.50, 34.64, 30.13, 21.23, 9.50; Laurel Run 0.10; Left Prong Rich Fk 0.10; L. Indian Run 0.30; L. Trail Run 0.75; Mill Fk 0.60; Millers Fk 3.40; Moss Run 0.07; Oldcamp Run 0.24; Rich Fk 4.00; Straight Fk 5.74; Straight Fk 3.10; Sycamore Fk 0.90; Town Fk 0.05; Trail Run 0.90; Trib. to Cranenest Fk (RM 7.27) 0.05; Walnutcamp Run 0.44; Wildcat Run 0.20; Willison Run 0.30; Wilson Run 0.30; Witten Fk 9.0, 7.82; Witten Run 2.34; Wolfpen Run 0.32, 0.05; Woods Run 0.12 Optioservus trivittatus Bear Run 0.10 Diptera Dicranota sp Alum Run 0.17; Browns Run 0.20; Dogskin Run 0.50; Irish Run 0.70; Laurel Run 0.10; L. Eightmile Cr. 0.95; L. Trail Run 0.75; Mill Fk 0.60; Millers Fk 3.40; Straight Fk 5.74; Trail Run 0.90; Trib. to Cranenest Fk (RM 7.27) 0.05; Witten Fk 9.00; Woods Run 0.12 Limnophila sp Rich Fk 4.0 Pseudolimnophila sp Alum Run 0.17; Biglick Run 0.03; Bowman Run 0.42; Browns Run 0.20; Deans Fk 0.02; Dismal Cr. 1.75; Hog Run 0.15; Irish Run 0.70; L. Eightmile Cr. 0.95; L. Trail Run 0.75; Long Run 1.40; Millers Fk 3.40; Sycamore Fk 0.90; Trib. to Cranenest Fk (RM 7.27) 0.05; Wildcat Run 0.20; Witten Fk 9.00; Wolfpen Run 0.32

Page 55 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Taxa Collection Location by River Mile Cladotanytarsus vanderwulpi L. Muskingum R. 9.50 group sp 4 Demicryptochironomus sp Cranenest Fk 12.40; 10.45; L. Trail Run 0.75; Mill Fk 0.60; Wolfpen Run 0.05 Nanocladius Clear Fork 0.29; L. Muskingum R. 30.13, 25.75, 9.50 (Plecopteracoluthus) downesi Neozavrelia sp 1 Hog Run 0.15 Orthocladius Alum Run 0.17 (Symposiocladius) lignicola Parachaetocladius sp L. Eightmile Cr 0.95 Parachironomus L. Muskingum R. 42.50; Shade R. 11.64 pectinatellae Parakiefferiella n.sp 5 Willison Run 0.30 Trissopelopia ogemawi Alum Run 0.17; Trib. to Cranenest Fk (RM 7.27) 0.05; Straight Fk 5.74 Xylotopus par Moss Run 0.07; Wolfpen Run 0.32 Freshwater Mussels Amblema plicata plicata L. Muskingum R. 51.80, 47.24 Fusconaia flava L. Muskingum R. 47.24 Lampsilis cardium L. Muskingum R. 37.5

Table 18—Freshwater mussel species found in the Little Muskingum River watershed during the 1999 mussel survey conducted by Mike Hoggarth and Dan Rice. Mussel Species Common Name Collection Location by River Mile Alasmidonta viridis slippershell mussel Clear Fork (0.3)

Amblema plicata threeridge Little Muskingum River (49.1, 37.5, 24.9, 16.9, 14.4, 8, 6.2, 5.7, 3.6) Anodontoides cylindrical Cranenest Fork (3.4), Little Muskingum River (59.3, 54.2, 53.87, 49.1, 42.5, 34.2, 22.2, 16.8), Clear Fork (0.3), Witten ferussacianus papershell Fork (1.7) Elliptio dilatata spike Little Muskingum River (24.9) Cranenest Fork (0.45), Little Muskingum River (59.3, 54.2, 53.87, 51.3, 49.1, 46.2, 37.5, 34.2, 30, 27.7, 26.4, 24.9, 22.2, Fusconaia flava wabash pigtoe 20.8, 18.9, 16.8, 14.4, 8.0, 6.9, 6.2, 5.7), Witten Fork (1.7), Clear Fork (0.3) Cranenest Fork (6.8, 3.4, 0.45), Little Muskingum River (60.3, 59.3, 57, 54.2, 53.87, 51.3, 49.1, 46.2, 42.5. 37.5, 34.2, Lampsilis radiata 30, 27.7, 26.4, 24.9, 22.2, 20.8, 18.9, 17.4, 16.8, 14.4, 11.9, 8.0, 6.9, 6.2, 5.7, 3.6), Witten Fork (1.7), Clear Fork (3.3. luteola fatmucket 0.3)

