‘

Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater Study Area Darke, Preble, Butler and Hamilton Counties, Ohio

Whitewater River Ohio EPA Technical Report AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Division of Assessment and Modeling Section December 2020

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table of Contents (Ctrl + click to navigate) Contents Table of Contents (Ctrl + click to navigate) ...... I List of Appendices ...... II List of Figures ...... III List of Tables ...... V List of Acronyms - (Glossary of Terms can be found here) ...... VII Executive Summary ...... 1 Overview: Whitewater River Watershed ...... 7 Study Area Description ...... 11 Census Data ...... 11 Land Use...... 11 Wastewater Overview ...... 14 Aquatic Life Use Results and Discussion ...... 15 Water Chemistry Results ...... 15 Water Quality Exceedances ...... 17 Weight of Evidence Nutrient Assessment ...... 21 Supplemental Temperature Data ...... 25 Organics ...... 25 Chemistry Results ...... 28 Physical Habitat Results ...... 31 Fish Community Results ...... 36 Macroinvertebrate Community Results ...... 45 Aquatic Life Use Discussion ...... 52 General Study Area Discussion ...... 55 Northern Whitewater Basin ...... 55 Southern Whitewater Basin ...... 56 Trends ...... 63 Recreation Use Results and Discussion ...... 67 Human Health Use (Fish Tissue) Results and Discussion ...... 71 Fish advisories ...... 71 Fish Tissue/Human Health Beneficial Use ...... 72 Fish Contaminant Trends ...... 73 Mercury ...... 74 Total PCBs ...... 75 Beneficial Use Designations and Recommendations ...... 80 Aquatic Life Use ...... 80 Recreation Beneficial Use ...... 82 Agricultural, Industrial, and Public Water Supply Beneficial Uses ...... 82 Anti-degradation Classifications ...... 82 General Watershed Recommendations ...... 82 Acknowledgements ...... 85 References ...... 86

I

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

List of Appendices

Appendix A - Components of an Ohio EPA Biological and Water Quality Survey Appendix B - NPDES Facility Descriptions & Comprehensive NPDES Summary Appendix C – Macroinvertebrate Collection Results Appendix D – Macroinvertebrate ICI and Metric Scores Appendix E – Fish Species Distribution and Abundance Maps Appendix F – Fish Species Presence and Abundance by Location Appendix G – Fish Community IBI, MIwb, and Metric Scores Appendix H – Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Scores and Attributes Appendix I – Surface Water Inorganic Chemistry Results Appendix J - Surface Water Organic Chemistry Results Appendix K – Water Quality Sonde Results

II

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

List of Figures Figure 1 – Aquatic life use attainment status for locations in the Whitewater River survey area, 2017-19...... 2 Figure 2 – Aquatic life use attainment for biological stations sampled in the Whitewater River watershed, 2017-2019.3 Figure 3 – Location of Whitewater River and selected in Ohio...... 7 Figure 4 – Sampling locations for the 2017 biological survey of the Whitewater River watershed...... 8 Figure 5 – NLCD 2016 land cover types around the Whitewater River watershed ...... 12 Figure 6 – Flow conditions in the Whitewater River at the USGS gage at Brookville, Indiana (03276500) during 2017 field season. Sampling activities are indicated on the plot...... 16 Figure 7 - Flow conditions in the East Fork Whitewater River at the USGS gage at Abington, Indiana (03275600) during 2017 field season. Sampling activities are indicated on the plot...... 17 Figure 8 – Representation of diel DO, benthic chlorophyll-a, TP, and DIN used to evaluate the impact of nutrients on Whitewater River and its tributaries. Benchmarks for chlorophyll-a and nutrients (Dodds 2006, Miltner 2010, Ohio EPA 2014, Ohio EPA 2015c) are presented within their respective plots. Boxes on DO plots are shaded if the diel range exceeds the benchmark of 6.5 mg/L (Miltner, 2010). The dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll data were collected on two surveys from Aug. 8 – 10, 2017 and Sept. 19 – 21, 2017...... 23 Figure 9 – Detections of selected herbicides in samples collected from the Whitewater River and tributaries, 2017. .. 27 Figure 10 – Typical coarse-grained material found in East Fork Whitewater River at Guy Murray Rd. (RM 38.48, H11S01) ...... 29 Figure 11 – The “finest” grained collected from all sediment sampling locations in the study area in 2017 (Middle Fork East Fork Whitewater River - RM 13.9) ...... 30 Figure 12 – An example of a sand/gravel/cobble dominated stream bed common in throughout the study area (Whitewater River RM 3.80, H11W65) ...... 30 Figure 13 – QHEI scores displayed by drainage area (left) and aggregated by major (right). Scores were parsed by attainment of the aquatic life beneficial use. QHEI scores displayed in red indicate areas where biological impairment occurred. 2017- 2019...... 32 Figure 14 – QHEI scores from Dry Fork displayed longitudinally, 2017...... 32 Figure 15 – Scatter plot of IBI scores from all streams displayed by drainage area and parsed by major drainage basins (left) and box blot of IBI scores aggregated by sub-basin, 2017-2019. The shaded portions represent indicated biocriteria and areas of non-significant departure from said values. Results from multiple sampling events within the same year are averaged...... 36 Figure 16 – Longitudinal IBI performance from Dry Fork (top) and East Fork (bottom) Whitewater River. Grey shaded boxes display indicated criteria and area of non-significant departure from criteria...... 38 Figure 17 – Map displaying proportions of coldwater fish species (s. redbelly dace, mottled sculpin) comprising the overall fish community overlaid against the underlying geology. Fish information displayed was collected during the survey...... 41 Figure 18 – Scatter plot of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) and sensitive taxa diversity from all streams displayed by drainage area and parsed by major drainage basins...... 49 Figure 19 – Photographs from the upper reaches of Dry Fork. Photos were taken mid-way through and near the end of the summer sampling index period, 2017. Note lower flows and general desiccation occurring from mid to late summer...... 58 Figure 20 – Individual temperature measurements collected during surface water chemistry sampling parsed by stream...... 60 Figure 21 – Quaternary geology of the Whitewater River study area...... 61 Figure 22 – USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM) raster image of western Ohio and the Whitewater River study area. Streams maintaining the highest quality ALU designations (CWH or EWH) were overlaid. Image was produced using a 10-meter resolution. Note the occurrence of EWH and/or CWH designated streams in higher lying areas and more glacially active areas ...... 62 Figure 23 – Number of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) and sensitive macroinvertebrate taxa collected from natural substrates from the Whitewater River, East Fork Whitewater River, and Dry Fork Whitewater River, 1982 to 2017 ...... 66

III

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Figure 24 – Mercury concentrations in Whitewater River fish tissue samples, pooled by trophic level...... 74 Figure 25 – Average mercury concentrations for select species in Whitewater River...... 75 Figure 26 – Average total PCBs concentrations from select species in Whitewater River...... 76

IV

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

List of Tables Table 1 – Aquatic life use attainment status for stations sampled in the Whitewater River survey area based on data collected June-October 2017-19. Several biological samples were collected in 2018 and 2019 to obtain more information and are indicated below by [brackets for 2018] or {braces for 2019}. The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), Modified Index of well-being (MIwb), and Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) are scores based on the performance of the biological communities. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) is a measure of the ability of the physical habitat of the stream to support a biotic community. The table is organized by assessment unit (12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC-12) or Large River Assessment Unit). Sites with ALU changes recommended (R) are evaluated using the biocriteria for the recommended use, not the current use. For an explanation regarding recommended Aquatic Life Use designations, refer to Beneficial Use Designations and Recommendations within this report...... 4 Table 2 – Sampling locations in the Whitewater River watershed. Ordering includes mainstem with sampling locations listed upstream to downstream, while tributaries are similarly displayed in the order of their with the Whitewater mainstem. NPDES permitted outfall sampling locations are italicized...... 9 Table 3 – Major NPDES Facilities and Minor Dischargers Bracketed with Biological Monitoring Sites ...... 14 Table 4 – Exceedances of Ohio EPA WQS criteria (OAC 3745-1) (and other chemicals not codified for which toxicity data is available) for chemical/physical water parameters measured in grab samples taken from the Whitewater River study area, June – August 2017. Water parameters are assessed based on water quality criteria for the recommended Aquatic Life Use Designations. Refer to Beneficial Use Designations and Recommendations within this report for details about use recommendations...... 18 Table 5 – Exceedances of Ohio Water Quality Standards criteria (OAC 3745-1) for chemical and physical parameters derived from diel monitoring. Criteria are assessed based on criteria for the recommended Aquatic Life Use Designations. Refer to Beneficial Use Designations and Recommendations within this report for details about use recommendations...... 20 Table 6 – Nutrient sampling results in the Whitewater River and selected tributaries, summer (June 15 – October 15) 2017...... 24 Table 7 – Results from continuous temperature loggers, June-August 2019...... 25 Table 8 – Frequency of pesticides detected in stream water samples in the Whitewater River watershed during 2017 (Number of water quality criteria exceedances/Number of detections).1 ...... 26 Table 9 – Particle size analysis of sediments from Middle Fork East Fork Whitewater River at Tillson Rd...... 28 Table 10 – Summary of the QHEI and metric scores from streams within the Whitewater River study area, 2017-18. Values denoted by [brackets] were collected in 2018, while {braces} indicated data collected in 2019...... 33 Table 11 – QHEI attributes matrix for sampling streams within the Whitewater River study area...... 34 Table 12 – Proportion of coldwater fish comprising overall fish community at locations throughout the study area. .. 40 Table 13 – Fish community summaries based on pulsed D.C. electrofishing conducted by Ohio EPA in the Whitewater River watershed, 2017-2019. Data collected in 2018 are indicated by [brackets] and 2019 are indicated by {braces}. IBI and MIwb scores followed by an asterisk (*) indicate scores failed to meet biocriteria for the existing or recommended aquatic life use...... 42 Table 14 – Percent abundance and percent of biomass for the ten dominant fish species collected from all locations during 2017 within the indicated water bodies...... 44 Table 15 – Summary of macroinvertebrate data collected from artificial substrates (quantitative sampling) and natural substrates (qualitative sampling) in the Whitewater River study area, June to September, 2017-19...... 47 Table 16 – Summary of coldwater macroinvertebrates collected from artificial substrates (quantitative sampling) and natural substrates (qualitative sampling) in the Whitewater River study area, June to September 2017-19...... 50 Table 17 – Rare pollution-sensitive taxa collected from artificial substrates (quantitative sampling) and natural substrates (qualitative sampling) in the Whitewater River study area, June to September 2017-18...... 51 Table 18 – Aquatic life use attainment status for stations sampled in the Whitewater River survey area based on data collected June-October 2017-19. Several biological samples were collected in 2018 and 2019 to collect

V

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

more information and are indicated below by [brackets for 2018] or {braces for 2019}. The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), Modified Index of well-being (MIwb), and Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) are scores based on the performance of the biological communities. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) is a measure of the ability of the physical habitat of the stream to support a biotic community. The survey area is located within both the ECBP and IP ecoregions. If biological impairment has occurred, the causes and sources of the impairment are noted. Specific sampling locations for fish and macroinvertebrates may differ slightly from what is listed in the below table; any differences are contained within the results tables in their respective sections...... 52 Table 19 – Historical and contemporary fish community metric scores (IBI and MIwb) from streams within the study area. Only streams with historical information were displayed. Metric scores are displayed for the station point of record; actual sampling location (river mile) for a station may vary slightly between sampling years...... 64 Table 20 – Historical and contemporary Invertebrate Community Index scores (ICI) from streams within the study area. Only streams with existing historical information were displayed. Metric scores are displayed for the station point of record; actual sampling location (river mile) for a station may vary slightly between sampling years...... 65 Table 21 – A summary of E. coli data for the 17 locations in the Whitewater River watershed sampled July through August 2017. Recreation Use attainment status is determined by comparing samples collected within a 90- day period during the recreation season to the geometric mean criterion of 126 cfu/100 ml and to the statistical threshold value (STV) of 410 cfu/100 ml (for PCR), or geometric mean of 1,030 cfu/100 ml, and statistical threshold values of 1,030 cfu/100 ml (for SCR). The STV is not be exceeded by more than 10 percent of individual samples...... 69 Table 22 – Advisories calculated for Dry Fork and Whitewater River from data from 2010 and 2017...... 71 Table 23 – Fish tissue use attainment for Dry Fork and Whitewater River. A status of 5 indicates impairment, while a 1 indicates no impairment. A status of 3 indicates no available data within the 10-year window; 3i indicates insufficient sample size within the 10-year window...... 72 Table 24 – Species collected in Whitewater River from 2000 to 2017...... 73 Table 25 – Sample sizes from all Whitewater River fish tissue survey efforts...... 74 Table 26 – Fish tissue data from 2017 Dry Fork and Whitewater River sampling (mg/kg)...... 77 Table 27 – Water body use designations and recommendations for the Whitewater River study area. Beneficial use designations are indicated with asterisks (*) while designations based on the results of a previous biological field assessment performed by Ohio EPA are indicated using a (+) symbol. Verification of current designations based on this study are denoted as (*/+) while a (▲) denotes a new recommended beneficial use based on the findings of this study. Streams assessed during this study appear shaded in grey...... 83

VI

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

List of Acronyms ‐ (Glossary of Terms can be found here) AFO Animal Feeding Operation ALU aquatic life use AWS agricultural water supply CAFO concentrated animal feeding operation CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second cfu colony forming units CSO combined sewer overflow CWA Clean Water Act CWH Coldwater Habitat DA drainage area DC direct current DELT deformities, , lesions, tumors DIN dissolved inorganic nitrogen DMR Discharge Monitoring Report DO dissolved oxygen ECBP Eastern Corn Belt Plains EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera ESL ecological screening level EWH Exceptional Warmwater Habitat GIS geographic information system GPS global positioning system HELP Huron/Erie Lake Plain HHEI headwater habitat evaluation index HSTS home treatment system HUC hydrologic unit code IBI index of biotic integrity ICI invertebrate community index IP Interior Plateau IPS integrated prioritization system IWS industrial water supply LRAU large river assessment unit LRW limited resource water MGD million gallons per day MI moderately intolerant MIwb modified Index of Well-Being MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Systems MWH Modified Warmwater Habitat NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OAC Ohio Administrative Code ODA Ohio Department of Agriculture

VII

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

ODH Ohio Department of Health ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources OMZA outside mixing zone average OMZM outside mixing zone minimum ORC Ohio Revised Code PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PCR Primary Contact Recreation PEC probable effects concentration POTW publicly owned treatment works PTI permit to install PTO permit to operate PWS public water supply QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index RM river mile SCR Secondary Contact Recreation SRV sediment reference value SSH seasonal salmonid habitat SSO sanitary sewer overflow STV statistical threshold value SWMP storm water management plan TALU tiered aquatic life use TDS total dissolved solids TEC threshold effects concentration TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen TMDL total maximum daily load TOC total organic carbon TP total phosphorus TSS total suspended solids UAs urban areas UAA use attainability analysis USGS United States Geological Survey VOC volatile organic compound WAU watershed assessment unit WQS water quality standards WWH Warmwater Habitat WWTP wastewater treatment plant

VIII

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Executive Summary The 2017 biological and water quality survey of the Whitewater River study area evaluated the two distinct portions of the Whitewater River watershed located in Ohio (Figure 2). Most of this very large watershed (1,474 mi2) is in Indiana, but portions of its headwaters originate in Ohio and the Whitewater River mainstem re-enters Ohio for a short distance before joining the Great Miami River west of Cincinnati. In addition to the mainstem, principal systems evaluated during the survey included the East Fork and Dry Fork of the Whitewater River. This effort represented the first comprehensive biological and watershed survey of the Whitewater catchment in Ohio conducted by Ohio EPA. Historically, only targeted samples were collected from select areas, usually located around permitted dischargers. The current survey effort evaluated 15 streams or stream segments at 26 sampling locations (Table 2). Biological samples were collected at 25 of these locations, while fish tissue samples were collected at seven of these locations. Physical and chemical water quality was evaluated with surface water grab samples at 24 locations, continuous water quality sonde loggers at 11 locations, and continuous temperature loggers at seven locations. Most samples were collected over the summer of 2017, while additional sampling occurred in select areas in 2018 and 2019. Biological performance throughout the watershed was generally very high and many areas supported exceptional communities (Table 13, Table 15). The Whitewater River mainstem continues to be one of the highest quality river systems in Ohio and boasts many rare and pollution intolerant fish and macroinvertebrate species. Two state endangered species were collected from the mainstem during the survey, including the northern madtom catfish and the mayfly Rithrogena manifesta. Dry Fork of the Whitewater River also had exceptional fish and macroinvertebrate communities throughout. The abundance of smallmouth bass within this system was noteworthy for a stream of this size (Appendix E). Biological performance was generally stable or improved compared to available historical information (Table 19, Table 20). Several streams already had existing exceptional (EWH) or warmwater (WWH) aquatic life beneficial use designations (Table 27). Many streams in the study area have not been previously sampled and had aquatic life uses that were unverified. Given the generally high biological performance observed throughout the area during the current survey, several additional stream segments were recommended to receive or be upgraded to the EWH use designation. Additionally, several other streams in the northern portion of the study area were recommended to receive the coldwater habitat (CWH) aquatic life use. Of the 25 sites where biological communities were evaluated, only two locations were partially impaired (Figure 1, Figure 2). The remaining locations were in full attainment of designated or recommended aquatic life uses. The two impaired locations’ impairments were localized in two small tributaries and the degree of impairment was not severe. Low flows and siltation were attributed to the macroinvertebrate impairment in Welker Lateral, while a barrier to passage precluded fish attainment in Buck Run. Table 1 provides the biological index scores, the condition status for all the survey sites, and lists causes and sources of impairment for sites with impaired biological assemblages. Thirteen locations throughout the Whitewater study area were sampled for E. coli five times from July 6th to August 30th, 2017. Evaluation of E. coli results revealed that all 13 sampling locations (100 percent) had E. coli concentrations exceeding either the 90-day geometric mean or the Statistical Threshold Value (Table 21). Sportfish were analyzed for contaminants that bioaccumulate in body tissue at seven locations in the Whitewater River and Dry Fork Whitewater River (Table 26). Fish contaminant data are used to determine

1

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020 a meal frequency that is safe for people to consume (e.g., two meals a week, one meal a month, do not eat), and a fish advisory is issued for applicable species and locations. Within Dry Fork, there were sufficient data for rock bass and smallmouth bass samples to support a new “one meal per month” advisory due to mercury (Table 22). The Whitewater River mainstem already had “one meal per month” advisories for catfish, freshwater drum, sauger, and white bass in place from previous sampling data. The current survey confirmed the advisories for channel catfish and freshwater drum, while new “one meal per month” advisories were issued for smallmouth bass and smallmouth buffalo (Table 22).

Figure 1 – Aquatic life use attainment status for biological sampling locations in the Whitewater River survey area, 2017‐19.

2

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Figure 2 – Aquatic life use attainment for biological stations sampled in the Whitewater River watershed, 2017‐2019.

3

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 1 – Aquatic life use attainment status for stations sampled in the Whitewater River survey area based on data collected June‐October 2017‐19. Several biological samples were collected in 2018 and 2019 to obtain more information and are indicated below by [brackets for 2018] or {braces for 2019}. The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), Modified Index of well‐being (MIwb), and Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) are scores based on the performance of the biological communities. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) is a measure of the ability of the physical habitat of the stream to support a biotic community. The table is organized by assessment unit (12‐digit hydrologic unit code (HUC‐12) or Large River Assessment Unit). Sites with ALU changes recommended (R) are evaluated using the biocriteria for the recommended use, not the current use. For an explanation regarding recommended Aquatic Life Use designations, refer to Beneficial Use Designations and Recommendations within this report. Drain. Ecoregion1/ River Station Location Area IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Status Causes Sources ALU2 Milea (mi²) 05080003 07 01 ‐ Headwaters Middle Fork East Fork Whitewater River Middle Fork of East Fork 303802 ECBP/WWH (R) 13.90 13.5H 48 ‐ G 72.50 FULL Whitewater at Tillson Rd. 05080003 07 02 ‐ Headwaters East Fork Whitewater River East Fork Whitewater southwest of H11S03 ECBP/CWH (R) 46.89 11.6H 37 ‐ E 58.00 FULL New Madison at New Garden Rd. East Fork Whitewater at New Paris H11S02 ECBP/CWH (R) 41.40 31.3W 40 8.20 52 77.00 FULL at St. Rt. 121 Low flow H11S05 Welker Lateral at Ritenour Rd. ECBP/WWH (R) 0.90 1.2H {44} ‐ {F*} {53.25} PARTIAL Channelization Siltation Little Creek at New Paris‐Eldorado 303801 ECBP/CWH (R) 0.70 8.7H 44 ‐ E 72.00 FULL Rd. Brinley Fork at New Paris‐Eldorado 303561 ECBP/CWH (R) 0.10 3.4H 44 ‐ [G] 80.00 FULL Rd. 05080003 07 04 – Rocky Fork‐East Fork Whitewater River East Fork Whitewater near H11S01 Ohio/Indiana state line at Murray ECBP/CWH (R) 39.48 36.8W 38 8.79 [E] 80.00 FULL Rd. 303802 Rocky Fork near mouth ECBP/CWH (R) 0.10 2.1H 40 ‐ G 63.25 FULL 05080003 08 07‐ Headwaters Dry Fork Whitewater River Dry Fork Whitewater near H11W67 Ohio/Indiana state line at Dwyer ECBP/EWH 20.15 15.7H 52 ‐ E 71.50 FULL Rd. 05080003 08 08 – Howard Creek‐Dry Fork Whitewater River Dry Fork Whitewater northwest of H11P04 ECBP/EWH 18.14 27.6W 54 9.62 VGNS 82.75 FULL Okeana @ California Rd. Dry Fork Whitewater at New H11W68 ECBP/EWH 13.30 46.0W 52 10.13 E 72.75 FULL London Rd.

