DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological and Water Quality Study of the Maumee River and Auglaize

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological and Water Quality Study of the Maumee River and Auglaize Biological and Water Quality Study of the Maumee River and Auglaize River 2012-2013 Paulding, Defiance, Henry, Lucas, Wood, and Putnam Counties Maumee River LRAUs: 041000059001, 041000099001, 041000099002 Auglaize River LRAU: 041000079001 OHIO EPA Technical Report EAS/2014-05-03 Division of Surface Water December 8, 2014 DSW/EAS 2014-05-03 Maumee and Auglaize Rivers 2012-2013 December 8, 2014 Biological and Water Quality Study Of the Maumee River and Auglaize River 2012 – 2013 Paulding, Defiance, Henry, Lucas, Wood, and Putnam Counties 12/8/2014 OhioEPA Report DSW/EAS 2014-05-03 Prepared by State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Northwest District Office 347 N. Dunbridge Road Bowling Green, Ohio 43402 Ecological Assessment Section 4675 Homer Ohio Lane Groveport, Ohio 43125 John R. Kasich, Governor Craig W. Butler, Director State of Ohio Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2 DSW/EAS 2014-05-03 Maumee and Auglaize Rivers 2012-2013 December 8, 2014 Contents Table of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Table of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 19 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 Study Area Description ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Location and Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Beneficial Uses ................................................................................................................................................ 26 Ecoregions, Geology, and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 26 Land Use .......................................................................................................................................................... 27 Protected Lands .............................................................................................................................................. 32 Ground Water Supply ..................................................................................................................................... 33 Surface Water Supply and Drinking Water Quality ........................................................................................ 35 Nonpoint Source Issues .................................................................................................................................. 35 Watershed Groups .......................................................................................................................................... 35 Results ................................................................................................................................................................. 37 Water Chemistry ............................................................................................................................................. 37 Datasonde® Monitoring Results ................................................................................................................. 41 Trophic Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 57 Historic Trends ............................................................................................................................................ 62 Recreation Use ................................................................................................................................................ 69 Public Drinking Water Supplies ....................................................................................................................... 72 NPDES Permitted Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 76 Sediment ......................................................................................................................................................... 85 Fish Tissue Contamination .............................................................................................................................. 86 Fish advisories ............................................................................................................................................. 86 Fish Tissue/Human Health Use Attainment ................................................................................................ 87 Fish Contaminant Trends ............................................................................................................................ 88 Stream Physical Habitat .................................................................................................................................. 92 Maumee River............................................................................................................................................. 92 Auglaize River ............................................................................................................................................. 92 Fish Community .............................................................................................................................................. 95 Maumee River............................................................................................................................................. 95 Auglaize River ............................................................................................................................................. 97 Maumee River Fish Community Trends ........................................................................................................ 101 Ohio-Indiana Stateline to RM 15 .............................................................................................................. 101 RM 15 to Mouth ....................................................................................................................................... 