Page 56 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Cranenest Fork (3.4, 0.45), Little Muskingum River (59.3, 57, 54.2, 53.87, 51.3, 49.1, 46.2, 42.5. 37.5, 34.2, 30, 27.7, Lampsilis cardium plain pocketbook 26.4, 24.9, 22.2, 20.8, 18.9,16.8, 14.4, 11.9, 8.0, 6.9, 6.2, 5.7, 3.6), Witten Fork (1.7), Clear Fork (0.3) Lasmigona complanata white heelsplitter Little Muskingum River (49.1, 46.2, 34.2, 30, 24.9, 18.9, 16.8, 11.9, 9.2, 8.0, 5.7, 3.6) Lasmigona compressa creek heelsplitter Little Muskingum River (60.3, 59.3, 57, 51.3, 49.1, 46.2,42.5, 37.5, 27.7, 24.9, 22.2, 11.9, 5.7) Little Muskingum River (54.2, 53.87, 49.1, 46.2, 42.5, 37.5, 34.2, 30, 27.7, 26.4, 24.9, 22.2, 18.9, 16.8, 14.4, 11.9, 8.0, Lasmigona costata fluted-shell 6.2, 5.7, 3.6) Clear Fork (0.3) Little Muskingum River (54.2, 53.87, 49.1, 46.2, 42.5, 37.5, 34.2, 30, 27.7, 26.4, 24.9, 20.8, 22.2, 18.9, 16.8, 14.4, 11.9, Leptodea fragilis fragile papershell 9.2, 8.0, 6.9, 6.2, 5.7, 3.6) Clear Fork (0.3) threehorn Obliquaria reflexa wartyback Little Muskingum River (6.9, 5.7) Obovaria subrotunda hickorynut Little Muskingum River (37.5, 34.2, 30, 27.2, 26.4, 24.9, 22.2, 20.8, 18.9, 16.8, 14.4, 11.9, 9.2, 8.0, 6.9, 6.2, 5.7) Pleurobema sintoxia round pigtoe Little Muskingum River (53.87, 49.1, 42.5, 37.5, 22.2, 18.9, 16.8, 14.4, 11.9, 8.0) Cranenest Fork (0.45), Little Muskingum River (54.2, 53.87, 49.1, 46.2, 42.5, 37.5, 34.2, 30, 27.7, 26.4, 24.9, 22.2, 18.9, Potamilus alatus pink heelsplitter 16.8, 14.4, 11.9, 9.2, 8.0, 6.9, 6.2, 5.7, 3.6), Clear Fork (0.3) Potamilus ohiensis pink papershell Little Muskingum River (34.2, 16,8, 14.4, 11.9, 8.0, 6.9, 6.2) Cranenest Fork (3.4), Little Muskingum River (53.87, 49.1, 42.5, 37.5, 34.2, 27.7, 26.4, 24.9, 22.2, 16.8, 14.4. 11.9, 9.2, Pyganodon grandis common floater 8.0, 6.2, 5.7), Clear Fork (3.3, 0.3), Witten Fork (1.7) Quadrula quadrula mapleleaf Little Muskingum River (30, 27.7, 24.9, 16.8, 8, 6.9, 6.2) Simpsonaias ambigua salamander mussel Little Muskingum River (18.9, 11.9, 9.2. 8.0) Little Muskingum River (60.3, 59.3, 57.0, 54.2, 53.87, 49.1, 46.2, 42.5, 37.5, 34.2, 30.0, 27.7, 26.4, 24.9, 22.2, 16.8, Strophitus undulatus squawfoot 11.9, 5.7), Cranenest Fork (11.3, 6.8, 3.97, 3.4), Witten Fork ( 1.7), Clear Fork (3.3, 0.3) Tritogonia verrucosa pistolgrip Little Muskingum River (37.5, 34.2, 30, 27.7, 26.4, 24.9, 20.8, 16.8, 14.4, 11.9, 8.0,6.9, 5.7) Truncilla truncata deertoe Little Muskingum River (8)