4

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Drain. Ecoregion1/ River Station Location Area IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Status Causes Sources ALU2 Milea (mi²) Dry Fork Whitewater upst. New H11W69 IP/EWH (R) 9.02 50.0W 56 10.33 E 74.50 FULL Haven @ Willey Rd. 303782 Howard Creek at Howard Rd. ECBP/EWH (R) 2.90 5.8H {56} ‐ {E} {64.75} FULL NS H 50, VG , 76.75, 303807 Howard Creek at Oxford Rd. IP/EWH (R) 0.90 7.5 ‐ NS FULL {56} {VG } {71.5} 203540 Kiata Creek near mouth ECBP/EWH (R) 0.10 6.0H 52 ‐ VGNS 69.25 FULL Fish passage / 303806 Buck Run near mouth ECBP/WWH (R) 0.10 4.1H 32* ‐ VG 68.50 PARTIAL barrier impoundment 303805 Sours Run near mouth ECBP/EWH (R) 0.10 6.5H 58 ‐ VGNS 78.50 FULL 05080003 08 09 – Lee Creek‐Dry Fork Whitewater River Dry Fork Whitewater southeast of H11S24 IP/EWH (R) 4.35 78.0W 50 9.51 46 59.50 FULL Harrison @ Harrison Pike H11W70 Dry Fork Whitewater at Kilby Rd. IP/EWH (R) 0.52 81.5W 51 10.11 E 77.25 FULL 303984 Sater Run near mouth ECBP/WWH (R) 0.10 3.3H [48] ‐ [VG] [71.0] FULL 303808 Lee Creek near mouth IP/WWH 0.10 11.1H 46 ‐ E 57.75 FULL 05080003 08 10 – Jamison Creek‐Whitewater River Jamison Creek near mouth adj. 303784 IP/WWH 0.14 6.6H 40 ‐ G 58.25 FULL Lawrenceburg Rd. 05080003 90 01 – Whitewater River Whitewater River at Harrison near H11S27 IP/EWH 8.28 1369B 52 11.68 52 86.25 FULL Ohio/Indiana state line Whitewater River at private H11W65 IP/EWH 3.80 1384B 50 11.45 58 76.50 FULL launch Whitewater River west of Hooven H11S26 IP/EWH 1.50 1469B 50 11.77 [E] 85.00 FULL near Suspension Bridge Rd. 1 Level III Ecoregions: Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP), Interior Plateau (IP) 2 Aquatic life use (ALU) designations: exceptional warmwater habitat (EWH), warmwater habitat (WWH), coldwater habitat (CWH). a River Mile (RM) represents the point of record (POR) for the station, and may not be 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. VP=Very Poor; P=Poor; LF=Low Fair; F=Fair; MG=Marginally Good; G=Good; VG=Very Good; E=Exceptional. NS Nonsignificant departure from biocriteria (<4 IBI or ICI units, or <0.5 MIwb units). * Indicates significant departure from applicable biocriteria (>4 IBI or ICI units, or >0.5 MIwb units). B Boat site. H Headwater site. W Wading site.

5

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

WWH Index – Site Type EWH ECBP IP IBI – Headwaters 40 40 50 IBI – Wading 40 40 50 IBI – Boat 42 38 48 MIwb – Wading 8.3 8.1 9.4 MIwb – Boat 8.5 8.7 9.6 ICI 36 30 46

6

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Overview: Whitewater River Watershed From 2017 to 2019, Ohio EPA conducted a water resource assessment of 15 streams in the Whitewater River study area using standard Ohio EPA protocols described in Appendix A. Included in this study were assessments of the biological, chemical, and recreation (bacterial) condition. A total of 26 locations were sampled, including: 25 biological; 24 surface water chemistry; 11 continuous water quality sonde; seven continuous temperature logger; six sediment chemistry; 17 bacteria; and seven fish tissue stations were sampled in the Whitewater River study area. The watershed location is shown in Figure 3. Sampling stations are illustrated in Figure 4 and detailed in

Table 2. Figure 3 – Location of Whitewater Specific objectives of the evaluation were to: River and selected tributaries in  ascertain the present biological conditions at the selected sites in Ohio. the Whitewater River study area by evaluating fish and macroinvertebrate communities;  identify the relative levels of organic, inorganic and nutrient parameters in the surface water and sediments;  evaluate influences from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) outfall discharges;  assess physical habitat influences on stream biotic integrity;  determine recreational water quality;  compare present results with historical conditions;  verify and update fish tissue consumption advisories;  determine the attainment status of Aquatic Life Uses; and  recommend beneficial use designations to undesignated streams, verify current designations of designated streams and recommend revisions to designations where appropriate. 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 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] reports).

7

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Figure 4 – Sampling locations for the 2017 biological survey of the Whitewater River watershed.

8

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 2 – Sampling locations in the Whitewater River watershed. Ordering includes mainstem with sampling locations listed upstream to downstream, while tributaries are similarly displayed in the order of their confluences with the Whitewater mainstem. NPDES permitted outfall sampling locations are italicized. Assessment Unit River Drain. Station Location (05090101) Mile Sample Type1 Area Latitude Longitude Whitewater River (14‐300‐000) H11S27 At Harrison @ Ohio/Indiana State line 90‐01 8.28 F,MQ,C,N,B,FT 1369 39.2489 ‐84.8197 H11W30 Harrison WWTP outfall to Whitewater River. 90‐01 7.62 c,B 1369 39.2447 ‐84.8091 303818 Whitewater Processing Co. outfall 90‐01 6.70 c,B 1380 39.235278 ‐84.802778 At Lane off Lawrenceburg Rd., 1.8 mi N. of St. Rt. 275 H11W65 90‐01 3.80 F,MQ,C,O,N,B,FT 1384 39.2094 ‐84.7931 (canoe launch) H11S26 W. of Hooven @ Suspension Bridge 90‐01 1.50 F,Mq,C,D,B,FT 1469 39.1831 ‐84.7928 East Fork Whitewater (14‐308‐000) H11W27 Upst. Thomas Rd., Upst. Trib 07‐02 49.60 C,B 4.0 39.9557 ‐84.7298 New Madison WWTP outfall to Trib. to E. Fk. 303819 07‐02 0.10 c,B 1.0 39.9558 ‐84.7311 Whitewater R. (49.51) H11S03 S.W. of New Madison @ New Garden Rd. 07‐02 46.89 F2,Mq,C,N,B,CT 12.4 39.9392 ‐84.7719 H11S02 At St. Rt. 121 07‐02 41.40 F2,MQ,C,O,N,B,CT 34.0 39.8664 ‐84.7908 303820 New Paris WWTP outfall to E. Fk. Whitewater 07‐02 40.43 c,B 33.9 39.8553 ‐84.7994 H11S01 Near Ohio/Indiana state line @ Murray Rd. 07‐04 39.48 F2,Mq,C,O,N,B,CT 40.0 39.8439 ‐84.8053 Welker Lateral (14‐308‐002) H11S05 At Ritenour Rd. 07‐02 0.90 F,Mq,C,CT 1.2 39.9531 ‐84.7047 Little Creek (14‐313‐000) 303801 New Paris‐Eldorado Rd. 07‐02 0.70 F,Mq,C,CT 8.7 39.873574 ‐84.77843 Brinley Fork (14‐313‐001) 303561 At New Paris‐Eldorado Rd. 07‐02 0.10 F,Mq,C,CT 3.4 39.891716 ‐84.750443 Rocky Fork (14‐312‐000) 303802 Near mouth 07‐04 0.10 F,Mq,C,CT 2.1 39.85114 ‐84.799451 Middle Fork of East Fork Whitewater (14‐308‐003) 303803 Tillson Rd. 07‐01 13.90 F,Mq,C,O,N,B 13.5 39.986225 ‐84.804289 Jamison Creek (14‐307‐000) 303784 Adj. Lawrenceburg near mouth 08‐10 0.10 F,Mq,C 6.7 39.235237 ‐84.807871 Dry Fork Whitewater River (14‐302‐000) H11W67 Near OH/IN state line @ Dwyer Rd. 08‐07 20.10 F,Mq,C,O,B 16.2 39.3814 ‐84.8142 H11P04 N.W. of Okeana @ California Rd. 08‐08 18.10 F2,Mq,C,N 33.0 39.3675 ‐84.7958 H11W68 At New London Rd. 08‐08 13.30 F2,Mq,C,FT 46.0 39.3269 ‐84.7486 H11W69 Upst. New Haven @ Willey Rd. 08‐08 9.02 F2,Mq,C,O,N,B,FT 50.0 39.2828 ‐84.7297 H11S24 S.E. of Harrison @ Harrison Pike 08‐09 4.35 F2,MQ,C,N,FT 78.0 39.234129 ‐84.763069

9

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Assessment Unit River Drain. Station Location (05090101) Mile Sample Type1 Area Latitude Longitude H11W70 At Kilby Rd. 08‐09 0.52 F2,Mq,C,N,B,FT 81.5 39.193334 ‐84.779356 Sours Run (14‐302‐004) 303805 Near mouth 08‐08 0.10 F,Mq,C 6.5 39.372989 ‐84.811618 Sater Run (14‐302‐006) 303984 Near mouth 08‐09 0.20 F,Mq 3.3 39.368211 ‐84.810651 Kiata Creek (14‐302‐002) 203540 Near mouth 08‐08 0.10 F,Mq,C 6.0 39.3644 ‐84.7739 Buck Run (14‐302‐003) 303806 Near mouth 08‐08 0.10 F,Mq,C,B 4.1 39.361088 ‐84.768625 Howard Creek (14‐304‐000) 303782 At Howard Rd. 08‐08 2.90 F,Mq 5.8 39.30483 ‐84.762889 303807 At Oxford Rd. 08‐08 0.30 F,Mq,C,B 7.5 39.283981 ‐84.740743 Lee Creek (14‐303‐000) 303808 Near mouth 08‐09 0.10 F,Mq,C 11.1 39.257805 ‐84.762097 Sample Type Key Icon No. of Sites

Stream Water Chemistry C 24 Water Chemistry ‐ Outfall c 4 organics O 6 nutrient sites (Chl. a, sonde) N 10 sonde only D 1 Macroinvertebrate Quantitative MQ 4 Qualitative Mq 20 Fish Fish 2 pass F2 7 Fish 1 pass F 16 Fish tissue FT 7 E. coli (bacteriological) B 17 Sediment Sd 0 Continuous temperature CT 7

10

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Study Area Description The Whitewater River study area covers varied percentages of Butler (6.9 percent), Darke (5.5 percent), Hamilton (10.2 percent), and Preble (8.6 percent) counties in southwest Ohio. The Whitewater River watershed is quite large overall, but most of its 1480 mi2 of drainage area is in Indiana; only about 10 percent of the overall watershed is in Ohio (Figure 5). The parts of the Whitewater River watershed residing in Ohio can be functionally regarded as two distinct watershed potions, northern and southern. The principal tributary system in the southern portion of the watershed is the Dry Fork sub-basin, while the East Fork sub-basin drains most of the northern portions. Aside from the Whitewater River mainstem and Jamison Creek, all survey streams were within these two sub-basins. The study area is located mostly in the Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) ecoregion. The ECBP is characterized by flat to gently rolling topography, primarily represented by ground moraine, with areas of higher relief defined by dissected end moraine, kames, outwash terraces, and related landforms of glacial origin. Soils here are primarily derived from high lime glacial drift. Natural drainage can vary significantly, but soils are typically well to moderately well-drained. The degree of hydromodification within the ECBP required to meet social or economic needs varies greatly, based upon sub regional or local factors. However, in general the combination of naturally adequate drainage and moderate relief tends to lessen the need for extensive hydrological manipulation. This of course is not universal and, as stated previously, local or sub regional conditions may necessitate drainage or other hydrological modification greater than commonly needed or observed throughout the region as a whole. A small part of the southern portion of the study area transitions into the Interior Plateau (IP) ecoregion. The IP includes a till plain of low topographic relief formed from older Illinoian glacial drift materials, rolling to moderately dissected basin terrain, and rolling to deeply dissected plateaus. Layers of sandstone, siltstone, shale, and limestone underlie much of the IP. Limestone outcrops are common, as are areas pitted with limestone sinks. In Ohio, originally mixed mesophytic forests, mixed oak forests, and bottomland hardwood forests grew. Today, the ecoregion is a mosaic of forest and agriculture with urban-industrial activity occurring near Cincinnati and along the Ohio River. Census Data According to the 2010 census, the Ohio portion of the Whitewater River watershed area is home to approximately 13,630 people. Population densities range from 88 people/mi2 in Darke County to 1,943 people/mi2 in Hamilton County. About 10,000 people in the city of Harrison are located within the watershed. Population densities in this area are as high as 2,000 people/mi2. Total population across the three counties (Darke, Preble, and Hamilton) is estimated to drop 12.81 percent (nearly 112,000 people) between 2010 and 2030, while the county of Butler population is estimated to increase by 11.63 percent (48,000 people). Darke County expects to see the most population decline. Land Use Land use and land cover have an important influence on water quality conditions found in the watershed. Overall, agricultural land uses (cultivated crops, hay/pasture) were predominant throughout the Ohio portions of the watershed. Cultivated crops were the most extensive land cover type, especially so in the northern portion of watershed in Ohio (Figure 5). The southern portions of the watershed in Ohio encompass lesser amounts of cultivated crops and more amounts of various forest and hay/pasture land use types. The Whitewater mainstem drains a mosaic of agricultural, developed, and various forest type land uses in Indiana before re-entering Ohio. About 46 percent of the Ohio portions of the study area are

11

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020 row crops. Another dominant land use overall in the study area is livestock agriculture with a total of 4,911 beef and dairy cows, 17,481 hogs and 260 sheep (USDA 2012). As the amounts of agricultural or developed land increase within a watershed, there is a greater probability for negative impacts on water quality and biological communities related to these land uses to manifest (e.g., nutrient/organic enrichment, urban runoff, modified hydrology).

Figure 5 – NLCD 2016 land cover types around the Whitewater River watershed

12

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

External Watershed Surveys Several other entities have conducted watershed studies within portions of the Whitewater River watershed. Midwest Biodiverse Institute surveyed multiple streams in the lower Whitewater River watershed as part of a larger overall effort in the lower Great Miami River watershed. Those survey results and water quality report can be found at: http://www.msdgc.org/downloads/initiatives/water_quality/2013_great_miami_biological_water_qu ality_study.pdf. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management has also conducted other similar biological and water quality surveys in the Indiana portions of the Whitewater River watershed (IDEM 2020).

13

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Wastewater Discharge Overview A total of 11 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facilities discharge sanitary wastewater, industrial process water and/or industrial storm water into the Whitewater River watershed. Each facility is required to monitor their discharges according to sampling and monitoring conditions specified in their NPDES permit and report results to Ohio EPA in a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). A comprehensive list of NPDES permitted facilities, facility descriptions and performance history, and any water quality violations are fully detailed in Appendix B of this document. Certain NPDES facilities are considered major dischargers based on the volume (more than one million gallons per day or MGD) and type of waste they discharge. All other individual NPDES permitted facilities are considered minor dischargers. All major NPDES facilities in the Whitewater River watershed, as well as minor dischargers that were bracketed with biological monitoring sites, are listed in Table 3. Ohio EPA provides an interactive map with NPDES facility locations. Once a facility is selected within the interactive map, the user will have access to basic information about the facility, such as a links to the associated NPDES permit and compliance information through U.S. EPA’s website. The interactive map can be found at http://oepa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=25cf405adc3444139f4b410e69a2b bc9. General NPDES permits are a potential alternative for facilities that have a minimal effect on the environment, have similar operations and meet certain eligibility criteria. There are several different types of general permits, including, but not limited to, small sanitary sewer discharges, petroleum bulk storage and non-contact cooling water. A list of facilities covered under each type may be found at epa.ohio.gov/dsw/permits/NonStormgplist.aspx. There are also several types of general permits specific to storm water, including, but not limited to, small Municipal Separate Storm Systems (MS4s), construction sites, industries and marinas. A list of facilities covered under each type may be found at epa.ohio.gov/dsw/permits/gplist.aspx. Table 3 – Major NPDES Facilities and Minor Dischargers Bracketed with Biological Monitoring Sites Design Ohio EPA Discharge Wastewater Type, Stream and River Mile at Permit Number Facility Name (MGD) Treatment System Discharge County 05080003 07 02 ‐ Headwaters East Fork Whitewater River 1PA00017*ED New Madison STP 0.13 Extended aeration East Fork of the Whitewater Darke River 49.4 05080003 07 04 ‐ Rocky Fork‐East Fork Whitewater River 1PB00024*GD New Paris WWTP 0.32 Extended aeration East Fork of the Whitewater Preble River 40.43 05080003 90 01 ‐ Whitewater River 1PC00002*JD Harrison WWTP 2.3 Oxidation Ditch Whitewater River Hamilton 7.62 1IN00294*BD Whitewater 0.2 Experimental ‐ Fixed Whitewater River Hamilton Processing Co Inc. Film Biofilters 6.45

14

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Aquatic Life Use Results and Discussion Water Chemistry Results Surface water chemistry samples were collected from the Whitewater study area from June through August 2017 at 28 locations – 24 stream locations and 4 NPDES permitted outfall locations (Table 2). Stations were established in free-flowing sections of streams and samples were collected directly from the stream. Samples were alternatively collected from bridge crossings when high flows or other barriers precluded safe wading conditions. Surface water chemistry samples were collected in appropriate containers, preserved, and delivered to Ohio EPA’s Environmental Services laboratory using methods outlined in Ohio EPA's Surface Water Field Sampling Manual, July 31, 2015 (Ohio EPA 2015). A subset of the sites that were sampled for surface water chemistry were also sampled with continuous water quality sondes that monitor temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and specific conductance (conductivity). Temperature, DO and pH have diel (24-hour) patterns. These diel patterns have the greatest impact on streams during a critical condition that includes stable, low streamflow during hot summer months. Specific conductance is not influenced by the same diel triggers but is monitored to evaluate water quality exceedances and as an indicator of changes in streamflow. 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 diel patterns. Critical conditions for temperature and dissolved oxygen are times when flows are low, temperatures are high, and daylight is long. These are the times that streams are most sensitive to organic and nutrient enrichment. To capture these conditions, sondes are typically deployed during low-flow conditions from June to September. USGS gage data from the Whitewater River at the town of Brookville, Indiana was used to show flow trends in the Whitewater River during the 2017 survey (Figure 6). USGS gage data from the East Fork Whitewater River at the town of Abington, Indiana was used to show flow trends in all other segments of the 2017 survey (Figure 7). Dates when water samples and bacteria samples were collected and sondes were deployed in the study area are noted on the graphs. For the Whitewater mainstem, stream flows in early to mid-summer were substantially higher than historical averages. During the latter part of the summer, flows were closer to historical averages (Figure 6). Stream flows from the East Fork Whitewater River in 2017 were also largely above the median flows (Figure 7). Both data sets follow the same general trendline, but East Fork experienced more “flashy” flow events, especially early in the summer. Stream flows at the Whitewater mainstem gage are influenced by the large Brookville located a short distance upstream from the gage on East Fork. Heavy precipitation early in the summer of 2017 resulted in this reservoir being a source of high sustained observed through the Whitewater River mainstem through much of July 2017 (Figure 7). Sampling for most parameters, apart from the first bacteria sampling event in July, occurred at flows near historic flow levels. Water samples captured a variety of flow conditions in the study area during the field season. Bacteria samples were collected during the recreation use season (May 1 through October 31). Two sonde deployments occurred at 11 sites in the Whitewater River watershed. The first deployment was from August 8-10, 2017 and the second deployment took place at the same sites from September 19-21, 2017. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show that flows in Whitewater River and East Fork Whitewater River were elevated slightly above normal during sonde deployments, but were representative of summer, low-flow

15

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020 conditions. Summary plots of all data collected, including plots of hourly readings taken for temperature, DO, pH, and specific conductance, are displayed in Appendix K of this document. Additionally, ambient water temperature was measured in 30-minute intervals from July 1st through August 31st at seven locations using continuous temperature data loggers (Table 2). The purpose of this sampling was to describe the thermal regime at selected locations during the warmest part of the summer. Temperature loggers were placed throughout the northern portion of the watershed where streams displayed a cooler temperature profile during initial sampling in 2017 (Figure 20).

Figure 6 – Flow conditions in the Whitewater River at the USGS gage at Brookville, Indiana (03276500) during 2017 field season. Sampling activities are indicated on the plot.

16

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Figure 7 ‐ Flow conditions in the East Fork Whitewater River at the USGS gage at Abington, Indiana (03275600) during 2017 field season. Sampling activities are indicated on the plot.