106 Auglaize River Fish Community Trends ......................................................................................................... 106 Macroinvertebrate Community .................................................................................................................... 106 Maumee River Macroinvertebrate Community Trends ............................................................................ 108 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................... 113 References ......................................................................................................................................................... 114 3 DSW/EAS 2014-05-03 Maumee and Auglaize Rivers 2012-2013 December 8, 2014 List of Figures Figure 1. 78% of the sites sampled in the Maumee and Auglaize River study areas met their designated aquatic life use biocriteria. .................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2. Maumee and Auglaize Rivers sampling locations and biological community performance, 2012-13. Site numbers correspond to Table 2. .................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 3. The Maumee and Auglaize Rivers study area including 8-digit HUC watershed boundaries, 2012- 2013. .................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 4. Maumee and Auglaize Rivers sampling locations with 8-digit HUC boundaries and ecoregion limits, 2012 – 2013. ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 5. STATSGO general soil groups for the Maumee River and Auglaize River LRAUs (US Geological Survey, 1995). .................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 6. Land Use for the Maumee River Upper Maumee Watershed HUC 8. ................................................. 29 Figure 7. Land Use for the Maumee River Lower Maumee Watershed HUC 8. ................................................. 30 Figure 8. Land Use for the Auglaize River Watershed HUC 8. ............................................................................. 31 Figure 9. Mean flow conditions in the Maumee River at
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio Under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002
    State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002 March 25, 2002 prepared by Division of Surface Water Division of Surface Water, 122 South Front St., PO Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 644-2001 Introduction Federal Water Quality Standard (WQS) program regulations require that States adopt and use an antidegradation policy. The policy has two distinct purposes. First, an antidegradation policy must provide a systematic and reasoned decision making process to evaluate the need to lower water quality. Regulated activities should not lower water quality unless the need to do so is demonstrated based on technical, social and economic criteria. The second purpose of an antidegradation policy is to ensure that the State’s highest quality streams, rivers and lakes are preserved. This document deals with the latter aspect of the antidegradation policy. Section 6111.12(A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code specifically requires that the Ohio EPA establish provisions “ensuring that waters of exceptional recreational and ecological value are maintained as high quality resources for future generations.” Table 1 explains the proposed classification system to accomplish this directive. The shaded categories denote the special higher resource quality categories. The proposed rule contains 157 stream segments classified as either State Resource Waters (SRW) or Superior High Quality Waters (SHQW). The approximate mileage in each classification is shown in Table 1. The total mileage in both classifications represents less than four percent of Ohio’s streams. Refer to “Methods and Documentation Used to Propose State Resource Water and Superior High Quality Water Classifications for Ohio’s Water Quality Standards” (Ohio EPA, 2002) for further information about the process used to develop the list of streams.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Lake Erie Lighthouses
    U.S. Lake Erie Lighthouses Gretchen S. Curtis Lakeside, Ohio July 2011 U.S. Lighthouse Organizations • Original Light House Service 1789 – 1851 • Quasi-military Light House Board 1851 – 1910 • Light House Service under the Department of Commerce 1910 – 1939 • Final incorporation of the service into the U.S. Coast Guard in 1939. In the beginning… Lighthouse Architects & Contractors • Starting in the 1790s, contractors bid on LH construction projects advertised in local newspapers. • Bids reviewed by regional Superintendent of Lighthouses, a political appointee, who informed U.S. Treasury Dept of his selection. • Superintendent approved final contract and supervised contractor during building process. Creation of Lighthouse Board • Effective in 1852, U.S. Lighthouse Board assumed all duties related to navigational aids. • U.S. divided into 12 LH districts with inspector (naval officer) assigned to each district. • New LH construction supervised by district inspector with primary focus on quality over cost, resulting in greater LH longevity. • Soon, an engineer (army officer) was assigned to each district to oversee construction & maintenance of lights. Lighthouse Bd Responsibilities • Location of new / replacement lighthouses • Appointment of district inspectors, engineers and specific LH keepers • Oversight of light-vessels of Light-House Service • Establishment of detailed rules of operation for light-vessels and light-houses and creation of rules manual. “The Light-Houses of the United States” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Dec 1873 – May 1874 … “The Light-house Board carries on and provides for an infinite number of details, many of them petty, but none unimportant.” “The Light-Houses of the United States” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Dec 1873 – May 1874 “There is a printed book of 152 pages specially devoted to instructions and directions to light-keepers.