Page 57 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

One site of note on Little Muskingum River is at Cow Run Rd. (RM 9.5), where the highest numbers of total taxa, EPT taxa and pollution sensitive taxa were collected (Table 16, Figure 15). The habitat was better developed than the other mainstem sites. There were multiple riffle-run- pool complexes with large cobble riffles and abundant instream substrate; a more typical reach on the Little Muskingum River is that of short riffles and runs followed by long-deep pools. This site was also notable for its diverse fish assemblage. The more diverse habitat and flows Figure 15 — The Little Muskingum River at Cow Run Rd. (RM 9.5). are likely boosting the available habitat providing a more diverse aquatic fauna. Three small streams were exceptional based on the numbers of EPT and pollution-sensitive taxa collected for streams of similar size in the watershed. Rias Run, Brister Fork and unnamed tributary to Cranenest Fork (RM 11.37) housed more than 30 EPT and 30 sensitive taxa, where the average number of taxa ranged in the low 20s (Figure 16). Given their small size, these streams were well developed with large, unembedded substrates and moderate to extensive instream habitat features. This along with wide riparian areas and strong ground water influences are likely major contributors to these exceptional communities.

Trends In line with the fish trend analysis, the macroinvertebrate community of the Little Muskingum River watershed was examined based on extensive sampling in 2000, and intermittent sampling in the 1980s and 1990s. The entirety of the Little Muskingum River mainstem is meeting EWH expectations for qualitative EPT and pollution-sensitive taxa; this is an improvement over the 2000 survey, which was barely meeting WWH expectations (Figure 16). This trend persisted throughout the watershed (Figure 17). The continual maturation of the Wayne National Forest likely factored into improvements documented throughout the watershed.

Page 58 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Figure 16 — Longitudinal trend of the number of EPT and pollution-sensitive taxa in the qualitative samples in the Little Muskingum River 2000 – 2016.

Figure 17 — EPT taxa numbers have improved across drainage ranges between 2000 and 2015 in the Little Muskingum watershed. There is a weak positive association between number of EPT taxa and drainage area. Gray-shaded regions are 95 percent confidence intervals. The three circled sites were exceptional in numbers of EPT and pollution-sensitive taxa collected for their size.

Page 59 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Coldwater Streams Thirty-four streams or segments of streams in the Little Muskingum watershed support coldwater biological communities. The drainage area of these streams ranged from 0.8 to 10.7 mi2 with an average drainage area of 3.74 mi2. Three of these streams or segments have been recommended the CWH ALU and 31 have been recommended both EWH and CWH. The average number of coldwater macroinvertebrate taxa in these streams was five with a maximum of nine taxa. Two coldwater fish taxa were collected in the watershed, including the southern redbelly dace and the redside dace. Wolfpen Run (tributary to Cranesnest Fork) and Walnutcamp Run did not have any coldwater fish but Walnutcamp Run had seven coldwater macroinvertebrate taxa and Wolfpen Run had nine coldwater macroinvertebrate taxa. The percent total of coldwater fish at the rest of these sites was up to 27.8% with an average of 6.2% (Table 19) To gauge headwater stream thermal regimes during the summer months, temperature data loggers were deployed from June 2 – Oct. 15, 2015, at 22 headwater sites in the Little Muskingum River watershed. These loggers—HOBO® U22-001 or UA-002-64—recorded water temperature at 30-minute intervals over the four-month period (see Appendix F). Equipment was deployed in pools of sufficient depth to remain submerged during low-flow conditions. To obtain accurate measurements, the loggers were shielded from potential solar radiation and sedimentation and were locked to fixed stream structures (trees). Fifteen of the 22 streams where temperature data was recorded were recommended CWH or EWH and CWH ALU. During July, the hottest month of the 2015 season, the mean temperature for all coldwater streams was 20.14 °C (Figure 18). These streams support a higher proportion of coldwater fish and numbers of macroinvertebrate taxa than non-coldwater streams of a similar size in the Little Muskingum River watershed (Table 19).