Water Quality Exceedances Surface water samples from 28 locations were analyzed for metals, nutrients, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), semi-volatile organic compounds, organochlorinated pesticides, bacteria, pH, temperature, conductivity, DO, percent DO saturation, and suspended and dissolved solids (Appendices I & J). Parameters which exceeded criteria in the Ohio WQS are reported in Table 4. Bacteriological samples were collected from 17 locations during the 2017 survey. The bacteriological results are reported in the Recreation Use section. Water quality sondes were placed at 11 locations to monitor hourly levels of DO, pH, temperature, and conductivity. Water quality exceedances observed with sondes are reported in Table 5. No exceedances were found in the water chemistry grab samples. Field meter instantaneous DO readings were below the minimum water quality criteria three times at three locations during the 2017 sampling season. All minimum DO criteria exceedances occurred in August. Two of the low DO streams, Buck Run and Kiata Creek, have very small drainage areas and were observed to have very little or interstitial flows as the summer progressed. Middle Fork was noted as having slow flows on the day of the exceedance. Dissolved oxygen fluctuates in a stream due to biological activity, flow, reaeration, pollution and temperature. During summer months, flow is decreased, pollutant sources are less diluted, water temperatures are higher and biological activities increase. These conditions can result in somewhat lower DO in the stream and larger daily variability.

17

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Sondes were deployed twice at 11 sites. The first deployment was August 8-10, 2017, and 45-54 hours of data were collected. The second deployment was September 19-21, 2017, resulting in an additional 45-50 hours of data collected. The data collected during the sonde deployments are sufficient to evaluate exceedances of the standards for the protection of aquatic life for: maximum daily temperature; minimum DO; 24-hour average DO; 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 DO is calculated as a rolling 24-hour average of the hourly data. A summary of the exceedances is presented in Table 5. Temperature and specific conductance met the water quality standards during both sonde deployments. The first sonde deployment didn’t capture any parameter exceedances (DO, temperature, pH, and conductivity). On the second sonde deployment (September 19-21), Dry Fork Whitewater River at RM 18.1 (H11P04) fell below the minimum and average DO water quality criteria. Dissolved oxygen concentrations also fell below the minimum criterion at Dry Fork RM 9.02 (H11W69), East Fork RM 46.9 (H11S03), and Middle Fork RM 13.9 (303803) during the second deployment (Table 5). The only exceedances of pH water quality standards were observed in Dry Fork Whitewater River RM 0.52 (H11W70) during the second sonde deployment. The minimum and average DO exceedances at Dry Fork RM 18.1 appear mostly related to low/interstitial stream flows present during the second sonde deployment. The DO regime was more depressed here overall during much of the second deployment (Appendix Figure K19). Like upper Dry Fork, exceedances through lower Dry Fork only occurred during the second deployment. Though, minimum DO and maximum pH exceedances were also accompanied by wide diel swings with these parameters, suggesting that these exceedances were related to the instream productivity noted during low flow conditions later in the summer. Low flows and primary production were also most likely related to the minimum DO exceedances in Middle Fork later during the summer. Wide diel DO swings were documented here during both the first and second sonde deployments, though DO regime here was much more depressed overall during the second deployment. The minimum exceedances occurred during the second deployment. Minimum DO exceedances in upper East Fork were likely related mostly to instream productivity, as this stream seemed to benefit from more stable base flow and wide diel DO swings were also noted. Table 4 – Exceedances of Ohio EPA WQS criteria (OAC 3745‐1) (and other chemicals not codified for which toxicity data is available) for chemical/physical water parameters measured in grab samples taken from the Whitewater River study area, June – August 2017. Water parameters are assessed based on water quality criteria for the recommended Aquatic Life Use Designations. Refer to Beneficial Use Designations and Recommendations within this report for details about use recommendations. Stream (Stream Code) use designation a 12‐digit River Parameter (value) — (units are µg/l for metals, C° for temperature and mg/L for Station AU b Mile dissolved oxygen) Whitewater River (14‐300‐000) (EWH, AWS, IWS) H11S27 90‐01 8.28 None H11W65 90‐01 3.8 None H11S26 90‐01 1.5 None East Fork Whitewater (14‐308‐000) (CWH, AWS, IWS) H11W27 07‐02 49.6 None H11S03 07‐02 46.89 None H11S02 07‐02 41.4 None

18

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

H11S01 07‐04 39.48 None Little Creek (14‐313‐000) (CWH, AWS, IWS) 303801 07‐02 0.7 None Brinley Fork (14‐313‐001) (CWH, AWS, IWS) 303561 07‐02 0.1 None Rocky Fork (14‐312‐000) (CWH, AWS, IWS) 303802 07‐04 0.1 None Middle Fork of East Fork Whitewater (14‐308‐003) (WWH, AWS, IWS) 303803 07‐01 13.9 DO (2.62**) Jamison Creek (14‐307‐000) (WWH, AWS, IWS) 303784 08‐10 0.1 None Dry Fork Whitewater River (14‐302‐000) (EWH, AWS, IWS) H11W67 08‐07 20.1 None H11P04 08‐08 18.1 None H11W68 08‐08 13.3 None H11W69 08‐08 9.02 None H11S24 08‐09 4.35 None H11W70 08‐09 0.52 None Sours Run (14‐302‐004) (EWH, AWS, IWS) 303805 08‐08 0.1 None Kiata Creek (14‐302‐002) (EWH, AWS, IWS) 203540 08‐08 0.1 DO (3.23**) Buck Run (14‐302‐003) (WWH, AWS, IWS) 303806 08‐08 0.1 DO (2.14**) Howard Creek (14‐304‐000) (EWH, AWS, IWS) 303807 08‐08 0.3 None Lee Creek (14‐303‐000) (WWH, AWS, IWS) 303808 08‐09 0.1 None a Use designations: Aquatic Life Habitat Water Supply Recreation EWH ‐ exceptional warmwater IWS ‐ industrial water supply PCR ‐ primary contact habitat WWH ‐ warmwater habitat AWS ‐ agricultural water supply SCR ‐ secondary contact CWH – coldwater habitat PWS‐ public water supply BWR ‐bathing water b Watershed Assessment Unit within HUC8 04100004 ** Exceedance of OMZM (outside mixing zone maximum) numerical criteria for prevention of acute toxicity. # Exceedance of numerical criteria for the protection of human health (non‐drinking‐protective of people against adverse exposure to chemicals via eating fish), derived in accordance with OAC 3745‐1‐38.  Exceedance of agricultural water supply criterion. Δ Exceedance of the pH criteria (6.5‐9.0) * Exceedance of OMZA (outside mixing zone average) numerical criteria for prevention of chronic toxicity.

19

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 5 – Exceedances of Ohio Water Quality Standards criteria (OAC 3745‐1) for chemical and physical parameters derived from diel monitoring. Criteria are assessed based on criteria for the recommended Aquatic Life Use Designations. Refer to Beneficial Use Designations and Recommendations within this report for details about use recommendations. Sonde water quality monitors record hourly readings for the duration of the deployment. Consequently, exceedances can be presented as both a measure of magnitude and duration. Rolling 24‐hour averages were calculated using the hourly readings for comparison against the average DO criteria. 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. The duration is presented first followed by the magnitude in parenthesis on the table. Applicable water quality criteria include: minimum DOd, average D.O.e, maximum temperaturef, pHg and specific conductanceh.

Stream (Stream Code) Ecoregiona‐ ALUb

12‐digit River Parameter: duration (magnitude) — (units are C° for temperature, mg/L for dissolved Station AU c Mile oxygen and µS/cm for specific conductance) Whitewater River (14‐300‐000) IP – EWH H11S27 90‐01 8.28 None H11W65 90‐01 3.8 None H11S26 90‐01 1.5 None Dry Fk. Whitewater River (14‐302‐000) ECBP & IP – EWH H11P04 08‐08 18.1 DO min: 20(1.6); 18(1.4) DO avg: 18(2.9) H11W69 08‐08 9.02 DO min: 3(4.7); 2(4.7) H11S24 08‐09 4.35 None H11W70 08‐09 0.52 pH: 2(9.1) East Fk. Whitewater River (14‐308‐000) ECBP – CWH H11S03 07‐02 46.9 DO min:8(5.3); 10(5.0) H11S02 07‐02 41.4 None H11S01 07‐04 39.48 None Middle Fk. Of East Fk. Whitewater River (14‐308‐003) ECBP – WWH 303803 07‐01 13.9 DO min: 10(1.4); 10(1.3)

a Notes: ECBP – Eastern Corn Belt Plains b Use designations: Aquatic Life Use EWH – Exceptional Warmwater Habitat WWH ‐ Warmwater Habitat CWH – coldwater habitat c Watershed Assessment Unit within HUC8 05080003 d Applicable minimum D.O. criterion – EWH: 5.0 mg/l; WWH: 4.0 mg/L; MWH‐HELP: 2.5 mg/L e Applicable minimum 24‐hour average D.O. criterion – EWH: 6.0 mg/l; WWH: 5.0 mg/L; MWH: 4.0 mg/L f The General Ohio river basin daily maximum temperature criteria apply; See OAC 3745‐1‐35, Table 35‐11(A). g The criteria for pH is 6.5‐9.0 S.U. h The criteria for specific conductivity is 2400 µS/cm.

20

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Weight of Evidence Nutrient Assessment Nutrients were measured at each water sampling location, including ammonia, nitrate+nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus (TP), and orthophosphate. The purpose of the nutrient monitoring summarized in this report is to consider the effect of nutrients on the biological conditions in the local streams. While excess nutrients may be sourced from watersheds, they are often effectively transported to the downstream water without causing local impairments. Chlorophyll concentrations from benthic algae (attached to bottom substrates) are measured as a proxy for algal community biomass in wadable streams and small , while chlorophyll concentrations measured from sestonic algae (suspended in the water column) serve as a proxy for algal abundance in large rivers. Physical factors such as width-depth ratio, time of travel, and longitudinal gradient may largely determine whether sestonic or benthic algae drive production and respiration. However, sestonic algae typically dominate streams defined as large rivers, and benthic algae typically dominate small streams. Miltner (2010) identified benthic chlorophyll levels that broadly demarcate enrichment status relative to Ohio. Streams with less than 90 mg/m2 can be considered least disturbed and atypical for Ohio. Benthic chlorophyll levels between 90-183 mg/m2 are typical for Ohio streams with modest amounts of agriculture or wastewater loadings. Levels between 183-320 mg/m2 are typical of streams draining agricultural landscapes or that are dominated. Chlorophyll levels exceeding 320 mg/m2 characterize over- enrichment or nuisance conditions. A review of studies on sestonic chlorophyll-a by Dodds (2006), which included some Midwestern streams, suggest that concentrations of 40-100 μg/l sestonic chlorophyll-a identify eutrophic conditions while concentrations >100 μg/l indicate hypertrophic conditions. Ohio and other states have been developing nutrient reduction strategies in recent years to address cultural eutrophication (USEPA 2015, Ohio EPA 2014a, Ohio EPA 2015c, Miltner 2010, Heiskary and Markus 2003). Wide diel (24-hour) DO ranges associated with eutrophication are caused by excessive

photosynthesis (O2 production) during daylight hours and respiration (O2 consumption) at night. The most recent investigations by Ohio EPA have identified a diel DO range of 6.5 mg/L as a threshold generally protective of biological and stream quality; diel DO ranges greater than 6.5 mg/L are indicative of eutrophication in Ohio streams and are likely over-enriched (Ohio EPA 2014). Total phosphorus and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) usually represent the largest portion of these nutrients. The index period for nutrients impacting streams is June 15 – October 15. Ohio EPA assigns a risk category using the geometric means of samples collected in the index period (Ohio EPA 2015c). Table 6 presents the risk category for all sites sampled in the study area. All locations sampled in 2017 were placed in the low risk category. Figure 8 is a representation of the nutrient assessment data collected from the Whitewater River and tributaries. In this study, DIN is estimated using the sum of concentrations in unfiltered samples of ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite. Four of 11 locations exhibited diel DO swings greater than the threshold of 6.5 mg/L, indicating excessive primary production at these locations. The wide diel ranges documented in Dry Fork (DO & pH) were likely the result of primary production from filamentous algae during low flow periods. The largest DO swings and all sonde exceedances in Dry Fork occurred during the second deployment, which occurred under low flow conditions (Appendix K). Large diel DO swings in upper East Fork were likely related solely to primary production, as East Fork benefitted from more stable baseflow than Dry Fork over the summer. Enrichment in Middle Fork was also most likely related to primary production. Large diel DO swings associated with nutrient enrichment were already apparent during the first deployment earlier in the summer, while DO

21

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020 sags and minimum DO exceedances were observed later in the summer under reduced flow conditions (Appendix K). Dead/decaying algae or other organic matter inputs can cause prolonged DO sags, especially under low flow conditions when there is limited potential for reaeration. Additionally, the Whitewater River at RM 1.5 (H11S26) exhibited a diel DO swing just below the elevated threshold (6.4 mg/L); the range here was somewhat greater than the two other upstream locations on the mainstem. Benthic chlorophyll-a was in the low range at six sites, moderate range at four sites, and high range at just one site. All sestonic algae collection results from the survey were below the low range threshold. Both DIN and TP geometric means were low compared to the benchmark values.

22

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Figure 8 – Representation of diel DO, benthic chlorophyll‐a, TP, and DIN used to evaluate the impact of nutrients on Whitewater River and its tributaries. Benchmarks for chlorophyll‐a and nutrients (Dodds 2006, Miltner 2010, Ohio EPA 2014, Ohio EPA 2015c) are presented within their respective plots. Boxes on DO plots are shaded if the diel range exceeds the benchmark of 6.5 mg/L (Miltner, 2010). The dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll data were collected on two surveys from Aug. 8 – 10, 2017 and Sept. 19 – 21, 2017.

23

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 6 – Nutrient sampling results in the Whitewater River and selected tributaries, summer (June 15 – October 15) 2017. The seasonal geometric mean for each site was used to assign a site to a risk category based on Ohio EPA (2015c). Please note the risk categories do not directly translate to cause/source determinations for ALU impairment. Rather, this data serves as one of many lines of evidence in the cause/source determination process. However, this information does give one a general sense of how individual site nutrient levels compare to statewide data.

DIN Stream (Stream Code) Total Phosphorus (Ammonia + Nitrate + Nitrite) Drainage Samples Geometric Geometric Risk Station RM AUa Area (mi2) (#) Mean Samples (#) Mean Categoryb Whitewater River (14‐300‐000) H11S27 8.28 90‐01 1369 5 0.06 10 0.42 L H11W65 3.9 90‐01 1384 5 0.10 10 0.37 L H11S26 1.5 90‐01 1469 5 0.08 10 0.36 L East Fork Whitewater (14‐308‐000) H11W27 49.6 07‐02 4.0 5 0.04 10 0.39 L H11S03 46.89 07‐02 12.4 5 0.03 10 0.40 L H11S02 41.4 07‐02 34.0 5 0.03 10 0.31 L H11S01 39.48 07‐04 40.0 5 0.03 10 0.32 L Little Creek (14‐313‐000) 303801 0.7 07‐02 8.7 5 0.03 10 0.29 L Brinley Fork (14‐313‐001) 303561 0.1 07‐02 3.4 5 0.03 10 0.24 L Rocky Fork (14‐312‐000) 303802 0.1 07‐04 2.1 4 0.01 8 0.10 L Middle Fork of East Fork Whitewater (14‐308‐003) 303803 13.9 07‐01 13.5 5 0.06 10 0.38 L Jamison Creek (14‐307‐000) 303784 0.1 08‐10 6.7 5 0.10 10 0.16 L Dry Fork Whitewater River (14‐302‐000) H11W67 20.1 08‐07 16.2 4 0.10 8 0.26 L H11P04 18.1 08‐08 33.0 4 0.07 8 0.19 L H11W68 13.3 08‐08 46.0 4 0.05 8 0.35 L H11W69 9.02 08‐08 50.0 5 0.05 10 0.38 L H11S24 4.35 08‐09 78.0 4 0.08 8 0.23 L H11W70 0.52 08‐09 81.5 5 0.06 10 0.23 L Sours Run (14‐302‐004) 303805 0.1 08‐08 6.5 4 0.04 6 0.21 L Kiata Creek (14‐302‐002) 203540 0.1 08‐08 6.0 4 0.02 8 0.21 L Buck Run (14‐302‐003) 303806 0.1 08‐08 4.1 3 0.06 3 0.17 L Howard Creek (14‐304‐000) 303807 0.3 08‐08 7.5 4 0.14 8 0.20 L Lee Creek (14‐303‐000) 303808 0.1 08‐08 11.1 4 0.11 8 0.22 L a AU – HUC‐12 Assessment Unit – HUC‐8: 04100004 b Risk categories are based on Ohio EPA (2015d). Risk category Total phosphorus DIN L (Low) <0.131 <3.6 M (Medium) ≥0.131 and <0.4 <3.6 H (High) ≥0.4 ≥3.6

24

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Supplemental Temperature Data Continuous temperature data loggers were deployed at seven different locations in the northern part of the watershed, where glacial end moraines are a source of groundwater to streams (

). Results from the data loggers are summarized below in Table 7. The 30-day average temperature remained below 70oF at all locations except for Welker Lateral. A pattern of increasing temperatures was exhibited from upstream to downstream at the three stations on East Fork. Ambient water temperatures would be expected to rise as stream water flows downstream away from the source of groundwater expression as it is warmed by solar radiation and ambient air temperatures. These data show that water temperatures in the mainstem of East Fork rose from near 66oF to close to 70oF within a span of about 7½ stream miles and a drainage area increase of almost 30 square miles. Individual temperature measurements collected at streams in the northern portion of the watershed matched well with the results of the continuous data loggers, with most of the individual temperature measurements below 70oF in these streams except for Welker Lateral (Figure 20). Table 7 – Results from continuous temperature loggers, June‐August 2019. Max 30‐day Avg Proportion of CW Station Stream Drainage Area # CW Macro Taxa Temp (oF) Fish H11S01 East Fork RM 39.48 40.0 69.6 25% 3 H11S02 East Fork RM 41.4 34.0 68.2 30% 5 H11S03 East Fork RM 46.9 12.4 66.2 19% 3 303802 Rocky Fork 2.1 67.0 25% 5 303801 Little Creek 8.7 69.7 25% 5 303561 Brinley Fork 3.4 66.8 23% 2 H11S05 Welker Lateral 1.2 71.9 26% 2 Organics Organic parameters, including organochlorine pesticides, acid and chlorinated acid herbicides, and glyphosate were measured at six sampling locations. One each in Middle Fork East Fork Whitewater and Whitewater mainstem, and two each in East Fork and Dry Fork. (Appendix J). Organics were analyzed during two sampling events in June and July. The suite of pesticide parameters was analyzed during both sampling events. Thirty-two herbicides and insecticides were detected in the organic samples. Only one of the detected pesticides has an established water quality criteria, namely bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Concentrations detected did not exceed the water quality criteria. Middle Fork East Fork Whitewater was the only location that did not detect bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Six of the eight parameters detected are herbicides, which correlate with the high incidence of agriculture in the watershed.

25

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 8 – Frequency of pesticides detected in stream water samples in the Whitewater River watershed during 2017 (Number of water quality criteria exceedances/Number of detections).1 Whitewater River Watershed (AU 05080003‐__‐__) 07‐01 07‐02 07‐04 08‐07 08‐08 90‐01

Parameter Total

Middle Fork East Fork Whitewater RM 13.9 East Fork Whitewater RM 41.4 East Fork Whitewater RM 39.48 Dry Fork Whitewater RM 20.1 Dry Fork Whitewater RM 9.02 Whitewater River RM 3.8 Acetochlor ‐ ‐ ‐ */1 ‐ */1 */2 Atrazine */2 */1 */1 */1 */2 */2 */9 Bis(2‐Ethylhexyl)phthalate ‐ 0/1 0/2 0/1 0/1 0/2 0/7 Butachlor ‐ ‐ */1 ‐ ‐ ‐ */1 Dicamba */1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ */1 Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4‐D) */1 ‐ */1 ‐ ‐ ‐ */2 Metolachlor */2 */1 */1 */1 */2 */2 */9 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) ‐ ‐ */1 ‐ ‐ ‐ */1 Exceedances/Detections2 0/6 0/3 0/7 0/4 0/5 0/7 0/32 1 Water samples for pesticides analysis were collected in June and July. * Parameter was detected but no applicable water quality criteria are available.

26

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

MIDDLE FK. OF E. FK. WHITEWATER @ TILLSON RD.

DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. NEAR OH/IN STATE LINE @ DWYER RD

E. FK. WHITEWATER R. AT NEW PARIS @ ST. RT. 121 Atrazine

E. FK. WHITEWATER R. NEAR OHIO/INDIANA STATE LINE @ MURRAY R

DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. UPST. NEW HAVEN @ WILLEY RD.

WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2

ug/L 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 June 2017 July 2017

Metachlor 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 ug/L 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 June 2017 July 2017

Figure 9 – Detections of selected herbicides in samples collected from the Whitewater River and tributaries, 2017.