    [Show full text]
  • Maumee AOC Habitat Restoration
    Maumee AOC Habitat Restoration The Maumee River habitat restoration project at Penn 7 will improve habitat for fish and wildlife by creating coastal wetlands and forested upland along the Maumee River. Project Location and 30% Design Concept Map • Northern Shoreline of the Maumee River in Toledo, Ohio Project Highlights Create 8.5 acres of emergent coastal wetland and 6.7 acres of submerged coastal wetland Improve roughly 59 acres of habitat including adjacent upland areas Control invasive plant species and plant native vegetation Install water control and fish habitat connectivity structures Funding is provided by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - Great Lakes Commission (GLC) Regional Partnership The City of Toledo is implementing this project with assistance from their consultant, Hull and Associates Environmental Benefits Economic Benefits Community Benefits New fish and wildlife habitat Regional benefits to Downtown nature space Improved hydrologic eco-tourism, birding Improved water quality and connectivity and fishing ecosystem health Background of the Area of Concern (AOC) Located in Northwest Ohio, the Maumee AOC is comprised of 787 square miles that includes approximately the lower 23 miles of the Maumee River downstream to Maumee Bay, as well as other waterways within Lucas, Ottawa and Wood counties that drain to Lake Erie, such as Swan Creek, Ottawa River (Ten Mile Creek), Grassy Creek, Duck Creek, Otter Creek, Cedar Creek, Crane Creek, Turtle Creek, Packer Creek, and the Toussaint River. In 1987 the Maumee AOC River was designated as an AOC under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Trends in Suspended-Sediment Discharges, Soil Erosion, and Conservation Tillage in the Maumee River Basin–Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana
    In cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Status and Trends in Suspended-Sediment Discharges, Soil Erosion, and Conservation Tillage in the Maumee River Basin–Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Status and Trends in Suspended-Sediment Discharges, Soil Erosion, and Conservation Tillage in the Maumee River Basin—Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana By Donna N. Myers and Kevin D. Metzker, U.S. Geological Survey, and Steven Davis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4091 In cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Department of the Interior BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 6480 Doubletree Avenue Columbus, OH 43229-1111 Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S.Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225-0286 2000 CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Unusually Large Loads in 2007 from the Maumee and Sandusky Rivers, Tributaries to Lake Erie
    point sources of pollution, the control of erosion and sediment transport to Lake Erie doi:10.2489/jswc.65.6.450 became important because much of the non- point phosphorus was bound to sediment (IJC 1978). In this context, more detailed and accurate knowledge of tributary loads Unusually large loads in 2007 from the of sediment, phosphorus, and other nutrients became a matter of concern. Maumee and Sandusky Rivers, tributaries The National Center for Water Quality Research (NCWQR) at Heidelberg to Lake Erie University began monitoring sediment and nutrients in the major US tributaries to Lake R.P. Richards, D.B. Baker, J.P. Crumrine, and A.M. Stearns Erie in 1975, with some records extend- ing back as far as the late 1960s. The past Abstract: During water year 2007 (October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007), the thirty years have seen improvements in some Maumee River and Sandusky River in northern Ohio transported the largest, or nearly aspects of water quality in these tributar- Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. the largest, loads of several water quality constituents that have been observed in 33 years of ies (reductions in suspended solids [SS] and Journal of Soil and Water Conservation monitoring. Discharge, total phosphorus, dissolved reactive phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitro- particulate phosphorus [PP] [Richards et gen, and chloride all recorded 33-year maximum loads, while the loads for nitrate ranked al. 2008, 2009]), as well as some worsening 5th (Sandusky) and 8th (Maumee) out of 33. Loads of particulate phosphorus ranked 2nd trends (increasing dissolved reactive phos- (Sandusky) and 4th (Maumee), and those for suspended solids ranked 10th (Sandusky) and phorus [DRP] [Richards 2006]).