Figure 18 — Monthly average temperatures at 15 of the sites being recommended the CWH or EWH and CWH ALU were highest in July at 20.14 °C.

Page 60 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table 19 — Temperature and coldwater taxa summary of CWH-recommended streams, Little Muskingum River watershed, 2015. July Water Coldwater Percent Percent Temperature Macro- Southern Percent Total °C invertebrate Redbelly Redside Coldwater Stream RM Aquatic Life Use Mean (SD) Taxa Dace Dace Fish Trib. to Cranenest 0.05 CWH - 9 13.9% 0.0% 13.9% Fork (11.37) Laurel Run 0.1 EWH and CWH - 7 8.7% 0.0% 8.7% Wolfpen Run (Trib 0.05 EWH and CWH - 9 0% 0.0% 0% Cranenest Fork) Wolfpen Run (Trib to 0.32 EWH and CWH - 4 6.5% 0.0% 6.5% LMR) Willison Run 0.3 EWH and CWH - 4 0.25% 0.0% 0.25% Buhrs Run 0.17 EWH and CWH - 7 2.7% 0.3% 3.0% Brister Fork 0.1 EWH and CWH 18.5 (1.06) 7 14.8% 0.0% 14.8% Left Prong Rich Fork 0.1 EWH and CWH - 3 3.2% 0.0% 3.2% Rich Fork 4 EWH and CWH 19.7 (2.07) 2 2.2% 0.0% 2.2% Rich Fork 2.7 EWH and CWH 20.3 (2.38) 4 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% Woods Run 0.12 EWH and CWH - 5 7.0% 7.3% 14.3% Millers Fork 3.4 EWH and CWH 20.5 (1.78) 6 7.0% 6.3% 13.3% Alum Run 0.17 CWH - 7 7.1% 1.9% 9.0% Walnutcamp Run 0.44 EWH and CWH - 7 0% 0% 0% Dismal Creek 1.75 EWH and CWH 19.5 (2.18) 6 5.8% 8.2% 14.0% Wildcat Run 0.2 EWH and CWH - 4 3.4% 0.5% 3.9% Dogskin Run 0.5 EWH and CWH 20.1 (1.90) 6 5.9% 3.0% 8.9% Little Trail Run 0.75 EWH and CWH 20.8 (2.03) 4 13.1% 5.43% 18.5% Trail Run 0.9 EWH and CWH 21.3 (2.24) 4 0.0% 4.2% 4.2% Witten Fork 9 EWH and CWH 19.3 (1.45) 8 22.5% 12.25% 34.7% Witten Fork 7.82 EWH and CWH - 4 0.7% 2.1% 2.75% Biglick Run 0.03 EWH and CWH - 5 0.9% 3.2% 4.1% Little Indian Run 0.3 EWH and CWH - 4 18.2% 0.0% 18.2% Witten Run 2.34 EWH and CWH 20.9 (2.20) 4 1.0% 0.5% 1.5% Browns Run 0.2 EWH and CWH - 6 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% Straight Fork 5.74 EWH and CWH 19.6 (2.29) 5 9.1% 9.1% 18.2% Straight Fork 3.1 EWH and CWH 20.5 (2.53) 2 2.63% 1.55% 4.18% Oldcamp Run 0.24 EWH and CWH 19.9 (1.59) 4 5.8% 11.6% 17.5% Wilson Run 0.3 EWH and CWH - 6 0.33% 0.38% 0.71% Irish Run 0.7 EWH and CWH 19.9 (1.58) 7 26.3% 0.0% 26.3% Archers Fork 7.4 CWH 20.1 (1.82) 4 14.7% 0.0% 14.7% Hog Run 0.15 EWH and CWH - 6 19.5% 0.0% 19.5% Sycamore Fork 0.9 EWH and CWH - 2 12.3% 0.0% 12.3% Sycamore Fork 0.1 EWH and CWH - 2 10.2% 0.0% 10.2% Deans Fork 0.02 EWH and CWH - 5 2.04% 0.0% 2.04% Mill Fork 0.6 EWH and CWH 20.7 (1.12) 8 15.5% 0.0% 15.5% Little Eightmile Creek 0.95 EWH and CWH - 7 16.0% 0.23% 16.2% A number of these streams also contained exceptional fish and macroinvertebrate communities, as expressed by the IBI and ICI, and good to excellent habitat. As such, these 31 streams or stream segments were recommended the dual EWH and CWH aquatic life use. Many of these headwater streams had strong interstitial flow with deep (> 1 m) pools. Many of these pools were cold with abundant large woody debris and root wads, providing excellent refugia for fish during summer low flows. Generally, the streams were well protected from direct solar radiation by mature riparian shading, an important factor in keeping