27

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Sediment Chemistry Results Sediment samples are typically analyzed for percent solids, TOC, total phosphorus, metals, pesticides, PCBs, and s-VOCs (PAHs). Sampling locations were selected to determine background sediment quality, assess the impact from point sources and urban non-point runoff, and evaluate downstream transport and recovery. Samples are collected following the Sediment Sampling Guide and Methodologies, 3rd Edition (Ohio EPA 2015a). The goal is to collect a representative sample that is composed of more than 30 percent silt and clay particles. These fine-grained particles are much more physically, chemically and biologically reactive because they hold more interstitial water and have unbalanced electrical charges that can attract contaminants. Ohio EPA attempted to collect benthic sediment samples from the Whitewater River study area on Sept. 27, 2017. However, most of the streams of the Whitewater River watershed contained little in the way of fine- grained sediment in large enough volumes to have much of an ecological impact. Fine particles are predominantly washed downstream at higher flows. Exceptions to this include impounded segments, isolated eddies and in the headwater where feeder streams are channelized. These types of conditions were not present at the selected sediment sampling locations. Fine-grained sediments in large enough quantities for collection could not be found at the selected sediment sampling locations: Whitewater River at lane off Lawrenceburg Road (RM 3.8, H11W65); Dry Fork Whitewater River near the Ohio/Indiana state line at Dwyer Road (RM 20.15, H11W67) and at Willey Road (RM 9.02, H11W69); East Fork Whitewater River at Murray Road (RM 39.48, H11S01) and at St. Rt. 121 (RM 41.4, H11S02); and at Middle Fork of East Fork Whitewater River at Tillson Road (RM 13.9, 303803). These locations had very small areas and very little amounts of fine-grained sediments. The stream beds ranged from coarse sand to gravels and cobbles. The lack of adsorptive, fine-grained sediment material was demonstrated by particle size analysis of a sediment sample collected from the Middle Fork of East Fork Whitewater River at Tillson Road (303803). The sediment was only 15% fine-grained materials, silt and clays (Table 9). Photos of the stream bed characteristics in the Whitewater River study area are presented below (Figure 10-Figure 12). Table 9 – Particle size analysis of sediments from Middle Fork East Fork Whitewater River at Tillson Rd. Class Percentage Fine‐Medium clay (<2u) 4.95% Coarse clay (2‐4u) 1.24% Very fine silt (4‐8u) 1.24% Fine silt (8‐15u) 2.48% Medium silt (15‐30u) 2.48% Coarse silt (30‐60u) 2.48% Sand and larger (>60u) 85.2% Total Fines 14.87%

28

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Figure 10 – Typical coarse‐grained stream bed material found in East Fork Whitewater River at Guy Murray Rd. (RM 38.48, H11S01)

29

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Figure 11 – The “finest” grained sediments collected from all sediment sampling locations in the study area in 2017 (Middle Fork East Fork Whitewater River ‐ RM 13.9)

Figure 12 – An example of a sand/gravel/cobble dominated stream bed common in streams throughout the study area (Whitewater River RM 3.80, H11W65)

30

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Physical Habitat Results Stream physical habitat is evaluated using the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI). The QHEI is a qualitative, visual habitat assessment method correlated with fish community condition (Ohio EPA 2006a, Rankin 1989). Stream physical habitat was evaluated at 25 locations, coinciding with fish community sampling reaches. Overall, QHEI scores in streams throughout the study area ranged from fair to excellent, with the majority of scores falling within the good-exceptional ranges (Figure 13, Table 10). As habitat quality shifts from a natural to a more modified state, attendant water quality issues (nutrient/organic enrichment) in a stream system can be exacerbated. For example, if a stream already has deficient instream habitat (reduced riparian shading, fair/poor stream development), excess nutrients may not adequately assimilate. This condition can result in more severe impacts to instream biological communities than in a stream with more natural habitat features. Conversely, a more natural stream system is generally able to assimilate various pollutants more effectively, and thus, a similar amount of pollutants may not have as much of impact on instream biological communities. Stream segments with mean QHEI values of at least 60 typically coincide with instream habitat that have numerous natural warmwater habitat attributes and few negative influence habitat attributes. As the average QHEI score decreases throughout a stream system, the number of negative influence modified habitat attributes begins to increase and the potential for biological impairment related to habitat increases. Typically, instream habitat should not be a factor precluding aquatic life attainment of WWH criterion when stream reaches have an average QHEI of at least 60 (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995). Reach averages with QHEI values between 45 and 60 indicate limiting habitat components are present that may negatively influence biological performance. Values below 45 indicate a higher probability of habitat- derived aquatic life use impairment, but should not be viewed as determinant. Due to the potential for compensatory stream features (strong ground water connectivity) or other attributes, low average QHEI scores do not necessarily preclude these streams from fully supporting WWH or even EWH assemblages. Figure 13 displays QHEI scores by drainage area throughout the survey and the score ranges discussed above. Most habitat scores were above 60, while some locations had scores in the 45-60 range (Figure 13) Habitat, as it relates to influences on biological performance, will be discussed in the Aquatic Life Use Discussion. Comparisons between the QHEI and IBI have resulted in a list of critical positive, often natural, habitat features strongly associated with WWH and EWH fish assemblages (warmwater habitat attributes) and a list of negative habitat features that are more often associated with degraded communities (modified habitat attributes) (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995); a complete list of positive and negative habitat features is presented in Table 11 and Appendix H. As the number of negative habitat attributes begin to accumulate, both at a site and within a stream system, the potential for habitat quality to limit biological performance increases. All MWH/WWH habitat ratios were under 2, which reflects the generally high-quality habitat found throughout the study area. As MWH/WWH ratios increase above 2:1, the potential for instream habitat to limit biological performance and cause impairment increases. Habitat quality was excellent throughout the Whitewater River mainstem, and the majority of both East and Dry forks (Figure 13, Table 10). The only location assessed as fair was Dry Fork just upstream from Harrison Rd. (RM 4.35, H11S24). Habitat quality upstream from Harrison Rd. was noticeably influenced by a functional impoundment, created by a swath of concrete under Harrison Rd. that supports the overpass infrastructure. At normal flow, there is an approximate drop of 3-4 feet upstream and downstream from this impoundment. Excessive sedimentation/embeddedness and simplified stream development were

31

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020 among some of the negative habitat influences observed in the sampling reach upstream from Harrison Rd. Habitat quality was noticeably lower here compared to the other locations in Dry Fork (Figure 14). Habitat quality in upper East Fork was negatively influenced by channelization and excessive siltation/sedimentation. This location had one of the higher proportions of negative habitat attributes compared to other locations in the study area (Table 11). Lower flow or interstitial conditions were observed in Welker Lateral and throughout many streams in the Dry Fork basin later during the summer sampling season. These conditions are discussed more thoroughly Aquatic Life Use Discussion.

100 100

80 80

WWH Benchmark 60 60 Limiting habitat features present

Greater potential 40 for habitat derived impairment 40 Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Evaluation Habitat Qualitative 20 20

0 0 Whitewater QHEI East Fork QHEI Dry Fork QHEI 1 10 100 1000 104 Drainage Area

Figure 13 – QHEI scores displayed by drainage area (left) and aggregated by major drainage basin (right). Scores were parsed by attainment of the aquatic life beneficial use. QHEI scores displayed in red indicate areas where biological impairment occurred. 2017‐ 2019.

100

Ohio-Indiana State Line

80

WWH Benchmark 60

Limiting habitat features present

40 Greater potential for habitat derived impairment Harrison Rd. Indexof BioticIntegrity impoundment

20

ECBP Ecoregion IP Ecoregion

0 20 15 10 5 0 River Mile Figure 14 – QHEI scores from Dry Fork displayed longitudinally, 2017.

32

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 10 – Summary of the QHEI and metric scores from streams within the Whitewater River study area, 2017‐18. Values denoted by [brackets] were collected in 2018, while {braces} indicated data collected in 2019. River Drainage Instream Station Stream Mile Area QHEI Narrative Substrate Cover Channel Riparian Pool Gradient H11S27 Whitewater River 8.28 1369.0 86.25 Excellent 16.5 18 15.5 8.25 12 6 10 H11W65 Whitewater River 3.80 1384.0 76.5 Excellent 13 18 14 7 11 3.5 10 H11S26 Whitewater River 1.50 1469.0 85 Excellent 16.5 18 16 6.5 12 6 10 H11S03 East Fork Whitewater 46.89 11.6 58 Good 9.5 12 10 4 9.5 3 10 H11S02 East Fork Whitewater 41.40 31.3 77 Excellent 16 17 12 4 12 6 10 H11S01 East Fork Whitewater 39.48 36.8 80 Excellent 15.5 15 16 6.5 11 6 10 H11S05 Welker Lateral 0.9 1.2 {53.25} {Fair} {9.5} {14} {10.5} {5.25} {4} {2} {8} 303801 Little Creek 9.0 8.7 72 Excellent 15.5 15 13 7 11.5 4 6 303561 Brinley Fork 0.1 3.4 80 Excellent 17 17 16.5 7.5 8 4 10 303802 Rocky Fork 0.1 2.0 63.25 Good 16.5 11 12 4.25 7 4.5 8 303803 Middle Fork of East Fork 13.9 13.5 72.5 Excellent 13.5 15 12 7 11 4 10 Whitewater 303784 Jamison Creek 0.1 6.6 58.25 Good 12 10 13 8.75 9 1.5 4 H11W67 Dry Fork Whitewater 19.5 15.7 71.5 Excellent 14.5 16 16 6.5 10 4.5 4 H11P04 Dry Fork Whitewater 18.8 27.0 82.75 Excellent 16 16 16 8.75 11.5 6.5 8 H11W68 Dry Fork Whitewater 13.3 46.0 72.75 Good 14.5 15 11.5 4.75 12 5 10 H11W69 Dry Fork Whitewater 9.02 50.0 74.5 Good 12.5 16 15.5 6 11 3.5 10 H11S24 Dry Fork Whitewater 4.4 78.0 59.5 Fair 10 10 11.5 7.5 10 2.5 8 H11W70 Dry Fork Whitewater 0.52 81.5 77.25 Excellent 14.5 16 16 7.75 10 5 8 303805 Sours Run 0.1 6.5 78.5 Excellent 18.5 14 17 8 11 6 4 303984 Sater Run 0.2 3.3 [71] [Excellent] [18] [13] [15.5] [8.5] [6] [6] [4] 203540 Kiata Creek 0.1 6 69.25 Good 18 12 15.5 5.75 5 5 8 303806 Buck Run 0.1 4.1 68.5 Good 10.5 15 16 4.5 9 5.5 8 303782 Howard Creek 2.9 5.8 {64.75} {Good} {16} {14} {11} {5.75} {8} {4} {6} 303807 Howard Creek 0.9 7.5 {71.5} {Excellent} {16} {15} {12} {6.5} {8} {4} {10} 303807 Howard Creek 0.9 7.5 76.75 Excellent 17 15 14.5 5.75 10 4.5 10 303808 Lee Creek 0.1 11.1 57.75 Good 11.5 12 11.5 3.75 7 2 10

33

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 11 – QHEI attributes matrix for sampling streams within the Whitewater River study area.

34

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

35

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Fish Sampling Results A total of 26,165 individual fish representing 68 unique species and 3 hybrids were collected from the portions of the Whitewater River and principal tributaries residing in Ohio. Most fish samples were collected between June 15th and October 15th, 2017. Several fish samples were collected in 2018 and 2019 to obtain additional data from select areas (Table 13). The survey effort included 31 fish sampling events from 25 locations. Relative numbers, biomass, and species collected per location, IBI and MIwb scores, and maps of fish species relative abundance and distribution are detailed in Appendices E, F, and G. Fish numbers and biomass are standardized to a distance of 0.3 km for headwater and wading sites and 1 km for boat sites. These standardized values are referred to as “relative abundance” and “relative biomass”. Most stream sampling locations in the study area reside within the ECBP ecoregion, while the southernmost portions of the study area transition to the IP ecoregion. Fish assemblages across the study area were rated from fair to excellent, with most scores falling into ranges associated with WWH and EWH assemblages (Table 13). Fish index scores were somewhat higher in the southern portions of the study area (Dry Fork and tributaries, Jamison Creek) compared to streams in the northern portions (East Fork and tributaries) (Figure 15). The non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test indicated significant differences (p=0.003) between the two sets of tributary systems (Whitewater mainstem excluded). Among other possible factors, fish communities in these southern portions of the watershed benefitted from their proximity and connectivity to other large and high-quality river systems, including the Great Miami and Ohio rivers. State-listed fish taxa collected as part of the survey included two northern madtom (endangered) specimens from Whitewater River RM 8.28 (H11S27). Additionally, a new population of the bigeye chub, a highly intolerant minnow species was recorded in Middle Fork of East Fork Whitewater River. This species

60 60

52 50 EWH Wading & Headwater EWH Boat 44

40 WWH Wading & Headwater 36

30 Whitewater R. 28 Dry Fork

Index of Biotic Integrity Biotic of Index Dry Fork tribs Jamison Creek East Fork 20 20 East Fork tribs

n=15 n=8 12

4 Dry Fork sub-basin East Fork sub-basin 110100100010 & Jamison Creek (Whitewater mainstem excluded) Drainage Area Figure 15 – Scatter plot of IBI scores from all streams displayed by drainage area and parsed by major drainage basins (left) and box blot of IBI scores aggregated by sub‐basin, 2017‐2019. The shaded portions represent indicated biocriteria and areas of non‐significant departure from said values. Results from multiple sampling events within the same year are averaged.

36

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020 was formerly imperiled in Ohio (Trautman 1981), but has recently seen range expansions throughout the state and is no longer a state listed species of concern (ODNR 2020). Other relatively rare, intolerant, or otherwise noteworthy taxa collected throughout the study area included, the brindled and stonecat madtom, black and river redhorse, slenderhead darter, and gravel chub. Given the large river size and proximity to the Great Miami and Ohio rivers, many species associated with larger rivers were collected from the Whitewater River mainstem, including: mooneye; river redhorse; skipjack herring; smallmouth buffalo; multiple carpsucker species; hybrid striped bass; sauger and walleye; bullhead minnow; and emerald shiner. The Whitewater River mainstem boasts a very high quality and well-balanced fish community. Community index scores from the three mainstem locations exceeded EWH criteria and all scores corresponded to excellent narrative evaluations (Table 13). A total of 52 unique species or hybrids were collected across the three sampling locations. Pollution intolerant species were well represented in the mainstem and included the stonecat madtom, banded darter, mimic and silver shiner, and black and river redhorse. Other rare- intolerant species collected included the northern madtom, slenderhead darter, and mooneye. Numerous other sensitive species (intolerant + moderately intolerant) were also collected and were well represented. Sensitive species comprised 40-60 percent of the overall fish community across the three locations evaluated, while highly tolerant species ranged from only about 5-9 percent. A wide variety of sportfish were also well represented throughout the Whitewater River, including: sauger; walleye; saugeye; hybrid striped bass; white bass; bluegill and longear sunfish; rock bass; channel and flathead catfish; freshwater drum; and largemouth, spotted, and smallmouth bass. Several of these sportfish species were dominant components of the fish community (Table 14). Maps of sportfish distribution and abundance are displayed in Appendix E.

37

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Dry Fork also boasts very high-quality fish 60 Sours & Sater assemblage throughout. IBI and MIwb scores Run Lee Creek consistently exceeded the EWH criterion and were all in the excellent range (Figure 16, Table 52 13). This is unsurprising, given its proximity to the of the Whitewater River with EWH Wading 44 Kiata Creek & Howard Creek Criterion both the Great Miami and Ohio rivers. Similar Buck Run to the Whitewater River mainstem, sensitive 36 species were well represented throughout and ECBP & IP WWH Ohio-Indiana Wading Criteria several were dominant components of the State Line

overall fish community (Table 14). The overall Integrity Biotic of Index 28 number of smallmouth bass collected throughout the middle and lower reaches of Dry Fork was noteworthy, especially for a 20 relatively small stream (Appendix E). The ECBP Ecoregion IP Ecoregion intolerant black redhorse was also found in 12 appreciable abundances in Dry Fork (Appendix 20 15 10 5 0 E). Though still meeting the criterion, a small 60 decrease in fish index scores were noted at RM

4.35 (H11S24) compared to the remainder of Tributary (49.51) & New Paris 52 WWTP Dry Fork (Figure 16). New Madison STP Little Fish index scores in Dry Fork tributaries Tributary (47.48) Creek ranged from fair to exceptional. Most scores 44 met applicable criteria. Fish assemblages in

Buck Run were missing many species 36 ECBP WWH compared to other area streams. The near Headwater & Wading adjacent and similar-sized site on Kiata Creek Rocky Fork supported 15 overall species, including three Integrity ofBiotic Index 28 sensitive species, while Buck Run only Ohio-Indiana supported five total species, three of which State Line 20 were highly tolerant. Fish assemblages throughout the East Fork of 12 the Whitewater River were rated marginally 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 good to good at the three locations assessed River Mile (Figure 16, Table 13). Species richness Figure 16 – Longitudinal IBI performance from Dry Fork (top) and throughout East Fork was low compared to East Fork (bottom) Whitewater River. Grey shaded boxes display other area streams this size, with only 14-18 indicated criteria and area of non‐significant departure from species collected across the three locations criteria. evaluated. Some otherwise common species were found in low abundances (largemouth bass, golden redhorse, green sunfish, johnny and fantail darter – only a handful of individuals each). Several tributaries evaluated that join East Fork in Ohio (Little Creek, Brinley Fork, Rocky Fork) also had low overall species richness. Middle Fork of the East Fork Whitewater River supported 22 species at the one location evaluated, despite being smaller overall (RM 13.9, 303803). Species collected in Middle Fork in appreciable numbers, but not

38

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020 the other portions of the East Fork watershed in Ohio, included: bigeye chub; scarlet shiner; striped shiner; rock bass; smallmouth bass; and longear sunfish. Some of these species could be reasonably expected to persist in East Fork and absence of some these species at those sites is noteworthy. Middle Fork originates in Ohio before joining East Fork in Richmond, Indiana. East Fork similarly originates in Ohio, before flowing into Indiana. There are several situated on East Fork. The “ dam” is located in Richmond, Indiana downstream from the confluence with Middle Fork, and thus, would not have limited fish passage between these two areas. However, the Middle Fork Reservoir just northeast of Richmond (39.853509, -84.874163) functionally isolates most of Middle Fork from the remainder of the East Fork. Additionally, a small structure on East Fork (39.845719, -84.847158) may further isolate these two stream systems where they were evaluated. The presence of these impoundments may help explain both the differences in species compositions between the two systems and the somewhat limited species pool found in the remainder of the East Fork sub-basin in Ohio. Despite limited species richness overall, coldwater fish species (mottled sculpin, s. redbelly dace) comprised a dominant component of the fish community throughout East Fork and many of its Ohio tributaries (Figure 17, Appendix E). These coldwater fish comprised 18 to 30 percent of the overall fish community in these streams where assessed (Table 12). A third coldwater fish species (redside dace) was recorded in East Fork during the survey in 1982, but was not collected during the latest survey. The high proportion of coldwater fish is unsurprising, given that these streams flow through a glacial end moraine that provides a ready supply of cool groundwater (Figure 17).

39

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 12 – Proportion of coldwater fish comprising overall fish community at locations throughout the study area.

Coldwater Fish Species Species % of Rel. Station Stream & RM Present Abundance No. Mottled Sculpin, H11S03 East Fork RM 46.89 18.7 188.6 South. Redbelly Dace Mottled Sculpin, H11S02 East Fork RM 41.4 30.1 511.5 South. Redbelly Dace H11S01 East Fork RM 39.48 Mottled Sculpin 25.3 472.5 H11S05 Welker Lateral South. Redbelly Dace 26.4 370.5 Mottled Sculpin, 303802 Rocky Fork RM 0.1 24.9 172.7 South. Redbelly Dace 303801 Little Creek RM 0.7 Mottled Sculpin 24.6 270.0 Mottled Sculpin, 303561 Brinley Fork RM 0.1 23.1 226.3 South. Redbelly Dace Mottled Sculpin, 303803 Middle Fork RM 13.9 5.2 90.0 South. Redbelly Dace H11S27 Whitewater R. RM 8.28 Mottled Sculpin 0.5 6.0 H11W65 Whitewater R. RM 3.8 Mottled Sculpin 0.2 2.0

40

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Figure 17 – Map displaying proportions of coldwater fish species (s. redbelly dace, mottled sculpin) comprising the overall fish community overlaid against the underlying geology. Fish information displayed was collected during the current survey.