Page 61 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

streams cool, and preventing large fluctuations in water temperature. Maintaining the exceptional quality of these coldwater and other headwater streams is critical in protecting the downstream use of the Little Muskingum River (Alexander, Elizabeth, Richard, Gregory, & Richard, 2007). Fish Tissue Contamination Ohio has been sampling streams annually for sport fish contamination since 1993. Fish are analyzed for contaminants that bioaccumulate in fish and that could pose a threat to human health if consumed in excessive amounts. Contaminants analyzed in Ohio sport fish include mercury, PCBs, DDT, mirex, hexachlorobenzene, lead, selenium and several other metals and pesticides. Other contaminants are sometimes analyzed if indicated by site-specific current or historic sources. For more information about the chemicals analyzed, how fish are collected, or the history of the fish contaminant program, see State Of Ohio Cooperative Fish Tissue Monitoring Program Sport Fish Tissue Consumption Advisory Program, Ohio EPA, January 2010 (epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/fishadvisory/FishAdvisoryProcedure10.pdf). Fish contaminant data are primarily used for three purposes: 1) to determine fish advisories; 2) to determine attainment with the water quality standards; and 3) to examine trends in fish contaminants over time. Fish Advisories Fish contaminant data are used to determine a meal frequency that is safe for people to consume (for example, two meals a week, one meal a month, do not eat), and a fish advisory is issued for applicable species and locations. Because mercury mostly comes from nonpoint sources, primarily aerial deposition, Ohio has had a statewide one meal a week advisory for most fish since 2001. Most fish are assumed to be safe to eat once a week unless specified otherwise in the fish advisory, which can be viewed at epa.ohio.gov/dsw/fishadvisory/index.aspx. Prior to the 2015 sampling, the Little Muskingum River had consumption advisories in place for two species, both at the one meal per month level: freshwater drum (for mercury and PCBs) and spotted bass (for mercury). The minimum data requirement for issuing a new fish advisory is three samples of a single species from within the past 10 years. For the Little Muskingum river, four species met this requirement: channel catfish, freshwater drum, rock bass and smallmouth bass. The only change in advisory as a result of this data was for smallmouth bass, which had a one meal per month advisory posted due to mercury. The existing freshwater drum and spotted bass advisories remain in effect. For all other species, the statewide advisories apply, which are: two meals a week for sunfish (for example, bluegill) and yellow perch; one meal a week for most other fish; and one meal a month for flathead catfish 23” and over, and northern pike 23” and over. Fish Tissue/Human Health Use Attainment In addition to determining safe meal frequencies, fish contaminant data are also used to determine attainment with the human health water quality criteria pursuant to OAC Rules 3745-1-33 and 3745-1-34. The human health water quality criteria are then translated into fish tissue concentrations in mg/kg. presented in water column concentrations of μg/L and are [For details of this conversion, see Ohio’s 2016 Integrated Report, Section E (epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/tmdl/2016intreport/SectionE.pdf).]

Page 62 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

To be considered in attainment of the water quality standards, the sport fish caught within a HUC12 watershed must have a weighted average concentration of the geometric means for all species below 1 mg/kg for mercury and below 0.054 mg/kg for PCBs within the Ohio River basin. Within the Little Muskingum River study area, fish tissue data were adequate to determine attainment status for both watershed assessment units (WAUs) that were sampled. At least two samples from each trophic level, 3 and 4, were needed for each WAU. Prior to the 2015 sampling, one WAU had insufficient information to be evaluated (attainment status 3i), which is anticipated to be upgraded to full attainment status (attainment status 1) based on the 2015 sampling (Table 20). Prior to the 2015 sampling, a second WAU was impaired due to PCB contamination (attainment status 5). Based on the 2015 sampling, it is anticipated that this WAU will remain impaired for PCB contamination in fish tissue. These prospective updates were formally evaluated and finalized in Ohio’s 2018 Integrated Report.

Table 20 — Updates to attainment status for the Little Muskingum study area in Ohio’s 2018 Integrated Report. Attainment status was finalized with the approval of the 2018 Integrated Report. Previous Score New Score Cause of Assessment Unit Unit Name (2016) (2018) Impairment 5030201 07 03 Wingett Run-Little 3i 1 None Muskingum River 5030201 07 05 Eightmile Creek-Little 5 5 PCBs Muskingum River Fish Contaminant Trends Fish contaminant levels can be used as an indicator of pollution in the water column at levels lower than laboratory reporting limits for water concentrations but high enough to pose a threat to human health from eating fish. Most bioaccumulative contaminant concentrations are decreasing in the environment because of bans on certain types of chemicals like PCBs, and because of stricter permitting limits on dischargers for other chemicals. However, data show that PCBs continue to pose a risk to humans who consume fish, and mercury concentrations have been increasing in some locations because of increases in certain types of industries for which mercury is a byproduct that is released to air and/or surface water. For this reason, it is useful to compare the results from the survey presented in this report with the results of the previous surveys in the study area. Recent data can be compared against historical data to determine whether contaminant concentrations in fish tissue appear to be increasing, decreasing or staying the same in a water body or watershed. Fish tissue had previously been collected from the Little Muskingum River in 1995 and 2009. Of the data collected in Little Muskingum River in the study intervals, only freshwater drum, rock bass and smallmouth bass had enough data to compare between the studies (Figure 19), although the sample size per individual species per year was small, at approximately two samples per species per year, so the results of this trend’s analysis should be interpreted cautiously.

Page 63 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Little Muskingum River mercury concentrations in fish tissue 0.500

0.450

0.400

0.350

0.300

0.250 1995

0.200 2009

Mercury (mg/kg) Mercury 0.150 2015

0.100

0.050

0.000 FRESHWATER DRUM ROCK BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS Species

Figure 19 — Mercury concentrations in fish tissue in the Little Muskingum river, 1995-2015, selected species.

The trend observed in the mercury data appears to show similar levels between 1995 and 2015, with slightly higher levels of mercury observed in 2009. Often there is high variability in mercury results between individual samples, even of the same species in the same location and year, so trends observed on small sample sizes are best viewed skeptically, although in this case the same general trend was repeated for all three species for which data was available from each sampling event. Overall, the mercury levels observed in the Little Muskingum were generally low to moderate, with the maximum observed mercury concentration (any species, any year) of 0.58 mg/kg, and the variation observed between years was within the range normally observed for this contaminant. The other major fish tissue contaminant of concern, polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, were detected at generally low concentrations (Figure 20) and low frequencies (Table 21) in the Little Muskingum. Overall, PCBs were detected in about a third of all samples in the study area, and the maximum observed concentration was 0.47 mg/kg. The detection frequency for total PCBs appears to have decreased in 2015 (Table 21), although the small sample sizes for each species, and the change in the composition of species sampled each year, make it difficult to draw firm conclusions from the data regarding ongoing trends in the water body. Taking these factors into account, PCB detection appears mostly steady between years, with some outliers in the data. These maximum observed contaminant concentrations (0.58 mg/kg mercury and 0.47 mg/kg total PCBs) both represent a recommended allowable consumption rate of approximately two meals per month, including for the high-risk subgroups of women of childbearing age and young children, even for the most contaminated samples observed in any sampling year. Due to the structure of the state’s advisory program, three species (freshwater drum, spotted bass, smallmouth bass) currently have a consumption advisory in place of do not eat more than one meal per month, which is due to the conservative assumptions built into Ohio’s advisory program. Most species fall within the statewide advisory, which is one meal per week for most species, as described in the fish advisories section above.