41

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 13 – Fish community summaries based on pulsed D.C. electrofishing conducted by Ohio EPA in the Whitewater River watershed, 2017‐2019. Data collected in 2018 are indicated by [brackets] and 2019 are indicated by {braces}. IBI and MIwb scores followed by an asterisk (*) indicate scores failed to meet biocriteria for the existing or recommended aquatic life use. Relative Relative 12‐digit AU River Drainage Cumulative Number Biomass Narrative Evaluation Station QHEI IBI MIwb (05080003) Mile Area Fish Species minus minus (IBI/MIwb) Tolerant Tolerant (kg) Whitewater River (14‐300‐000) – IP H11S27 90 01 8.28 1369.0 37 1084.0 211.4 86.25 52 11.68 Exceptional/Exceptional H11W65 90 01 3.80 1384.0 38 970.0 252.7 76.5 50 11.46 Exceptional/Exceptional H11S26 90 01 1.50 1469.0 40 934.0 265.1 85.0 50 11.78 Exceptional/Exceptional Upper Whitewater Tributaries East Fork Whitewater River (14‐308‐000) – ECBP H11S03 07 02 46.89 11.6 15 401.1 ‐ 58.0 37 ‐ Marg. Good H11S02 07 02 41.40 31.3 18 915.0 7.4 77.0 40 8.19 Good/Marg. Good H11S01 07 04 39.48 36.8 14 1195.5 17.3 80.0 38 8.79 Marg. Good/Good Welker Lateral (14‐308‐002) – ECBP H11S05 07 02 0.9 1.2 {11} {517.5} ‐ {53.25} {44} ‐ {Good} Little Creek (14‐313‐000) – ECBP 303801 07 02 0.7 8.7 12 568.0 ‐ 72.0 44 ‐ Good Brinley Fork (14‐313‐001) – ECBP 303561 07 02 0.1 3.4 15 375.4 ‐ 80.0 44 ‐ Good Rocky Fork (14‐312‐000) – ECBP 303802 07 04 0.1 2.1 8 181.8 ‐ 63.25 40 ‐ Good Middle Fork of East Fork Whitewater River (14‐308‐003) – ECBP 303803 07 01 13.9 13.5 22 726.0 ‐ 72.5 48 ‐ Very Good Lower Whitewater Tributaries Jamison Creek (14‐307‐000) ‐ IP 303784 08 10 0.4 6.6 20 430.0 ‐ 58.25 40 ‐ Good Dry Fork Whitewater River (14‐302‐000) ‐ ECBP H11W67 08 07 20.15 15.7 23 532.5 ‐ 71.5 52 ‐ Exceptional H11P04 08 08 18.7 27.1 22 1006.5 27.2 82.75 54 9.62 Exceptional/Exceptional H11W68 08 08 13.3 46.0 29 2297.2 60.1 72.75 52 10.13 Exceptional/Exceptional Dry Fork Whitewater River (14‐302‐000) – IP H11W69 08 08 9.02 50.0 30 1115.2 37.6 74.5 56 10.33 Exceptional/Exceptional H11S24 08 09 4.35 78.0 28 1072.5 13.5 59.5 50 9.51 Exceptional/Exceptional H11W70 08 09 0.52 81.5 38 1360.5 16.2 77.25 51 10.11 Exceptional/Exceptional Sours Run (14‐302‐004) – ECBP

42

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Relative Relative 12‐digit AU River Drainage Cumulative Number Biomass Narrative Evaluation Station QHEI IBI MIwb (05080003) Mile Area Fish Species minus minus (IBI/MIwb) Tolerant Tolerant (kg) 303805 08 08 0.1 6.5 22 936.0 ‐ 78.5 58 ‐ Exceptional Sater Run (14‐302‐006) – ECBP 303984 08 09 0.2 3.3 [12] [120.0] ‐ [71.0] [48] ‐ [Very Good] Kiata Creek (14‐302‐002) – ECBP 203540 08 08 0.1 6.0 15 1322.0 ‐ 69.25 52 ‐ Exceptional Buck Run (14‐302‐003) – ECBP 303806 08 08 0.1 4.1 5 1200.0 ‐ 68.5 32* ‐ Fair Howard Creek (14‐304‐000) – ECBP 303782 08 08 2.9 5.8 {22} {1687} ‐ {64.75} {56} ‐ Exceptional Howard Creek (14‐304‐000) – IP 303807 08 08 0.9 7.5 {24} {973.5} ‐ {71.5} {56} ‐ Exceptional 303807 08 08 0.9 7.5 22 892.0 ‐ 76.75 50 ‐ Exceptional Lee Creek (14‐303‐000) – IP 303808 08 09 0.1 11.1 20 733.7 ‐ 57.75 46 ‐ Very Good

43

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 14 – Percent abundance and percent of biomass for the ten dominant fish species collected from all locations from 2017‐2019 within the indicated water bodies. Dry Fork East Fork Whitewater River Dry Fork Whitewater tributaries and East Fork Whitewater tributaries Jamison Creek % by number % by weight % by number % by weight % by number % by number % by weight % by number

Golden Redhorse Smallmouth Buffalo Central Stoneroller Black Redhorse Central Stoneroller Mottled Sculpin Common Carp Creek Chub 13.4% 15.6% 23.8% 19.0% 28.7% 28.1% 45.3% 24.9% Western Blacknose Northern Hog Western Blacknose Sand Shiner Golden Redhorse Rainbow Darter Smallmouth Bass Bluntnose Minnow Dace Sucker Dace 11.5% 14.2% 8.2% 14.8% 16.2% 15.2% 14.5% 15.6% Northern Hog Emerald Shiner Channel Catfish Bluntnose Minnow Creek Chub White Sucker White Sucker White Sucker Sucker 10.9% 12.8% 8.0% 10.2% 13.1% 12.4% 14.5% 14.6% Gizzard Shad Common Carp Longear Sunfish Golden Redhorse Fantail Darter Creek Chub Creek Chub Mottled Sculpin 6.1% 10.4% 7.4% 13.2% 8.2% 12.4% 7.7% 12.3% Smallmouth River Carpsucker Striped Shiner White Sucker W. Blacknose Dace Central Stoneroller Central Stoneroller Central Stoneroller Redhorse 7.5% 6.7% 9.5% 7.2% 11.8% 6.6% 9.2% 5.6% Smallmouth Orangethroat Northern Hog Spotfin Shiner Sand Shiner Central Stoneroller Mottled Sculpin S. Redbelly Dace Redhorse Darter Sucker 5.3% 5.9% 9.2% 6.3% 6.8% 6.6% 6.3% 6.4% Northern Hog Silver Redhorse Fantail Darter Longear Sunfish Striped Shiner Rainbow Darter Largemouth Bass Bluntnose Minnow Sucker 5.7% 5.7% 4.1% 5.4% 5.8% 2.7% 4.3% 5.1% Northern Hog Western Blacknose Bluntnose Minnow Freshwater Drum Rock Bass Rainbow Darter Greenside Darter Rainbow Darter Sucker Dace 4.2% 5.1% 3.7% 4.3% 1.9% 4.0% 5.0% 2.0% Longear Sunfish Black Redhorse Silverjaw Minnow Striped Shiner Johnny Darter Sand Shiner Rainbow Darter Johnny Darter 3.9% 5.0% 3.4% 2.7% 2.0% 1.6% 0.7% 1.9% Orangethroat Freshwater Drum Smallmouth Bass Greenside Darter Gizzard Shad White Sucker Bluntnose Minnow Greenside Darter Darter 3.7% 2.6% 2.8% 1.1% 1.7% 1.6% 0.5% 1.1%

44

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results Macroinvertebrate assemblages were evaluated at 25 locations in the Whitewater River study area from 2017-2019. A total of 27 samples were collected, the majority of which occurred in 2017. Qualitative sampling was conducted at all sampling locations. Quantitative Hester-Dendy artificial substrate samples were deployed at nine locations; insufficient current velocity, suspected disturbance, or loss of the artificial substrate negated the use of the ICI score for at five sites. A summary of the macroinvertebrate data is presented in Table 15 and the site-specific data can be found in Appendix C. Twenty-six of 27 collections (96 percent) met applicable Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) biocriteria or the narrative equivalent. The study area was geographically divided into two separate areas. The northern portion, which included the East Fork Whitewater River and tributaries, was contained within the Eastern Corn Belt (ECBP) ecoregion. A part of the southern portion is also in the ECBP, but quickly transitions to the Interior Plateau (IP) ecoregion. The lower Whitewater River mainstem, Jamison Creek, and the stream network that comprised the Dry Fork Whitewater River watershed is within the southern portions of the study area. A map that details ecoregion boundaries can be viewed in Figure 2-1 at: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/documents/Vol2.pdf. Three sites on the Whitewater River mainstem were sampled between RM 8.28 and RM 1.50 in 2017. The site at RM 1.50 was also resampled in 2018. The two uppermost sites at RM 8.28 and 3.80 produced ICI scores of 52 and 58, respectively. Artificial substrates from RM 1.50 in 2017 were suspected to be influenced by disturbance; 2018 attempts to retrieve artificial substrates here were unsuccessful due to loss by disturbance or high flow event. Nevertheless, qualitative sampling both years produced high numbers of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera and Plecoptera) taxa that easily exceeded EWH expectations. Coldwater taxa were collected from eight streams and were particularly well-represented in the East Fork Whitewater River, Little Creek, and Rocky Fork (Table 16). These higher incidence of coldwater macroinvertebrate organisms in these areas likely indicates the contribution of cold groundwater to these streams. Underlying moraine systems coincide with the groundwater influx to streams in this area (

, Figure 22). Additionally, just two coldwater taxa were collected in Brinley Fork, a tributary to Little Creek, but it appeared that the macroinvertebrate community (including the coldwater component) may have been slightly impacted by historical channelization activities within the reach evaluated. Surface water temperature measurements here consistently averaged around 19°C during the summer sampling period (Table 7). In addition to having a strong coldwater community signature, macroinvertebrate assemblages from the East Fork Whitewater River and Little Creek also reflected an exceptional condition. Little Creek stood out in terms of the diversity of EPT and sensitive taxa for a headwater size stream with 28 and 29 taxa, respectively (Figure 18). The remaining streams in the northern portion of the study area supported macroinvertebrate assemblages that were somewhat less diverse but were still consistent with ecoregional expectations for WWH or CWH uses. Jamison Creek at RM 0.4 was largely pooled with limited flow and a predominance of fine-grained substrates. The macroinvertebrate community structure and diversity met WWH expectations, but nonetheless, were constrained due to the limited available habitat.

45

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

The six sampling locations that encompassed the twenty-mile reach of Dry Fork Whitewater River produced very good to exceptional macroinvertebrate assemblages. Total taxa, EPT, and sensitive taxa diversity were generally high, apart from one site. Riffle habitat at RM 18.14 was nearly dry when qualitative sampling was conducted. As a result, the benthos was somewhat limited, but still marginally met EWH expectations. Tributaries to Dry Fork supported very good to exceptional macroinvertebrate assemblages. Limited precipitation and natural desiccation over the summer was likely the principal stressor upon community structure and overall diversity. All these streams were or appeared to have recently been interstitial or intermittent when sampling was conducted. Welker Lateral was sampled in 2019 at RM 0.90 and the fair evaluation fell just short of WWH expectations (Table 15). Facultative or tolerant organisms predominated among the 36 total taxa and seven EPT identified from the site. The study area supported a high diversity of macroinvertebrate taxa including taxa that are both rare and relatively pollution sensitive (Table 17). Rithrogena manifesta is a pollution sensitive mayfly species that has only been collected in Ohio from the Whitewater River and is state listed as endangered by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). It is also worth noting that the crayfish Orconectes (Rhoadesius) sloanii was collected from nine locations in the study area. The Ohio distribution of this crayfish is restricted to the southwestern portion of the state and is listed by the ODNR as threatened.

46

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 15 – Summary of macroinvertebrate data collected from artificial substrates (quantitative sampling) and natural substrates (qualitative sampling) in the Whitewater River study area, June to September, 2017‐19.

Sensitive Drain. Ql. EPT Taxa Density CW Predominant Organisms on the Natural Substrates with Narrative Station RM Area Taxa Ql./Total Ql./Total Qt./Ql. Taxa Tolerance Category(ies) ICIa Evaluation Whitewater River (14‐300‐000) H11S27 8.28 1369.0 64 28 / 33 29 / 29 1656 / M 0 Midges (F), Mayflies (MI, F), Caddisflies (MI,F) 52 H11W65 3.80 1384.0 65 31 / 35 29 / 35 2763 / H 0 Midges (F), Mayflies (MI, F), Caddisflies (MI,F) 58 H11S26 1.50a 1469.0 68 25 24 H 0 Midges (F), Mayflies (MI, F) ‐ E H11S26 1.50ab 1469.0 61 29 26 H 0 Midges (F), Mayflies (MI, F), Caddisflies (MI,F), Blackflies (F) ‐ E East Fork Whitewater River (14‐308‐000) H11S03 46.89 11.6 66 21 16 H 3 Midges (F), Mayflies (F), Caddisflies (MI,F), Water mites (F) ‐ E H11S02 41.40 31.3 75 27 / 29 27 / 36 995 / H 5 Midges (F), Mayflies (F), Caddisflies (MI,F), Blackflies (F) 52 H11S01 39.48ab 36.8 70 30 24 H 3 Baetid mayflies (MI,F), Caddisflies (MI,F) ‐ E Welker Lateral (14‐308‐002) H11S05 0.90c 1.2 36 7 3 L 2 Hydropsychid caddisflies (F), Midges (F,MT,T) ‐ HF Little Creek (14‐313‐000) 303801 0.70 8.7 86 28 29 H 5 Midges (F), Baetid mayflies (MI,F), Caddisflies (MI,F) ‐ E Brinley Fork (14‐313‐001) 303561 0.10b 3.4 50 14 13 L 2 Midges (F), Baetid mayflies (MI,F),Water mites (F) ‐ G Rocky Fork E. Fk. Whitewater River (14‐312‐000) 303802 0.10 2.0 36 11 8 L 5 Midges (F), Blackflies (F), Water mites (F) ‐ G Middle Fk. Of E. Fk. Whitewater (14‐308‐003) 303803 13.90 13.5 56 15 11 M 0 Midges (F), Baetid mayflies (F) ‐ G Jamison Creek (14‐307‐000) 303784 0.14 6.6 47 14 8 M 0 Blackflies (F), Midges (F), Baetid mayflies (F) ‐ G Dry Fork Whitewater River (14‐302‐000) H11W67 20.15 15.7 66 22 18 H 0 Midges (F), Baetid mayflies (F), Caddisflies (MI,F) ‐ E H11P04 18.14 27.6 53 16 12 M 0 Midges (F), Caddisflies (MI,F) ‐ VG H11W68 13.30a 46.0 62 26 21 M 0 Midges (F), Baetid mayflies (F), Caddisflies (MI,F) ‐ E H11W69 9.02a 50.0 59 25 18 M 0 Midges (F), Baetid mayflies (F), Caddisflies (MI,F) ‐ E

47

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Sensitive Drain. Ql. EPT Taxa Density CW Predominant Organisms on the Natural Substrates with Narrative Station RM Area Taxa Ql./Total Ql./Total Qt./Ql. Taxa Tolerance Category(ies) ICIa Evaluation H11S24 4.35 78.0 70 26 / 28 24 / 32 594 / H 0 Midges (F), Mayflies (MI, F), Caddisflies (MI,F), Blackflies (F) 46 H11W70 0.52a 81.5 73 24 22 H 0 Midges (F), Baetid mayflies (F), Caddisflies (MI,F) ‐ E Sours Run (14‐302‐004) 303805 0.10 6.5 52 18 12 L 1 Midges (F), Baetid mayflies (F), Caddisflies (MI,F),Blackflies ‐ VG Sater Run @ Mouth (14‐302‐006) 303984 0.20b 3.3 54 16 15 L 3 Mayflies (MI,F), Caddisflies (MI,F), Riffle beetles (F) ‐ VG Kiata Creek (14‐302‐002) 203540 0.10 6.0 49 16 12 L 0 Water pennies (F), Caddisflies (MI,F), Water mites (F) ‐ VG Buck Run (14‐302‐003) 303806 0.10 4.1 51 16 11 M 0 Midges (F), Mayflies (MI, F), Caddisflies (MI,F) ‐ VG Howard Creek (14‐304‐000) 303782 2.90c 5.8 57 17 15 M 1 Caddisflies (MI,F), Mayflies (MI,F) ‐ E 303807 0.90c 7.5 54 15 10 M 0 Caddisflies (F), Heptageniid mayflies (MI,F) ‐ VG 303807 0.90 7.5 60 16 12 L 1 Midges (F), Mayflies (MI, F), Caddisflies (MI,F) ‐ VG Lee Creek (14‐303‐000) 303808 0.10 11.1 66 19 15 M 2 Midges (F), Baetid mayflies (F), Caddisflies (MI,F) ‐ E a ‐ ICI values invalidated due either to insufficient current speed over the artificial substrates or by suspected disturbance. The station evaluation at these sites is based on the qualitative sample narrative evaluation. b ‐ Sampling occurred in 2018 c ‐ Sampling occurred in 2019 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. CW ‐ Cold Water. Tolerance Categories ‐ VT=Very Tolerant, T=Tolerant, MT=Moderately Tolerant, F=Facultative, MI=Moderately Intolerant, I=Intolerant

48

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

35 Little Creek 30

25

20

15 Number of EPT Taxa

10 Whitewater River Dry Fork Dry Fork Tribs 5 Jamison Creek East Fork East Fork Tribs

0 1 10 100 1000 104

Drainage Area

30

Little Creek

25

20

15

10 Whitewater River Number of Sensitive Taxa Sensitive of Number Dry Fork Dry Fork Tribs Jamison Creek East Fork 5 East Fork Tribs

0 1 10 100 1000 104

Drainage Area Figure 18 – Scatter plot of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) and sensitive taxa diversity from all streams displayed by drainage area and parsed by major drainage basins.

49

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 16 – Summary of coldwater macroinvertebrates collected from artificial substrates (quantitative sampling) and natural substrates (qualitative sampling) in the Whitewater River study area, June to September 2017‐19.

sp.

sp.

sp. sp. sp.

No. of CW

Station RM Taxa Baetis brunneicolor Diplectrona modesta Ceratopsyche slossonae Glossosoma Meropelopia Zavrelimyia (Z.) Parametriocnemus Polypedilium (P.) albicorne Polypedilium (P.) aviceps Paratanytarsus longistilus Neoplasta East Fork Whitewater River (14‐308‐000) H11S03 46.89 3 * * * H11S02 41.40 5 * * * * * H11S01 39.48b 3 * * * Welker Lateral (14‐308‐002) H11S05 0.9c 2 * * Little Creek (14‐313‐000) 303801 0.70 5 * * * * * Brinley Fork (14‐313‐001) 303561 0.10b 2 * * Rocky Fork E. Fk. Whitewater River (14‐312‐000) 303802 0.10 5 * * * * * Sours Run (14‐302‐004) 303805 0.10 1 * Sater Run @ Mouth (14‐302‐006) 303984 0.20b 3 * * * Howard Creek (14‐304‐000) 303782 2.9c 1 * 303807 0.9c 0 303807 0.90 1 * Lee Creek (14‐303‐000) 303808 0.10 2 * *

b – Indicates sample collected in 2018 c – Indicates sample collected in 2019

50

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 17 – Rare pollution‐sensitive taxa collected from artificial substrates (quantitative sampling) and natural substrates (qualitative sampling) in the Whitewater River study area, June to September 2017‐18.

sp.

sp.

sp. sp. sp. Drain. Area Potamilus alatus Station RM (mi2) Acentrella turbida Plauditus cestus Plauditus dubius Labiobaetis dardanus Iswaeon anoka Plauditus punctiventris Paracloeodes fleeki Paracloeodes minutus Rhithrogena manifesta Baetisca Neoperla Perlinella drymo Glossosoma Nectopsyche candida Triaenodes perna Pseudolimnophila Telopelopia okoboji Neoplasta Whitewater River (14‐300‐000) H11S27 8.28 1369.0 * * * * * * * * H11W65 3.80 1384.0 * * * * * * * * H11S26 1.50 1469.0 * * * * * * East Fork Whitewater River (14‐308‐000) H11S03 46.89 11.6 * H11S02 41.40 31.3 * * * H11S01 39.48 36.8 * * * * Little Creek (14‐313‐000) 303801 0.70 8.7 * * * Rocky Fork E. Fk. Whitewater River (14‐312‐000) 303802 0.10 2.0 * Middle Fk. Of E. Fk. Whitewater (14‐308‐003) 303803 13.90 13.5 * Dry Fork (14‐302‐000) H11W67 20.15 15.7 * H11W68 13.30 46.0 * * H11W69 9.02 50.0 * * H11S24 4.35 78.0 * * * * * * H11W70 0.52 81.5 * * * * * Sater Run @ Mouth (14‐302‐006) 303984 0.20b 3.3 * Lee Creek (14‐303‐000) 303808 0.10 11.1 * b – Indicates sample collected in 2018

51

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Aquatic Life Use Discussion Table 18 – Aquatic life use attainment status for stations sampled in the Whitewater River survey area based on data collected June‐October 2017‐19. Several biological samples were collected in 2018 and 2019 to collect more information and are indicated below by [brackets for 2018] or {braces for 2019}. The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), Modified Index of well‐being (MIwb), and Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) are scores based on the performance of the biological communities. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) is a measure of the ability of the physical habitat of the stream to support a biotic community. The survey area is located within both the ECBP and IP ecoregions. If biological impairment has occurred, the causes and sources of the impairment are noted. Specific sampling locations for fish and macroinvertebrates may differ slightly from what is listed in the below table; any differences are contained within the results tables in their respective sections. Assessment Drain. Eco‐ Station Location Unit RMa IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Statusd Causes Sources (mi²) region (05080003) Whitewater River (14‐300‐000) EWH Existing H11S27 At Harrison near 90‐01 8.28 1369B IP 52 11.68 52 86.25 FULL Ohio/Indiana state line H11W65 At private canoe launch 90‐01 3.80 1384B IP 50 11.45 58 76.50 FULL West of Hooven near H11S26 90‐01 1.50 1469B IP 50 11.77 E, [E] 85.00 FULL Suspension Bridge Rd. East Fork Whitewater River (14‐308‐000) WWH Existing/CWH Recommended H11S03 Southwest of New Madison 07‐02 46.89 11.6H ECBP 37NS ‐ E 58.00 FULL @ New Garden Rd. H11S02 At New Paris at St. Rt. 121 07‐02 41.40 31.3W ECBP 40 8.20NS 52 77.00 FULL Near Ohio/Indiana state line H11S01 07‐04 39.48 36.8W ECBP 38NS 8.79 [E] 80.00 FULL at Murray Rd. Welker Lateral (14‐308‐002) Undesignated/WWH Recommended Low Flow, H11S05 At Ritenour Rd. 07‐02 0.90R 1.2H ECBP {44} ‐ {F*} {53.25} PARTIAL Channelization Siltation Little Creek (14‐313‐000) WWH Existing – Unverified/CWH Recommended 303801 At New Paris‐Eldorado Rd. 07‐02 0.70 8.7H ECBP 44 ‐ E 72.00 FULL Brinley Fork (14‐313‐001) WWH Existing – Unverified/CWH Recommended 303561 At New Paris‐Eldorado Rd. 07‐02 0.10 3.4H ECBP 44 ‐ [G] 80.00 FULL Rocky Fork (14‐312‐000) WWH Existing – Unverified/CWH Recommended 303802 Near mouth 07‐04 0.10 2.1H ECBP 40 ‐ G 63.25 FULL Middle Fork of East Fork Whitewater River (14‐308‐003) Undesignated – WWH Recommended 303802 At Tillson Rd. 07‐01 13.9 13.5H ECBP 48 ‐ G 72.50 FULL Jamison Creek (14‐307‐000) WWH Existing – Unverified/Confirmed Near mouth adj. 303784 08‐10 0.14 6.6H IP 40 ‐ G 58.25 FULL Lawrenceburg Rd.