Page 64 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Little Muskingum River PCB Concentrations in Fish Tissue 0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2 1995 0.15 2009

Total PCBs(mg/kg) 2015 0.1

0.05

0 FRESHWATER DRUM ROCK BASS SMALLMOUTH BASS Species

Figure 20 — Total PCB concentrations in fish tissue in the Little Muskingum river, 1995-2015, selected species. PCBs were detected in freshwater drum in 1995 and 2009. All other values represent non-detects valued at 100 percent of the highest reporting limit of the individual PCB aroclors assessed in each sample. Detection limits were reduced by the laboratory in 2015, resulting in the reduced PCBs values reported for that year.

Table 21 — Proportions of samples with PCB detections in the Little Muskingum river fish tissue data. Approximately one-third of samples had PCB detections overall, with an apparent reduction in detection frequency in 2015 compared to 1995 and 2009, although the small sample sizes and change in species composition between years can confound the trends observed in these results. For any given species, detection frequency appears steady between years, considering the small sample sizes involved. 1995 Sample 2009 Sample 2015 Sample Total Total Sample Species Detects Size Detects Size Detects Size Detects Size Bluegill Sunfish 0% 1 0% 1 Channel Catfish 100% 1 50% 2 67% 3 Common Carp 100% 1 100% 1 Freshwater 50% 2 67% 3 0% 2 43% 7 Drum Golden 0% 2 0% 2 Redhorse Rock Bass 0% 2 0% 2 0% 2 0% 6 Sauger 50% 2 50% 2 Smallmouth 0% 2 0% 2 0% 1 0% 5 Bass Spotted Bass 67% 3 67% 3 White Bass 100% 1 100% 1 Yellow Bullhead 0% 1 0% 1 Grand Total 36% 14 36% 11 14% 7 31% 32

Page 65 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Table 22 — Select fish tissue mercury data from 2015 Little Muskingum sampling (mg/kg). The shading indicates the advisory category that each sample falls into. Green = two meals per week, yellow = one meal per week, orange = one meal per month. Site River Mile Sample Type Species Result L. Muskingum R. @ Co. Rd. 9 5.43 Fillet Freshwater Drum 0.287 L. Muskingum R. @ Twp. Rd. 34 (Hune Bridge) 21.23 Fillet Channel Catfish 0.107 L. Muskingum R. @ Twp. Rd. 34 (Hune Bridge) 21.23 Fillet Channel Catfish 0.121 L. Muskingum R. @ Twp. Rd. 34 (Hune Bridge) 21.23 Fillet Rock Bass 0.15 L. Muskingum R. @ Twp. Rd. 34 (Hune Bridge) 21.23 Fillet Freshwater Drum 0.331 L. Muskingum R. Upst. Clear Fork @ Knowlton Bridge 37.5 Fillet Rock Bass 0.117 L. Muskingum R. Upst. Clear Fork @ Knowlton Bridge 37.5 Fillet Smallmouth Bass 0.201

Table 23 — Select fish tissue PCB data from 2015 Little Muskingum basin sampling (mg/kg). The shading indicates the advisory category that each sample falls into. Blue = unrestricted. River Sample Site Mile Type Species Result Detected? L. Muskingum R. Upst. Clear Fork @ Knowlton Bridge 37.5 Fillet Smallmouth Bass 0.0199 No L. Muskingum R. Upst. Clear Fork @ Knowlton Bridge 37.5 Fillet Rock Bass 0.0198 No L. Muskingum R. @ Twp. Rd. 34 (Hune Bridge) 21.23 Fillet Freshwater Drum 0.02 No L. Muskingum R. @ Twp. Rd. 34 (Hune Bridge) 21.23 Fillet Rock Bass 0.0198 No L. Muskingum R. @ Twp. Rd. 34 (Hune Bridge) 21.23 Fillet Channel Catfish 0.0407 Yes L. Muskingum R. @ Twp. Rd. 34 (Hune Bridge) 21.23 Fillet Channel Catfish 0.02 No L. Muskingum R. @ Co. Rd. 9 5.43 Fillet Freshwater Drum 0.02 No