52

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Assessment Drain. Eco‐ Station Location Unit RMa IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Statusd Causes Sources (mi²) region (05080003) Dry Fork Whitewater River (14‐302‐000) EWH Existing – Unverified/Confirmed Near Ohio/Indiana state line H11W67 08‐07 20.15 15.7H ECBP 52 ‐ E 71.50 FULL @ Dwyer Rd. Dry Fork Whitewater River (14‐302‐000) EWH Existing Northwest of Okeana @ H11P04 08‐08 18.14 27.6W ECBP 54 9.62 VGNS 82.75 FULL California Rd. H11W68 At New London Rd. 08‐08 13.30 46.0W ECBP 52 10.13 E 72.75 FULL Dry Fork Whitewater River (14‐302‐000) WWH Existing/EWH Recommended Upst. New Haven @ Willey H11W69 08‐08 9.02 50.0W IP 56 10.33 E 74.5 FULL Rd. Southeast of Harrison @ H11S24 08‐09 4.35 78.0W IP 50 9.51 46 59.50 FULL Harrison Pike H11W70 At Kilby Rd. 08‐09 0.52 81.5W IP 51 10.11 E 77.25 FULL Sours Run (14‐302‐004) Undesignated – EWH Recommended 303805 Near mouth 08‐08 0.10 6.5H ECBP 58 ‐ VGNS 78.50 FULL Sater Run (14‐302‐006) Undesignated – WWH Recommended 303984 Near mouth 08‐09 0.10 3.3H ECBP [48] ‐ [VG] [71.0] FULL Kiata Creek (14‐302‐002) WWH Existing – EWH Recommended 203540 Near mouth 08‐08 0.10 6.0H ECBP 52 ‐ VGNS 69.25 FULL Buck Run (04‐302‐003) Undesignated – WWH Recommended Fish passage Dam/ 303806 Near mouth 08‐08 0.10 4.1H ECBP 32* ‐ VG 68.5 PARTIAL barrier impoundment Howard Creek (14‐304‐000) WWH Existing – Unverified/EWH Recommended 303782 At Howard Rd. 08‐08 2.90 5.8H ECBP {56} ‐ {E} {64.75} FULL 50, VGNS, 76.75, 303807 At Oxford Rd. 08‐08 0.90 7.5H IP ‐ FULL {56} {VGNS} {71.5} Lee Creek (14‐303‐000) WWH Existing – Unverified/Confirmed 303808 Near mouth 08‐09 0.10 11.1H IP 46 ‐ E 57.75 FULL

53

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

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. VP=Very Poor; P=Poor; LF=Low Fair; F=Fair; MG=Marginally Good; G=Good; VG=Very Good; E=Exceptional. d Attainment is given for the proposed status when a change is recommended. ns Nonsignificant departure from biocriteria (<4 IBI or ICI units, or <0.5 MIwb units). * Indicates significant departure from applicable biocriteria (>4 IBI or ICI units, or >0.5 MIwb units). Underlined scores are in the Poor or Very Poor range and would automatically place a site into non‐attainment. B Boat site. H Headwater site. W Wading site.

WWH Index – Site Type EWH ECBP IP IBI – Headwaters 40 40 50 IBI – Wading 40 40 50 IBI – Boat 42 38 48 MIwb – Wading 8.3 8.1 9.4 MIwb – Boat 8.5 8.7 9.6 ICI 36 30 46

54

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

General Study Area Discussion The survey effort encompassed 26 total sampling locations within 15 streams or stream segments; biological samples were collected at 25 locations. Biological assemblage evaluations were generally high throughout the survey area and fully met applicable criteria at 23 of 25 sampling locations (Table 18). Most community evaluations corresponded to good to exceptional narrative evaluation ranges (Table 13, Table 15). The overall Whitewater River watershed is quite large, but most of its 1,480 mi2 of drainage area is in Indiana; only about 10 percent of the overall watershed is in Ohio (Figure 4). The areas of the Whitewater River watershed in Ohio can be functionally regarded as two separate watershed potions, northern and southern, with each region having unique hydrologic characteristics and biological assemblages. Northern Whitewater Basin Stream hydrology in the northern portion of the watershed is profoundly influenced by the underlying glacial geology, specifically its position relative to a large, Wisconsin-aged glacial end moraine (

, Figure 22). Glacial end moraines such as these can provide a substantial amount of groundwater to streams in their immediate vicinity. The streams coursing through this end moraine (East Fork, Little Creek, Brinley Fork, Rocky Fork) displayed generally colder temperatures (Figure 20, Table 7) and higher numbers of coldwater organisms compared to other streams in the study area (Figure 17, Table 12, Table 16). Middle Fork and Welker Lateral lie just north and east of the end moraine and did not have as strong of a coldwater signature. The strong coldwater signature of streams in this area is not surprising, as other high quality and coldwater stream systems are similarly situated near glacial features and higher lying areas such as these (Figure 22). Cold groundwater contributions to streams can help ameliorate negative impacts to stream biota that may arise from water chemistry issues and/or deficient instream habitat (e.g., enrichment, channelization). Groundwater streams also benefit from more stable baseflow, especially during hot and dry periods in the summer. Middle Fork is a tributary stream that originates in Ohio and joins East Fork near Richmond, Indiana. It drains about 98 mi2 overall, but only about 14 percent of its watershed is in Ohio. Water quality sondes indicated elevated diel DO ranges throughout the summer and minimum DO exceedances later during the summer, while surface water grab samples also indicated a minimum DO exceedance (Table 4, Table 5, Figure 8). Sonde deployments also recorded elevated DO ranges around10 mg/l at the uppermost location in East Fork (RM 46.9, H11S03), though enrichment signatures were quickly attenuated and did not extend downstream to the other two sonde sampling locations (Table 5, Figure 8). These indicators suggest nutrient enrichment within the Ohio portions of Middle Fork and upper East Fork. Enrichment signatures in the portion of the watershed coincided with the high amounts of agriculture and historical stream channelization in this area. Despite the presence of enrichment signatures, biological assemblages in Middle Fork and upper East Fork were rated as marginally good to exceptional (Table 13, Table 15). Sensitive species were well represented, including a new Ohio record of the bigeye chub in Middle Fork, an intolerant and formerly imperiled species in Ohio, (Trautman 1981). Biological assemblages have also improved greatly in East Fork since last sampled in 1982 (Table 19). No historical sampling has been conducted on Middle Fork.

55

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Reduced fish species richness throughout East Fork compared to Middle Fork seems related to barriers to passage, rather than negative impacts from enrichment or poor water quality (see Fish Community Results). Exceptional macroinvertebrate communities throughout East Fork suggests any limitations to fish species richness and overall community performance in this system are likely not related to poor water quality, but rather physical exclusion. Cool groundwater inputs may help ameliorate negative impacts from nutrient enrichment, habitat deficiencies, or other stressors in this portion of the watershed. Aquatic life impairment was documented in Welker Lateral, a tributary to East Fork. Fish index scores met WWH criterion (IBI=44), but macroinvertebrate assemblages were only fair and fell just short of WWH expectations. Habitat quality here (QHEI=53.25) was in the range where negative habitat features can begin to limit biological communities (Figure 13). Low flows and interstitial conditions were noted during both fish and macroinvertebrate sampling. Habitat throughout the evaluated reaches consisted largely of interstitial pools and a few marginally functional , with excessive amounts of sand and silt smothering courser substrates. Welker Lateral is a small (1.2 mi2), highly modified stream that has been channelized historically, but is now in the later stages of the natural recovery process. It is also a modified reference site (Ohio EPA 1987b). Given the pervasiveness of channel modifications in many smaller streams/ditches in the northern portions of the study area, it is not surprising to see interstitial conditions in such a small stream (1.2 mi2). A preponderance of channelization activities within a stream or stream system (especially in smaller waterways) can have a dewatering effect. Channelization and other drainage enhancement activities are designed to remove water from a system quickly, and thus, can result in a larger waterway functioning like a much smaller one. The most apparent and most likely stressor resulting in impairment in Welker Lateral are the interstitial conditions and excessive siltation/sedimentation related primarily to historical channelization activities. Southern Whitewater Basin Principal stream systems in southern portion of the watershed include the Whitewater River mainstem and the Dry Fork sub-basin. Biological integrity was generally very good to exceptional throughout both systems and both likely benefit from their proximity and connectivity to other large and high-quality stream systems, including the Great Miami and Ohio rivers. Whitewater River Mainstem Biological assemblages in the Whitewater River mainstem were excellent throughout and boasted an abundance of high quality and pollution intolerant organisms. Two state endangered species (northern madtom catfish and the mayfly Rithrogena manifesta) were collected from the Whitewater River mainstem, along with numerous other pollution intolerant and sportfish species. Fish and macroinvertebrate communities in this large river continue to be among the most diverse and highest quality in the state. The months preceding the 2017 survey saw above average precipitation levels. Streamflow in the Whitewater mainstem was substantially higher than average historical flows throughout much of the early and mid-summer, but returned to more average flows later during the summer. Elevated baseflow and increased turbidity precluded biological sampling in the Whitewater mainstem until mid-August to September. It is likely that the large Brookville Lake reservoir in Indiana was a source of higher sustained baseflow and related turbidity observed through early summer. Once this large lake drained over the course of the summer, flow and turbidity conditions improved. These phenomena were not noted in Dry Fork or other southern tributaries. Despite some permit limit violations from entities discharging to the mainstem preceding and during the 2017 survey, biological assemblages were fully attaining EWH criteria and no apparent impacts to communities were observed (Appendix B).

56

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

No instream water quality exceedances were noted in the Whitewater mainstem (Table 4, Table 5). Continuous water quality sondes did record a diel DO flux just below the elevated threshold (6.4 mg/L) during the September deployment, coinciding with elevated levels of benthic chlorophyll-a concentrations (Figure 8). Both the benthic chlorophyll-a concentration and the diel DO flux at RM 1.5 (H11S26) were somewhat elevated compared to the other two upstream locations on the mainstem (Figure 8). Regardless, biological index scores were exceptional throughout and did not appear negatively impacted. An illicit discharge from an area gravel quarry was uncovered through the course of routine fish sampling at RM 1.5 (H11S26). Aerial imagery revealed a sediment plume that extended from the facility downstream for several river miles. This plume resulted in a nuisance condition in a very high-quality river that is a heavily used for recreation and fishing. The violations have since been resolved. More information in contained within Appendix B. Dry Fork and Tributaries Similar to the mainstem, biological assemblages throughout Dry Fork were excellent and boasted high abundances of pollution intolerant organisms (Figure 16, Figure 18, Table 15). As its name implies, streams in the Dry Fork basin (and Jamison Creek) experienced notable desiccation through the 2017 sampling season. In 2017, field crews observed much lower stream flows later during the summer compared to the earlier months (Figure 19). Reaches that supported deep, swift riffles early in the summer were reduced to only slow flows or interstitial conditions. Notable amounts of filamentous algae were also observed at sites throughout the Dry Fork later in the summer during low flow periods. Where present in shallow areas, these filamentous algae provided valuable refugia for numerous juvenile smallmouth and other black basses. Coinciding with notably low flows and filamentous algae observed in Dry Fork later during the summer, sonde deployments recorded several minimum and average DO exceedances at RM 18.1 (H11P04) (Table 5). Several wide diel DO swings (greater than 6.5 mg/L) were also observed in Dry Fork at RMs 9.02 (H11W69) and 0.52 (H11W70). No minimum DO exceedances were recorded in any of the grab samples. Despite the presence of notable amounts of algae observed during sampling, benthic chlorophyll samples were mostly in the low range (Figure 8). The filamentous algae was rooted and growing in depositional areas with finer sediments, while only more coarse substrates are targeted for benthic chlorophyll sampling. This filamentous algae is likely not reflected in the benthic chlorophyll samples. A pH exceedance was also observed at Dry Fork RM 0.52 and was likely related to the large diel DO swings (12.4 mg/l) observed here (Table 5). Like DO concentrations, increased rates of photosynthesis can also

cause pH to increase during the day as water and CO2 (acidity) are converted to carbohydrates and oxygen. Subsequently, pH will decrease at night as primary production shifts from photosynthesis to respiration and algal communities consume dissolved oxygen and release CO2 (acidity). Despite the reduced flow conditions and nutrient enrichment signatures noted in Dry Fork, biological index scores were exceptional throughout. The fish and macroinvertebrates seemed to thrive despite these various water quality stressors (Figure 16, Table 15, Table 17). Fish index scores were in the exceptional range during both fish sampling passes, the second of which occurred through mid-late August and coincided with lower flow conditions. Primary macroinvertebrate sampling in Dry Fork also occurred later during the summer and coincided with the reduced flow conditions. Macroinvertebrate assemblage scores were in the exceptional range throughout and only dropped to very good at one location (RM18.1, H11P04). There were also numerous rare, pollution sensitive macroinvertebrate species collected in Dry Fork (Table 17).

57

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

8/8/17 9/20/17 Dry Fork RM 20.1 Dry Fork RM 18.1

Figure 19 – Photographs from the upper reaches of Dry Fork. Photos were taken mid‐way through and near the end of the summer sampling index period, 2017. Note lower flows and general desiccation occurring from mid to late summer.

Habitat quality and, to a lesser extent, fish index scores decreased at Harrison Rd. (RM 4.35, H11S24) compared to other sampling locations in Dry Fork (Figure 14, Figure 16). Habitat quality upstream from this bridge was noticeably influenced by a functional impoundment created by a swath of concrete under Harrison Rd. that supports the overpass infrastructure. At normal flow, there is an approximate drop of 3-4 feet upstream and downstream from this structure. Fish sampling equipment could not be safely deployed downstream from this structure. Excessive sedimentation/embeddedness and simplified stream development were among some of the negative habitat features observed in the sampling reach upstream from Harrison Rd. Despite this, biological assemblages were still excellent here and this structure did not appear to impact fish passage through Dry Fork. Tributaries to Dry Fork had generally good to exceptional biological assemblage evaluations (Table 13, Table 16). Two minimum DO exceedances were noted in Buck Run and Kiata Creek and were seemingly related to the generally desiccated conditions observed throughout this area (Table 4). All exceedances were noted during August. This did not preclude biological communities consistent with EWH expectations in Kiata Creek. Low flows and desiccated conditions were also noted at the sampling location in Jamison Creek. Aquatic life impairment was documented in Buck Run (RM 0.1, 303806). Macroinvertebrate performance was in the very good range, while fish performance comparatively lagged and the fair community assessment (IBI=32) fell short of WWH criterion (Table 18). The fish community in Buck Run was depauperate compared to other area streams and lacked many species that should otherwise be present (Table 13). Habitat quality was not a limiting factor, as QHEI scores indicated good to nearly excellent condition at the sampling location (Table 10). A single minimum DO exceedance was documented in surface water chemistry grab samples (Table 4). However, it is not likely that impacts related to low DO (nutrient/organic enrichment) were responsible for the fish community impairment observed. Nearby Kiata Creek had very similar habitat quality where evaluated and a minimum DO exceedance of similar magnitude, but had assemblages consistent with EWH expectations. Both DO exceedances occurred later during the summer and were likely related to the low flows and desiccated conditions noted throughout these areas.

58

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

The response pattern observed in the biological assemblages (very good macroinvertebrates, but fair and depauperate fish) does not suggest nutrient or organic enrichment. A more allied response from both organism indicator groups could be expected in these situations. The observed response pattern is more indicative of a barrier to fish passage. Given their life history, macroinvertebrates can bypass barriers such as dams/impoundments that fish are unable to circumvent. Corroborating the observed biological response pattern, a barrier to fish passage was noted near the mouth of Buck Run. Buck Run flows under St. Rt. 126 before joining Dry Fork. An armored, concrete structure exists throughout this reach of Dry Fork to prevent from impacting adjacent infrastructure. A drop of several feet occurs up and downstream from this structure where Buck Run joins Dry Fork. It is very likely that this structure is acting as a barrier to fish passage, resulting in the responses observed in biological communities.

59

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Surface Water Grab Samples 30

25

20 C) 0

15 Temperature ( Temperature 10

5 Southern Whitewater basin Northern Whitewater basin

0 Whitewater Dry Sours Kiata Buck Howard Lee Jamison East Wel ker Middle Rocky Little Brinley River Fork Run Creek Run Creek Creek Creek Fork Lateral Fork Fork Creek Fork East Fork

Figure 20 – Individual temperature measurements collected during surface water chemistry sampling parsed by stream.

60

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Quaternary Geology

Figure 21 – Quaternary geology of the Whitewater River study area.

61

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Figure 22 – USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM) raster image of western Ohio and the Whitewater River study area. Streams maintaining the highest quality ALU designations (CWH or EWH) were overlaid. Figure was produced using a 10‐meter resolution. Note the occurrence of EWH and/or CWH designated streams in higher lying areas and more glacially active areas

62

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Trends Fish Trends Given such small portions of this watershed residing in Ohio, limited amounts of data were available to assess trends for the watershed. Fish index scores have generally improved through time beginning in the 1980s, and has steadily improved over the period of record (Table 19). Index scores from the Whitewater River mainstem have improved substantially beginning in the 1980s into the mid-1990s. Additional improvements, though less pronounced, were observed from the mid-1990s to 2008. Performance was very similar between 2008 and 2017. Similarly, fish community performance has improved from 1996 to 2017 throughout Dry Fork. Limited sampling at three locations in 2005 yielded very similar performance to those same areas evaluated in 2017. Like other Whitewater basin streams, index scores from East Fork has improved substantially since 1982 (Table 19). Macroinvertebrate Trends Macroinvertebrate community performance in the Whitewater River mainstem has generally been stable with ICI scores in the very good to exceptional range since 1995 (Table 20). Qualitative sampling results are available for a wider portion of the study area and include both the Dry Fork and the East Fork of the Whitewater River. Based on these results, EPT, and sensitive taxa both show increases over time (Figure 23). While qualitative sampling suggests an overall improvement in the watershed over time, refinements in sampling technique and advances in macroinvertebrate taxonomy likely account for some of the higher diversity recorded in the current survey versus what has historically been collected.

63

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 19 – Historical and contemporary fish community metric scores (IBI and MIwb) from streams within the study area. Only streams with historical information were displayed. Metric scores are displayed for the station point of record; actual sampling location (river mile) for a station may vary slightly between sampling years. River Station 1980 1982 1989 1995 1996 2005 2008 2017 2019 Mile Whitewater River (14‐300‐000) 8.28 H11S27 32.7 7.6 52 11.5 52 11.7 7.7 H11W29 42 10.6 50 10.9 7.04 H11W31 49 9.4 52 10.9 50 10.6 5.47 H11W32 45.3 9.7 3.8 H11W65 31 7.9 50 11.4 46 10.8 50 11.5 1.5 H11S26 35 7.7 42* 9.4 50 10.5 44 10.4 52 10.8 50 11.8 East Fork Whitewater River (14‐308‐000) 50.53 H11P08 25 49.43 H11S04 30 46.89 H11S03 37 43.8 203497 29 41.4 H11S02 34 40 8.2 39.48 H11S01 31 38 8.8 Welker Lateral (14‐308‐002) 40 44 Dry Fork Whitewater River (14‐302‐000) 20.15 H11W67 52 18.14 H11P04 44 9.7 54 9.6 16.6 300068 52 10.1 15.9 300066 53 9.6 15.67 300064 51 10.1 13.3 H11W68 52 9.9 52 10.1 9.02 H11W69 42 8.8 52 10.3 4.35 H11S24 36 8.1 50 9.5 0.52 H11W70 42 8.5 51 10.1 Kiata Creek (14‐302‐002) 0.9 203539 16 0.1 203540 42 52

64

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 20 – Historical and contemporary Invertebrate Community Index scores (ICI) from streams within the study area. Only streams with existing historical information were displayed. Metric scores are displayed for the station point of record; actual sampling location (river mile) for a station may vary slightly between sampling years.

River Mile Station 1995 1996 2016 2017

Whitewater River (14‐300‐000) 8.28 H11S27 58 52 7.7 H11W29 52 52 58 7.04 H11W31 52 56

5.47 H11W32 3.8 H11W65 52 42 1.5 H11S26 56 42 56 Dry Fork Whitewater River (14‐302‐000)

9.02 H11W69 40

4.35 H11S24 46

65

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Whitewater River Whitewater River 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 20 20

EPT Taxa 15 15 Sensitive Taxa 10 2017 10 2017 2008 2008 5 1996 5 1996 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 River Mile River Mile

East Fork Whitewater River East Fork Whitewater River 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 2017 2017 20 1982 20 1982

EPT Taxa 15 15 Sensitive Taxa 10 10 5 5 0 0 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 River Mile River Mile

Dry Fork Whitewater River Dry Fork Whitewater River 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 20 20

EPT Taxa 15 15 Sensitive Taxa

10 2017 10 2017 5 1996 5 1996 0 0 20 15 10 5 0 20 15 10 5 0 River Mile River Mile

Figure 23 – Number of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) and sensitive macroinvertebrate taxa collected from natural substrates from the Whitewater River, East Fork Whitewater River, and Dry Fork Whitewater River, 1982 to 2017

66

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Recreation Use Results and Discussion Water quality criteria for determining attainment of recreation use are established in the Ohio Water Quality Standards (Table 37-2 in OAC 3745-1-37) based upon the presence or absence of bacteria indicators (Escherichia coli) in the water column. Escherichia coli (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 feces1, but there is currently no simple way to differentiate between human and animal sources of coliform bacteria in surface waters, although methodologies for this type of analysis are becoming more feasible. These microorganisms can enter water bodies where there is a direct discharge of human and animal wastes or may enter water bodies along with runoff from soils where these wastes have been deposited. Pathogenic (disease-causing) 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 that 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. The streams of the Whitewater River watershed evaluated in this survey are designated as a Primary Contact Recreation (PCR) use in OAC Rule 3745-1-21, with the exception of East Fork Whitewater River from headwaters to RM 41.7 which is designated Secondary Contact Recreation (SCR). 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, , and scuba diving. All surface waters of the state are designated as primary contact recreation unless otherwise designated as bathing waters or secondary contact recreation (SCR)” [OAC 3745-1-07 (B)(3)(b)]. Water bodies with a designated recreational use of 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 streams include a geometric mean 126 cfu/100 ml, and a statistical threshold value (STV) of 410 cfu/100 ml. The E. coli criteria that apply to SCR streams include a geometric mean of 1,030 cfu/100 ml, and statistical threshold values of 1,030 cfu/100 ml. 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 (Table 21). The statistical threshold value shall not be exceeded in more than 10 percent of samples taken in a 90-day period. Summarized bacteria results are listed in Table 21, and the complete dataset is reported in Appendix L. Thirteen locations in the Whitewater River study area were sampled for E. coli five times, from July 6th to

1 Dufour, A.P. (1977). Escherichia coli: The fecal coliform. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. Spec. Publ. 635: 45‐58.

67

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

August 30th, 2017. Evaluation of E. coli results revealed that all streams are impaired for their designated recreational use because either the 90-day geometric mean or the Statistical Threshold Value were exceeded. Effluent from four wastewater treatment plants within the study area were also sampled for E. coli. The study period coincided with the required disinfection period for dischargers, and, with a couple exceptions, bacteria levels were very low in the WWTPs’ effluent (Table 21, Appendix L). The E. coli levels in the wastewater treatment plant were generally much lower those in than the receiving streams. NPDES permitted dischargers do not appear to be major contributors to the E. coli levels in the streams during the study period. However, there are other, smaller dischargers, such as mobile home parks or campgrounds, within the study area that were not sampled as part of the study that may be contributing to the bacteria levels in the stream. Poorly performing or failing home sewage treatment systems (HSTS) may also contribute to non- attainment. Several unsewered communities are located within the Whitewater River watershed study area. The Village of Hollansburg may affect Middle Fork East Fork Whitewater River, and the unsewered areas around New Paris and New Madison may affect the East Fork Whitewater River. Further south, Howard Creek passes through a community in western Crosby Township that has been identified as an unsewered area by the Hamilton County Health Department. In unsewered areas, unsanitary conditions may exist which may warrant centralized sewage collection and treatment. Butler County Health Department has also identified areas with failing HSTS in Riley and Morgan Townships which possibly affect Dry Fork Whitewater River. Impaired streams in the more rural headwater regions of the East Fork Whitewater River and Dry Fork Whitewater River may also be impacted by storm water runoff from livestock areas or areas where manure is applied as a fertilizer. A large number of livestock producers are located in the East Fork Whitewater River study area, including one designated Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) within the HUC-12 050080003 07 02. The CAFO would be in the drainage area of sampling location at RM 41.40 on the East Fork Whitewater River (H11S02). The Headwaters Dry Fork and Howard Creek-Dry Fork Whitewater River sub-watersheds have their headwaters in Indiana. According to the 2014 Indiana TMDL for the southern Whitewater River, these sub- watersheds have stream segments 303(d) listed as impaired due to E. coli. The TMDL report lists agriculture, manure spreading, and faulty septic systems as pollutant sources. The three sampling locations on the Whitewater River had exceedances of the STV criteria on days when stream flows were elevated and the water clarity was turbid following rainfall events. It is well established that bacteria levels increase in the water column during and after precipitation events. Sources of bacteria during these times include, but are not limited to, farm livestock, wild and domestic animals, home septic systems, and community wastewater treatment plants.

68

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 21 – A summary of E. coli data for the 17 locations in the Whitewater River watershed sampled July through August 2017. Recreation Use attainment status is determined by comparing samples collected within a 90‐day period during the recreation season to the geometric mean criterion of 126 cfu/100 ml and to the statistical threshold value (STV) of 410 cfu/100 ml (for PCR), or geometric mean of 1,030 cfu/100 ml, and statistical threshold values of 1,030 cfu/100 ml (for SCR). The STV is not be exceeded by more than 10 percent of individual samples. Possible River Geometric Maximum Attainment Source(s)¹ of Station Location Mile # Samples Mean % > STV Value Status Bacteria 05080003 07 01 – Headwaters Middle Fork East Fork Whitewater River 303803 Middle Fork of East Fork Whitewater River @ Tillson Rd. 13.90 5 1,328 100% 2,420 NON HSTS, AG 05080003 07 02 – Headwaters East Fork Whitewater River H11W27 East Fork Whitewater River upst. Thomas Rd, upst. trib.SCR 49.60 5 1,043 20% 12,300 NON HSTS, AG New Madison WWTP outfall to tributary to East Fork 303819 0.10 5 90.2 0% 961 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Whitewater River SCR East Fork Whitewater River SW of New Madison @ New H11S03 46.89 5 548 20% 1,730 NON HSTS, AG Garden Rd.SCR HSTS, AG, H11S02 East Fork Whitewater River at New Paris @ St. Rt. 121 41.40 5 1,141 100% 7,310 NON CAFO 05080003 07 04 – Rocky Fork – East Fork Whitewater River 303820 New Paris WWTP outfall to East Fork Whitewater River 40.43 5 10.7 0% 75.9 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ East Fork Whitewater River near OH/IN state line @ Murray H11S01 39.48 5 1,151 100% 6,150 NON HSTS, AG Rd. 05080003 08 07 – Headwaters Dry Fork Whitewater River H11W67 Dry Fork Whitewater R. near OH/IN state line @ Dwyer Rd. 20.15 5 648 40% 34,700 NON HSTS, AG 05080003 08 08 – Howard Creek – Dry Fork Whitewater River 303806 Buck Run near mouth 0.10 5 387 40% 649 NON HSTS, AG H11W69 Dry Fork Whitewater River upst. New Haven @ Willey Rd. 9.02 5 263 40% 1,120 NON HSTS, AG 303807 Howard Creek at Oxford Rd. 0.30 5 1,381 100% 4,490 NON HSTS, AG 05080003 08 09 – Lee Creek – Dry Fork Whitewater River WWTP, H11W70 Dry Fork Whitewater River at Kilby Rd. 0.52 5 162 20% 727 NON HSTS, AG 05080003 90 01 – Jamison Creek – Whitewater River H11S27 Whitewater River At Harrison @ OH/IN state line 8.28 5 231 40% 1,730 NON Multiple H11W30 Harrison WWTP outfall to Whitewater River 7.62 5 17.2 0% 58.1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 303818 Whitewater Processing WWTP outfall to Whitewater River 6.70 5 16.7 20% > 2,420 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Whitewater River @ lane off Lawrenceburg Rd, 1.8 Mi. N Of I‐ H11W65 3.80 5 265 40% 3,840 NON Multiple 275 H11S26 Whitewater River west of Hooven @ Suspension Bridge Rd. 1.50 5 270.3 60% 1,410 NON Multiple

69

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

¹ Possible Sources: AG – Agriculture CAFO – Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation HSTS – Home Sewage Treatment Systems WWTP – Wastewater Treatment Plants CSOs – Combined Sewer Overflows SSOs – Sanitary Sewer Overflows Urban – SCR ‐ Secondary Contact Recreation criteria ‐‐ geometric mean and statistical threshold value of 1030 cfu/100 ml

70

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Human Health Use (Fish Tissue) Results and Discussion Ohio has been sampling sport fish in Ohio’s water bodies for contamination since 1993. Fish are analyzed for contaminants that bioaccumulate 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 (http://www.epa.state.oh.us/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 Table 22 – Advisories calculated for Dry Fork and Whitewater River from to determine a meal frequency data from 2010 and 2017. that is safe for people to Exception to consume (e.g., two meals a week, one meal a month, do not Species Advisory Cause Statewide Advisory? eat), and a fish advisory is Dry Fork Whitewater River Rock Bass issued for applicable species One/month Mercury YES – in booklet and locations. Ohio has had a Smallmouth Bass Whitewater River statewide advisory for fish Common Carp One/week Mercury No since 2001 primarily due to Channel Catfish ubiquitous mercury Freshwater Drum contamination from aerial Sauger One/month Mercury YES – in booklet . The following Smallmouth Bass Smallmouth Buffalo statewide advisory applies when there are either no or insufficient data: sunfish (e.g., bluegill) and yellow perch – two meals per week, northern pike and flathead catfish greater than 23” – one meal per month, and all other species – one meal per week. Ohio’s sport fish consumption advisory can be viewed at https://odh.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/odh/know‐our‐programs/Ohio‐Sport‐Fish‐Consumption‐Advisory. The minimum data requirement for issuing a fish advisory is 3 samples of a single species collected within the past 10 years. When this requirement isn’t met, the statewide advisory applies. Within Whitewater River, five species met this requirement (Table 22). Of those, four have advisories that differ from the statewide one meal per week advisory, so they are included in the advisory booklet. Within Dry Fork of the Whitewater River, there were a sufficient number of rock bass and smallmouth bass samples, and the average tissue concentrations of both species warranted a one meal per month advisory due to mercury (Table 22). Average mercury concentrations of rock bass and smallmouth bass samples collected in 2017 resulted in two new consumption advisories for Dry Fork. Within the Whitewater River mainstem, advisories for channel catfish, freshwater drum, sauger, and white bass were already in place from samples collected in 2000, 2002, 2010 (Table 22). Data from 2017 confirmed the advisories for channel catfish and freshwater drum. New advisories were issued for smallmouth bass and smallmouth buffalo.

71

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

For a listing of the latest fish tissue data collected from Dry Fork and Whitewater River in support of the advisory program, see Table 26 at the end of this section. Fish Tissue/Human Health Beneficial Use 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 presented in water column concentrations of μg/Liter and are then translated into fish tissue concentrations in mg/kg. [See Ohio’s 2010 Integrated Report, Section E (http://www.epa.state.oh.us/portals/35/tmdl/2010IntReport/Section%20E.pdf) for further details of this conversion.] In order to be considered in attainment of the water quality standards, the sport fish caught within a HUC- 12 must have a weighted average concentration of the geometric means for all species below 1.0 mg/kg for mercury, and below 0.054 mg/kg for PCBs. At least two samples from fish species in both trophic level 3 and trophic level 4 are needed to determine attainment status. Fish species trophic levels used for this assessment are detailed in Table 24. Fish tissue data from the survey were sufficient to determine attainment status in three of the four assessment units (Table 23). An insufficient amount of tissue samples were collected from Lee Creek-Dry Fork Whitewater River (HUC-12 05080003 08 09) to determine attainment status for this assessment unit. No PCBs were detected in fish (reporting limit of 0.02 mg/kg) from Howard Creek-Dry Fork Whitewater River (HUC-12 05080003 08 08); all mercury concentrations were also below 1.0 mg/kg within this assessment unit, resulting in it attaining the criterion for the Fish Tissue/Human Health use. Jamison Creek-Whitewater River (HUC-12 0508000308 10) is also in attainment; PCBs and mercury concentrations were below 0.54 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg, respectively. The Whitewater River mainstem (LRAU 05080003 90 01) is categorized as impaired for fish tissue use due to PCBs, which were calculated to have a weighted average concentration of 0.057 mg/kg. Table 23 – Fish tissue use attainment for Dry Fork and Whitewater River. A status of 5 indicates impairment, while a 1 indicates no impairment. A status of 3 indicates no available data within the 10‐year window; 3i indicates insufficient sample size within the 10‐year window. 2018 IR 2020 IR Geometric HUC‐12 or LRAU Cause Assessment Unit Name status status Mean 05080003 08 08 3 1 Howard Creek‐Dry Fork Whitewater River 05080003 08 09 3 3i Lee Creek‐Dry Fork Whitewater River 05080003 08 10 3 1 Jamison Creek‐Whitewater River 05080003 90 01 5 5 PCBs 0.057 Whitewater River Mainstem (entire length)

72

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Fish Contaminant Trends Fish tissue contaminant levels can be used as an Table 24 – Species collected in Whitewater River from indicator of pollution in the water column at 2000 to 2017. levels lower than laboratory reporting limits for Trophic water concentrations, but high enough to pose a Species Years Collected threat to human health from eating fish. Most Level bioaccumulative contaminant concentrations Bluegill 3 2017 are decreasing in the environment because of Channel Catfish 3 2000, 2010, 2017 bans on certain types of chemicals like PCBs, Common Carp 3 2000, 2010, 2017 and because of stricter permitting limits on Flathead Catfish 3 2010, 2017 dischargers for other chemicals. However, data Freshwater Drum 4 2000, 2002, 2010, 2017 show that remaining PCB concentrations in fish Golden Redhorse 3 2000 tissue continue to pose a risk to humans who Largemouth Bass 4 2000 consume fish. Mercury concentrations also Northern Hogsucker 3 2000 remain a risk to human health, whether from Sauger 4 2000, 2002 current or legacy industrial activities or from Saugeye 4 2017 aerial deposition (Hammerschmidt & Fitzgerald Silver Redhorse 3 2000 2006, Janssen et al. 2019, Zananski et al. 2011). Smallmouth Bass 4 2000, 2010, 2017 For this reason, it is useful to compare the Smallmouth Buffalo 3 2017 results from the survey presented in this Spotted Bass 4 2000, 2017 document with the results of the previous Walleye 4 2017 stream surveys. Recent data can be compared White Bass 4 2000, 2002, 2010 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. Data collected before the start of the fish tissue program (1992) may contain concentrations from select analytes due to budget constraints or specialized projects. No samples were collected prior to 2017 in Dry Fork, so no trend analysis was completed. When evaluating mercury results, it is often useful to condense samples by trophic level, as was the case for Whitewater River. Because mercury tends to increase with increasing position within the food web (that is, predator fish have higher mercury levels than herbivores and insectivores), all sample results within a trophic level can be calculated as a yearly average and compared between years, making for an informative assessment while remaining concise. However, this approach does not fare well for PCBs, which are more affected by the fat content of fish species rather than their trophic level. For example, trophic level 3 fish (insectivores) often include both some of the most-contaminated species for PCBs (such as catfish and carp), as well as some of the least- contaminated species for PCBs (such as bluegill and other panfish). If the same species have been consistently collected across years in a water body, then species PCB concentration trends can be evaluated directly, but if different species have been collected across years, then other approaches must be considered. Therefore, PCB contamination trends are often evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure the most reliable conclusions. In the case of Whitewater River, six species were selected for PCB analysis, based on prevalence and inclusion in consumption advisories: channel catfish, common carp, freshwater drum, sauger, smallmouth bass, and white bass. Whitewater River has fish tissue samples from 2000, 2002, 2010, and 2017. A total of 16 species were collected across the years (Table 24).

73

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Mercury As mentioned above, it is useful to pool species together by tropic level to examine temporal trends, especially for mercury concentrations. Within Whitewater River, mercury concentrations for both trophic levels seem to be relatively stable, but then noticeably increase in 2017, especially in trophic level 4 (Figure 24). This trend may be a result of sample size rather than environmental change; 42 samples were collected in 2017, while all other years had less than 20 samples (Table 25). Figure 25 shows mercury concentrations for select individual species; these concentrations fluctuate between sampling events, but with no large increases or decreases. This level of variation between sampling events is common because populations typically contain a wide range of mercury concentrations based on their feeding behaviors, hunting/foraging success, and the mercury concentration of their prey.

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25 3 4 0.2

0.15

0.1

Mercury tissue concentration (mg/kg) 0.05

0 2000 2002 2010 2017

Figure 24 – Mercury concentrations in Whitewater River fish tissue samples, pooled by trophic level.

Table 25 – Sample sizes from all Whitewater River fish tissue survey efforts. Trophic Level 3 Trophic Level 4 Year samples samples Total samples 2000 8 10 18 2002 0 4 4 2010 4 3 7 2017 24 18 42

74

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

0.6

0.5

CHANNEL CATFISH 0.4 COMMON CARP FRESHWATER DRUM 0.3 SAUGER SMALLMOUTH BASS 0.2 WHITE BASS

0.1 Mecury tissue concentration (mg/kg)

0 2000 2002 2010 2017

Figure 25 – Average mercury concentrations for select species in Whitewater River.

Total PCBs Because PCBs do not have a strong correlation between concentration and trophic level, six species were selected for analysis, based on prevalence and inclusion in consumption advisories: channel catfish, common carp, freshwater drum, sauger, smallmouth bass, and white bass. Common carp, freshwater drum, and smallmouth bass have consistently low concentrations across sampling events (Figure 26); advisories for these species are driven by mercury rather than PCBs. White bass had elevated concentrations in 2000 and 2002, which resulted in a 1 meal per month advisory due to PCBs. A single sample in 2010 suggested concentrations have lowered, but no samples were collected in 2017. White bass are flagged for follow-up sampling. Channel catfish have had variable PCB concentrations across the years, but below the concentration to trigger a one meal per month advisory. This difference may be due to a variety of factors including fish age (as a function of length), prey preferences, or fine-scale location (small pockets of remnant PCB sediment contamination). Sauger is the only species sampled to have an advisory due to PCBs. The two samples collected in 2000 had low concentrations, but the single sample from 2002 had a very high concentration, which resulted in an average concentration in the one meal per month advisory range. No sauger were collected in 2010 or 2017. However, single samples of saugeye (sauger/walleye hybrid) and walleye had low concentrations (0.098 and 0.032 mg/kg, respectively; see Table 26 for 2017 data). The 2002 sample was similar in size to the 2000 samples, which could mean that specific fish ingested prey and/or sediment from a small pocket of highly contaminated substrate. This species has been flagged for follow-up to examine if the advisory is warranted.

75

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

1 0.9 0.8 CHANNEL CATFISH 0.7 COMMON CARP 0.6 FRESHWATER DRUM 0.5 SAUGER 0.4 0.3 SMALLMOUTH BASS 0.2 WHITE BASS 0.1 PCBs tissue concentration (mg/kg) 0 2000 2002 2010 2017

Figure 26 – Average total PCBs concentrations from select species in Whitewater River.

76

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 26 – Fish tissue data from 2017 Dry Fork and Whitewater River sampling (mg/kg).