Acknowledgements The following Ohio EPA staff provided technical expertise for this project. Report preparation and Jordan Jenkins, Sarah Macy, Kelly Capuzzi, Randy Spencer, Sarah Becker, analysis Gary Klase Reviewers Jeff Bohne, Rachel Taulbee, Mari Piekutowski Data Collection Water Column and Sediment Chemistry Kelly Capuzzi and Randy Spencer with interns Aaron Coons, Mary Cronan, and Michael Crowe Macroinvertebrate Community Chuck McKnight, Laura Hughes, Sarah Macy with intern Jasmine Bechlem Fish Community Jordan Jenkins with interns Ross Stadt and Donny Karlquist Water Quality Sonde Monitoring Sarah Becker with interns Marissa Ganzfried, Scott Shipkowski, Kelsey Sikon, Jacob Kline, and Nick Doarn Ohio EPA appreciates the generosity of the many landowners within the basin who allowed water quality staff access to the project area.

Page 66 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

Works Cited Alexander, R. B., Elizabeth, B. M., Richard, S. A., Gregory, E. S., & Richard, M. B. (2007). The role of headwater streams in downstream water quality. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43(1), 41 - 59. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00005.x Auch, T. (2014, November 17). The water-energy nexus in Ohio, part II. Retrieved 2016, from Fractracker Alliance: https://www.fractracker.org/2014/11/water-energy-nexus-ohio-pt2/ Auch, T. (2015, September 29). The curious case of the shrinking Utica shale play. Retrieved 2016, from Fractracker Alliance: https://www.fractracker.org/2015/09/shrinking-utica-shale-play/ Becker, G. C. (1983). Muskellunge. In Fishes of Wisconsin (pp. 405-414). Madison, Wisconsin: University of WIsconsin Press. Retrieved from http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/EcoNatRes.FishesWI De Caceres, M., & Legendre, P. (2009). Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology. Retrieved from http://sites.google.com/site/miqueldecaceres/ Dufor, A. (1977). Escherichia Coli: The Fecal Coliform. In A. W. Hoadley, Bacterial Indicators/health Hazards Associated with Water (pp. 48-58). ASTM. Kennard, M. J., Arthington, A. H., Pusey, B. J., & Harch, B. D. (2005). Are alien fish a reliable indicator of river health? Freshwater Biology, 50, 174-193. MacDonald, D., Ingersoll, C., & Berger, T. (2000). Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 39(1), 20-31. Miller, W. E. (1943). Petroleum in southeastern Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science, 121-134. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. (2014, June 1). Oil and gas well locations of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio. Retrieved 2016 Ohio Department of Natural Resources. (2015). Water withdrawal regulations for oil and gas drilling. Columbus: State of Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Sediment reference values. Columbus: Divison of Environmental Remediation and Response. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Guidance on Evaluating Sediment Contaminant Results . Ohio EPA. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Sediment sampling guide and methodologies, 3rd edition. Division of Surface Water, Columbus. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Surface Water Field Sampling Manual for waqter column chemistry, bacteria, and flows. Columbus. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Surface Water Field Sampling Manual for water quality parameters and flows. Columbus. Oksanen, J. F., Blanchet, G., Fiendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn, D., & Minchin, P. R. (2017). vegan: Community Ecology Package. R. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. Omernik, J., & Griffith, G. (2008, December 11). Ecoregions of Indiana and Ohio (EPA). Retrieved 2015, from The Encyclopedia of Earth: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/152069

Page 67 of 68

AMS/2015-LMUSK-2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Muskingum River, 2015-2016 April 2020

R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/ Soil Survey Staff. (2004, January 20). Soil Survey Geographic Database. Fort Worth, Texas: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Trautman, M. B. (1981). Ohio Lamprey. In The Fishes of Ohio (pp. 151-153). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, May 12). Level IV Ecoregions of Ohio. Corvallis, Oregon. Vengosh, A., Jackson, R. B., Warner, N., Darrah, T. H., & Kondash, A. (2014, March 7). A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 48, 8334 - 8348. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1021/es40511

Page 68 of 68