Total Collection PCBs Mercury Species Number Station Station Name RM (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

COMMON CARP 17111320‐09 H11W69 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. UPST. NEW HAVEN @ WILLEY RD. 9.02 0.0198 0.111 ROCK BASS 17111320‐07 H11W69 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. UPST. NEW HAVEN @ WILLEY RD. 9.02 0.02 0.423 ROCK BASS 17111320‐08 H11W69 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. UPST. NEW HAVEN @ WILLEY RD. 9.02 0.0199 0.395 ROCK BASS 17111320‐10 H11W68 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. @ NEW LONDON RD. 13.3 0.02 0.261 ROCK BASS 17111320‐11 H11W68 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. @ NEW LONDON RD. 13.3 0.0199 0.257 SMALLMOUTH BASS 17111320‐02 H11W70 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. @ KILBY RD. 0.52 0.0198 0.511 SMALLMOUTH BASS 17111320‐03 H11W70 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. @ KILBY RD. 0.52 0.0198 0.197 SMALLMOUTH BASS 17111320‐04 H11S24 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. SE OF HARRISON @ HARRISON PIKE 4.35 0.0198 0.2 SMALLMOUTH BASS 17111320‐05 H11W69 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. UPST. NEW HAVEN @ WILLEY RD. 9.02 0.0199 0.264 SMALLMOUTH BASS 17111320‐06 H11W69 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. UPST. NEW HAVEN @ WILLEY RD. 9.02 0.0199 0.137 SMALLMOUTH BASS 17111320‐12 H11W68 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. @ NEW LONDON RD. 13.3 0.0199 0.248 SMALLMOUTH BASS 17111320‐13 H11W68 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. @ NEW LONDON RD. 13.3 0.0198 0.27 SMALLMOUTH BASS 17111320‐14 H11W68 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. @ NEW LONDON RD. 13.3 0.02 0.578 SPOTTED BASS 17111320‐01 H11W70 DRY FORK WHITEWATER R. @ KILBY RD. 0.52 0.212 0.345 BLUEGILL SUNFISH 17111322‐13 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.02 0.0591 CHANNEL CATFISH 17111323‐01 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.0251 0.13 CHANNEL CATFISH 17111323‐02 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.083 0.322 CHANNEL CATFISH 17111323‐10 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.357 0.518 CHANNEL CATFISH 17111323‐11 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.2313 0.546 CHANNEL CATFISH 17111322‐04 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.1099 0.239 CHANNEL CATFISH 17111322‐05 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.1993 0.622 CHANNEL CATFISH 17111322‐06 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.0216 0.0836 CHANNEL CATFISH 17111322‐07 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.02 0.0736 CHANNEL CATFISH 17111322‐08 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.0199 0.112 CHANNEL CATFISH 17111319‐07 H11S27 WHITEWATER R. AT HARRISON @ OHIO/INDIANA STATE LINE 8.28 0.0393 0.381 CHANNEL CATFISH 17111319‐08 H11S27 WHITEWATER R. AT HARRISON @ OHIO/INDIANA STATE LINE 8.28 0.02 0.284 CHANNEL CATFISH 17111319‐09 H11S27 WHITEWATER R. AT HARRISON @ OHIO/INDIANA STATE LINE 8.28 0.0199 0.155 COMMON CARP 17111323‐04 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.0548 0.179

77

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Total Collection PCBs Mercury Species Number Station Station Name RM (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

COMMON CARP 17111323‐05 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.0569 0.215 COMMON CARP 17111322‐11 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.0284 0.206 COMMON CARP 17111322‐12 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.0331 0.219 COMMON CARP 17111319‐05 H11S27 WHITEWATER R. AT HARRISON @ OHIO/INDIANA STATE LINE 8.28 0.0198 0.145 FLATHEAD CATFISH 17111322‐17 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.0199 0.225 FRESHWATER DRUM 17111323‐07 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.0199 0.182 FRESHWATER DRUM 17111323‐08 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.0199 0.59 FRESHWATER DRUM 17111322‐01 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.0199 0.557 FRESHWATER DRUM 17111322‐02 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.0199 0.382 FRESHWATER DRUM 17111322‐03 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.0199 0.241 FRESHWATER DRUM 17111319‐01 H11S27 WHITEWATER R. AT HARRISON @ OHIO/INDIANA STATE LINE 8.28 0.0648 0.553 FRESHWATER DRUM 17111319‐02 H11S27 WHITEWATER R. AT HARRISON @ OHIO/INDIANA STATE LINE 8.28 0.02 0.238 FRESHWATER DRUM 17111319‐03 H11S27 WHITEWATER R. AT HARRISON @ OHIO/INDIANA STATE LINE 8.28 0.0199 0.495 FRESHWATER DRUM 17111319‐04 H11S27 WHITEWATER R. AT HARRISON @ OHIO/INDIANA STATE LINE 8.28 0.0198 0.725 SAUGER X WALLEYE 17111323‐15 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.0981 0.362 SMALLMOUTH BASS 17111323‐12 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.1041 1.03 SMALLMOUTH BASS 17111323‐13 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.0199 0.445 SMALLMOUTH BASS 17111322‐16 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.0199 0.448 SMALLMOUTH BASS 17111319‐10 H11S27 WHITEWATER R. AT HARRISON @ OHIO/INDIANA STATE LINE 8.28 0.0198 0.344 SMALLMOUTH BASS 17111319‐11 H11S27 WHITEWATER R. AT HARRISON @ OHIO/INDIANA STATE LINE 8.28 0.0198 0.365 SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO 17111323‐03 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.0199 0.51 SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO 17111323‐06 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.132 0.319 SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO 17111322‐09 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.129 0.3 SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO 17111322‐10 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.0439 0.213 SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO 17111319‐06 H11S27 WHITEWATER R. AT HARRISON @ OHIO/INDIANA STATE LINE 8.28 0.0306 0.265 SPOTTED BASS 17111322‐15 H11W65 WHITEWATER R. @ LANE OFF LAWRENCEBURG RD, 1.8 MI. N OF I‐275 3.8 0.0198 0.372

78

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Total Collection PCBs Mercury Species Number Station Station Name RM (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

SPOTTED BASS 17111319‐12 H11S27 WHITEWATER R. AT HARRISON @ OHIO/INDIANA STATE LINE 8.28 0.0198 0.417 WALLEYE 17111323‐14 H11S26 WHITEWATER R. W OF HOOVEN @ SUSPENSION BRIDGE RD. 1.5 0.0324 0.248

79

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Beneficial Use Designations and Recommendations Aquatic Life Use All streams within the Whitewater River study area currently listed in the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS) are either assigned the warmwater habitat (WWH) or exceptional warmwater habitat (EWH) aquatic life beneficial use (ALU), or are currently undesignated (i.e., not listed in WQS). Ohio EPA has conducted monitoring and assessment within the study area beginning in the early 1980s and primarily evaluated stream systems receiving effluent from NPDES-permitted dischargers. Historical sampling efforts included: Whitewater mainstem sampling during the early and late 1980s, 1995/96, and 2008; sampling throughout Dry Fork in 1996 and limited sampling in 2005; and sampling throughout East Fork in 1982. Pursuant to these efforts, these streams have designated ALUs that have previously been verified using standardized biological field collections. However, many water bodies remain throughout the watershed where designations for ALU (and other beneficial uses) are still based on the original 1978 and 1985 state water quality standards. The techniques used at that time did not include standardized approaches to the collection of in-stream biological data or numeric biocriteria. Fifteen streams were evaluated for aquatic life use potential from 2017-2019. Data from the current survey were used to either confirm or recommend an appropriate aquatic life use. Significant findings from this survey included the following:  The Whitewater River mainstem maintains an existing EWH aquatic life use. Biological index scores have remained high and exceeded EWH criteria where evaluated. It is recommended that the portions of the Whitewater River in Ohio retain the existing EWH aquatic life use.

 Dry Fork currently maintains an EWH designation from the Ohio-Indiana state line to Atherton Rd. (RM 10.2), while the reaches downstream from Atherton Rd. to its confluence with the Whitewater River maintain a WWH designation. The EWH designation from the state line to RM 19.6 was previously unverified. Results from the current survey indicate biological communities exceeded EWH expectations throughout Dry Fork, even in those reaches currently designated WWH (Table 18). Biological assemblages met EWH expectations despite lower flow and generally desiccated conditions observed later in the summer of 2017. It is therefore recommended that the portions of Dry Fork not currently designated EWH receive this designation or be confirmed as such.

 Sours Run is a relatively small tributary to Dry Fork that is currently undesignated in the WQS. It originates in Indiana before joining the upper reaches of Dry Fork in Ohio. Only about one river mile of Sours Run is in Ohio. Fish assemblages in this stream substantially exceeded EWH expectations. Macroinvertebrate assemblages were very good and marginally met EWH expectations at the one location evaluated. Though the macroinvertebrate assemblage was likely influenced by low flows and natural desiccation documented later during the summer in 2017, it still met EWH expectations. It is recommended that the portions of Sours Run from the Ohio/Indiana state line (RM 1.0) to its mouth receive the EWH use designation.

 Sater Run is another small tributary that joins Dry Fork just downstream from Sours Run. Sater Run currently maintains an unverified WWH beneficial use. Like Sours Run, Sater Run also originates in Indiana, with only about 0.8 river miles in Ohio. However, Sater Run (3.3 mi2) drains about half the area encompassed by Sours Run (6.45 mi2) and has a higher gradient overall. A smaller drainage area and higher gradient seemed to leave Sater Run more prone to low flows and natural

80

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

desiccation commonly observed in this part of the watershed. Despite generally desiccated conditions observed over the summer, biological assemblages were largely consistent with WWH expectations. It is recommended that the portions of Sater Run from the Ohio/Indiana state line (RM 0.8) to its mouth receive the WWH use designation.

 Kiata Creek is another small tributary (6.1 mi2) than joins Dry Fork downstream from Sater Run. Kiata Creek maintains a verified WWH use. Fish assemblages in this stream exceeded EWH expectations, while macroinvertebrate assemblages were rated very good and marginally met EWH expectations at the one location evaluated. It is recommended that Kiata Creek receive the EWH use designation.

 Howard Creek is a tributary than joins Dry Fork near the ECBP/IP ecoregion transition. Like other area tributaries, it maintains an unverified WWH use. Despite lower flow and generally desiccated conditions while sampling, both fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages fully or marginally met EWH expectations when evaluated at one location in 2017 and two locations in 2019. It is recommended that the entirety of Howard Creek receive the EWH use designation.

 Jamison Creek and Lee Creek maintain unverified WWH uses. Biological assemblages in Jamison Creek were consistent with WWH expectations. Macroinvertebrate assemblages in Lee Creek were rated excellent at the one location evaluated, but fish community assemblages comparatively lagged and was only rated in the good to very good range. These two streams are recommended confirmed WWH.

 Buck Run is an undesignated stream. Macroinvertebrate assemblages at the one location sampled were in the very good range, but fish assemblages were rated notably lower and fell short of WWH expectations. It is recommended that Buck Run be confirmed WWH.

 East Fork of the Whitewater River currently maintains a verified WWH use. Additionally, Little Creek, Brinley Fork, and Rocky Fork all maintain unverified WWH designations. Coldwater fish species comprised a relatively large proportion of the overall community in all these streams and coldwater macroinvertebrate species were abundant, including several occurrences of coldwater mayflies and caddisflies (Table 12, Table 16). In addition to the coldwater taxa present in these systems, the macroinvertebrate communities in East Fork and Little Creek was also notably diverse and performed in the exceptional range. East Fork, Little Creek, Brinley Fork, and Rocky Fork are all recommended to receive the CWH use given their high abundance of coldwater indicator species.

 Middle Fork is an undesignated tributary to East Fork of the Whitewater River. This stream displayed biological assemblages more consistent with warmwater streams. It is recommended that Middle Fork be designated WWH.

 Welker Lateral is a very small tributary (1.2 mi2) in the uppermost reaches of East Fork; it is a modified reference site but is currently undesignated in the WQS. Despite lower flow and desiccated conditions, fish community assemblages were consistent with WWH expectations. Macroinvertebrate community performance was fair and fell just short of WWH expectations. Welker Lateral is a largely artificial drainage that is in the later stages of natural recovery from

81

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

historical channelization activities. It is recommended that Welker Lateral receive the WWH use designation.

Recreation Beneficial Use Most streams evaluated during the survey maintain the PCR recreation beneficial use; those streams should retain the PCR use. Kiata Creek and portions of East Fork currently maintain a SCR use; it is recommended the entirely of these two streams be re-designated PCR. Where data exists, all unverified PCR designations should be confirmed as such. All undesignated streams should receive the PCR designation. Agricultural, Industrial, and Public Water Supply Beneficial Uses No streams in this study area have a Public Water Supply beneficial use. All streams or stream segments with existing AWS and IWS use designations should retain those uses. Those streams listed in Table 27 with unverified AWS and IWS use designations should have those uses confirmed. It is recommended that those streams not listed in the WQS should receive the AWS and IWS use designations. Anti‐degradation Classifications The Whitewater River maintains a superior high-quality waters classification, while most other streams maintain a general high-quality waters (GHQW) classification. Portions of Dry Fork are classified as State Resource Waters (SRW). SRW is an outdated antidegradation category being phased out as described in OAC 3745-1-05(A)(25) and replaced with the modern antidegradation categories as described in OAC 3745-1-05. The SRW listing for Dry Fork is recommended to be removed and replaced with the GHQW use. General Watershed Recommendations Stream quality in northern part of the watershed benefits from groundwater inputs. It would be beneficial to establish more substantial riparian, grassed, and other buffer areas around, especially around smaller streams and ditches. Riparian vegetation was generally sparser in this part of the watershed compared to the southern portion, especially in smallest streams and ditches (Figure 5). Unrestricted cattle access to streams was also observed in several areas in the northern portion of the study area. Buffering streams with vegetation and excluding cattle from streams would both help reduce soil erosion and nutrient runoff and help improve stream water quality. Keeping soil and nutrients on agricultural fields and out of streams in of upmost importance. The southern portions of the study area are comprised of lesser amounts of rowcrop agriculture and more development, hay/pastureland, and forest (Figure 5). Protecting and buffering streams from both urban/suburban encroachment and agriculture in the southern portions of the study area is important. Dry Fork and other southern Whitewater tributaries tend to be higher quality streams that “dry out” considerably over the course of an average summer; droughts can exacerbate this. Pollutants or excessive nutrients have the most severe impacts on water quality and biological communities during these periods. It important to support efforts that help buffer streams, slow urban/agricultural runoff, and increase water rates. Natural areas like the Miami-Whitewater Forest, Metroparks, and other local parks help ensure this, though small scale actions by landowners (e.g. install a small rain garden with native perennials, don’t mow right up to a stream and give it a buffer, don’t dispose of yard waste in streams, etc.) are essential to helping progressively improve water quality.

82

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Table 27 – Water body use designations and recommendations for the Whitewater River study area. Beneficial use designations are indicated with asterisks (*) while designations based on the results of a previous biological field assessment performed by Ohio EPA are indicated using a (+) symbol. Verification of current designations based on this study are denoted as (*/+) while a (▲) denotes a new recommended beneficial use based on the findings of this study. Streams assessed during this study appear shaded in grey.

Use designations for water bodies in the Whitewater River drainage basin.

Use Designations

Aquatic Life Water Recreation Habitat Supply Water Body Segment Comments S W E M S C L P A I B P S R W W W S W R W W W W C C W H H H H H W S S S R R

Whitewater river + + + +

Sand run * * * *

Dry fork - Ohio-Indiana state line (RM 20.66) to RM 19.6 */+ */+ */+ */+ All of Dry Fork recommended confirmed or re- designated EWH.

- RM 19.6 to Atherton rd. (RM 10.2) + + + +

- Atherton rd. to the mouth + ▲ + + +

- within Miami Whitewater forest boundaries (~RM 4.3-11.2) * + ▲ + + +

Lee creek */+ */+ */+ */+

Howard creek * ▲ */+ */+ */+

Buck run ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

Kiata creek + ▲ + + ▲ +

Sater run */+ */+ */+ */+ Sours run ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

Phillips creek * * * *

Jamison creek */+ */+ */+ */+ All East Fork recommended re-designated East fork - headwaters to Little creek (RM 41.7) + ▲ + + ▲ + CWH and PCR

- Little creek to state line + + + +

Elkhorn creek * * * *

83

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Use designations for water bodies in the Whitewater River drainage basin.

Use Designations

Aquatic Life Water Recreation Habitat Supply Water Body Segment Comments S W E M S C L P A I B P S R W W W S W R W W W W C C W H H H H H W S S S R R Middle fork of east fork ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

Mud creek * * * *

Horn ditch * * * *

Rocky fork * ▲ */+ */+ */+

Little creek * ▲ */+ */+ */+

Brinley fork * ▲ */+ */+ */+

Jocqueway creek * * * *

Dry run (Trib. to E. Fk. Whitewater R. (42.7)) * * * *

Welker Lateral (East Fork RM 50.7) ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 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.

84

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Acknowledgements Ohio EPA's Division of Surface Water (DSW) appreciates the cooperation of all property owners who allowed agency personnel access to the project areas. The following Ohio EPA staff provided technical expertise for this project:

Report preparation and analysis Andrew Phillips, Michelle Waller, Sarah Macy, Chuck McKnight, Laura Marshall, Mohammad Asasi, Chris Skalski, Angela Dripps Report Reviewers Sarah Becker, Joby Jackson, Marianne Piekutowski, Jeff Bohne Field sampling  Fish Community Collections Andrew Phillips; seasonal technicians Ben Foster and Mike Whitacre  Macroinvertebrate Sarah Macy; seasonal technicians Owen Miller and Kyleigh community collections Godsey  Surface Water Chemistry Michelle Waller, Laura Marshall, Matt Walbridge; seasonal technicians Maria Czerwonka and Kayla Haman  Water Quality Modeling Chris Selbe, Curt Chipps, Chris Kosto, Dale White, Mohammad Asasi; seasonal technicians Travis Copeland, Emma Brown, Marissa Ganzfried

85

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

References Dodds, W. K. 2007. Trophic State, Eutrophication and Nutrient Criteria in Streams. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22(12), 669-676. Dodds, W. K. 2006. Eutrophication and Trophic State in Rivers and Streams. and Oceanography, 51(1-2), 671-680. Dufour, A.P. 1977. Escherichia coli: The fecal coliform. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. Spec. Publ. 635: 45-58. Hammerschmidt, C. R., & Fitzgerald, W. F. (2006). Methylmercury in freshwater fish linked to atmospheric mercury deposition. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(24), 7764-7770. Heiskary, S., & Markus, H. 2003. Establishing Relationships Among In-Stream Nutrient Concentrations, Phytoplankton Abundance and Composition, Fish IBI and Biochemical Oxygen Demand in Minnesota USA Rivers Final Report to USEPA Region V. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Outcomes Division. Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 2020. Indiana Integrated Water Monitoring and Assessment Report. Available:

Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 2014. Total Maximum Daily Load Report for the Southern Whitewater River Watershed. Janssen, S. E., Riva-Murray, K., DeWild, J. F., Ogorek, J. M., Tate, M. T., Van Metre, P. C., ... & Coles, J. F. (2019). Chemical and Physical Controls on Mercury Source Signatures in Stream Fish from the Northeastern United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(17), 10110-10119. Karr, J. R., 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications 1(1):66-84. February 1991. Karr, J. R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser, 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters. A method and its rationale. Champaign: Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication, 5. MacDonald, D., C. Ingersoll, and T. Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxical. 39:20-31. Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI). 2014. Biological and Water Quality Assessment of the Great Miami River and Tributaries 2013 Hamilton County, Ohio. Technical Report MBI/2014-6-8. MSD Project Number 10180900. Columbus, OH 43221-0561. 121 pp. + appendices. http://www.msdgc.org/initiatives/water_quality/index.html. Miltner, R. J. 2018. Eutrophication endpoints for large rivers in Ohio, USA. Environ Monit Assess. 2018 Jan 4;190(2):55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6422-4 Miltner, R. J. 2010. A Method and Rationale for Deriving Nutrient Criteria for Small Rivers and Streams in Ohio. Environmental Management, 45, 842-855. Miner R. and D. Borton, 1991. Considerations in the development and implementation of biocriteria, Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, U.S. EPA, Offc. Science and Technology, Washington, D.C., 115 pp. Ohio Division of Natural Resources. 2020. Ohio’s state listed species. Publication #5356. Division of Wildlife. Ohio EPA. 2015a. Surface Water Field Sampling Manual for water quality parameters and flows. Columbus.

86

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Ohio EPA. 2015b. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume III. Standardized Biological Field Sampling and Laboratory Methods for Assessing Fish and Macroinvertebrate Communities. Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio. Ohio EPA. 2015c. Stream Nutrient Assessment Procedure – Final Draft Recommendations. Ohio EPA Nutrients Technical Advisory Group. Nov 2015. Ohio EPA. 2014. Preamble: Proposed Stream Nutrient Assessment Procedure. Nutrients Technical Advisory Group - Assessment Procedure Subgroup, Columbus. Ohio EPA. 2008. Ecological risk assessment guidance manual. Feb. 2003. Division of Emergency and Remedial Response, Columbus, Ohio. Ohio EPA. 2006a. Methods for assessing habitat in flowing waters: Using the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI). Ohio EPA Tech. Bull. EAS/2006-06-1. Revised by the Midwest Biodiversity Institute for Divison of Surface Water, Ecol. Assess. Sect., Groveport, Ohio Ohio EPA. 2006b. 2006 Updates to Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume II. User’s manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio. Ohio EPA. 2003. Ohio Specific Sediment Reference Values. EPA DERR Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance. Division of Emergency and Remedial Response, Columbus, Ohio. Ohio EPA. 1989. Addendum to Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume II. User’s manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio. Ohio EPA, 1987a. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume I. The Role of Biological Data in Water Quality Assessment. Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio. Ohio EPA. 1987b. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume II. User’s manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio. Water Quality Assessment. Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio. Rankin E.T., 1995. Habitat Indices in Water Resource Quality Assessments, in W.S. Davis and T. Simon (eds.). Biological assessment and criteria: tools for risk-based planning and decision making. CRC Press/Lewis Publisher, Ann Arbor. Rankin E.T., 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods, and application. Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Columbus, Ohio. Trautman, M. B. (1981). The Fishes of Ohio (pp. 151-153). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press. Unites States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics. 2012. Available: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/ United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. State Development of Numeric Criteria for Nitrogen and Phosphrus Pollution. Nutrient Policy and Data. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Ecological soil screening level guidance. Washington DC. United States Geological Survey. 2014. Eutrophication. Available: http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/eutrophication.html. Yoder, C.O. 1991. Answering some concerns about biological criteria based on experiences in Ohio, in G. H. Flock (ed.) Water quality standards for the 21st century. Proceedings of a National Conference, U. S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

87

AMS/2017‐WHITE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Whitewater River Study Area December 2020

Yoder, C.O. 1989. The development and use of biological criteria for Ohio surface waters. U.S. EPA, Criteria and Standards Div., Water Quality Stds. 21st Century, 1989: 139-146. Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. 1995a. Biological criteria program development and implementation in Ohio, in W.S. Davis and T. Simon (eds.). Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Risk-based Planning and Decision Making. CRC Press/Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor.

Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. 1995b. Biological Response Signatures and the Area of Degradation Value: New Tools for Interpreting Multimetric Data. In: Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., Eds., Biological Assessment and Criteria—Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, 263-286. Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. 1995c. The role of biological criteria in water quality monitoring, assessment and regulation. Ohio EPA Technical Report MAS/1995-1-3. Zananski, T. J., Holsen, T. M., Hopke, P. K., & Crimmins, B. S. (2011). Mercury temporal trends in top predator fish of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Ecotoxicology, 20(7), 1568-157

88