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resource Amendment
    Natural Resource Amendment to the Fulton County Comprehensive Development Plan Of 1998 Prepared By Fulton County Regional Planning Commission Steven Brown, Director Leitha Sackmann, Planner & GIS Director Seth Brehm, Planner Adopted April 27, 2004 Revision Adopted June 28, 2011 by the Fulton County Regional Planning Commission Adopted June 28, 2004 Revision Adopted August 4, 2011 by the Fulton County Commissioners TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Maps ............................................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................................................v Task Force Members ................................................................................................................................................. vi Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Comprehensive Development Plan Update .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843
    Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843 Ohio Historical Society www.ohiohistory.org $4.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS Historical Background 03 Trails and Settlements 03 Shelters and Dwellings 04 Clothing and Dress 07 Arts and Crafts 08 Religions 09 Medicine 10 Agriculture, Hunting, and Fishing 11 The Fur Trade 12 Five Major Tribes of Ohio 13 Adapting Each Other’s Ways 16 Removal of the American Indian 18 Ohio Historical Society Indian Sites 20 Ohio Historical Marker Sites 20 Timeline 32 Glossary 36 The Ohio Historical Society 1982 Velma Avenue Columbus, OH 43211 2 Ohio Historical Society www.ohiohistory.org Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In Ohio, the last of the prehistoric Indians, the Erie and the Fort Ancient people, were destroyed or driven away by the Iroquois about 1655. Some ethnologists believe the Shawnee descended from the Fort Ancient people. The Shawnees were wanderers, who lived in many places in the south. They became associated closely with the Delaware in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Able fighters, the Shawnees stubbornly resisted white pressures until the Treaty of Greene Ville in 1795. At the time of the arrival of the European explorers on the shores of the North American continent, the American Indians were living in a network of highly developed cultures. Each group lived in similar housing, wore similar clothing, ate similar food, and enjoyed similar tribal life. In the geographical northeastern part of North America, the principal American Indian tribes were: Abittibi, Abenaki, Algonquin, Beothuk, Cayuga, Chippewa, Delaware, Eastern Cree, Erie, Forest Potawatomi, Huron, Iroquois, Illinois, Kickapoo, Mohicans, Maliseet, Massachusetts, Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mississauga, Mohawk, Montagnais, Munsee, Muskekowug, Nanticoke, Narragansett, Naskapi, Neutral, Nipissing, Ojibwa, Oneida, Onondaga, Ottawa, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, Peoria, Pequot, Piankashaw, Prairie Potawatomi, Sauk-Fox, Seneca, Susquehanna, Swamp-Cree, Tuscarora, Winnebago, and Wyandot.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fresh-Water Naiades of Auglaize County, Ohio
    THE FRESH-WATER NAIADES OF AUGLAIZE COUNTY, OHIO CLARENCE F. CLARK, Ohio Division of Conservation and Natural Resources, St. Marys, Ohio This paper deals with 30 collections of mussels taken at 24 stations (Fig. 1) in the drainage systems of Auglaize County during the past four years, 1938-42. The materials are of interest because: (1) no other naiad records have been pub- lished for this area; (2) rapid changes in stream ecology necessarily alter the mussel fauna; and (3) the proximity of headwater streams of the Ohio and Lake Erie drainages produce interesting distribution patterns for comparison. In the general vicinity, Goodrich (1914) reported on naiades from the Wabash River in Mercer County; Clark and Wilson (1912) surveyed the Maumee and Auglaize Rivers of Defiance County; Kirsch (1894) investigated the Maumee Basin; Ortmann (1919) reported on mussels from the St. Marys River, Beaver Creek, and Lake St. Marys in Mercer County, the Maumee River in Defiance County, the Scioto River in Hardin County, and Indian Lake in Logan County. These collections have been made in counties to the west, north and east of the region considered at present. Records of Sterki (1907) and those from the Carnegie Museum of Pitts- burgh list specimens from the Great Miami drainage to the south. This paper presents data on the origin of the naiades of Auglaize County, the species involved, their distribution and ecology, together with a brief discussion on the future of naiades in the county. Acknowledgements are due Dr. Henry van der Schalie for assistance in the identification of the specimens used in this study and in the preparation of this paper, and Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Toledo-Magazine-Fall-Fly-Fishing.Pdf
    TOLEDO MAGAZINE toledoBlade.com THE BLADE, TOLEDO, OHIO SUNDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2011 SECTION B, PAGE 6 THE OUTDOORS PAGE !7BB<BO<?I>?D= on the scenic Little Beaver Creek BLADE WATERCOLOR/JEFF BASTING PHOTOS BY MIKE MAINHART By STEVE POLLICK and JEFF BASTING t is time well-spent, flycasting bald eagle, an osprey, and, around for smallmouth bass on a re- the next bend, two deer, wading, Imote, wild, scenic stream on one of them a nice buck. This is a a sunny autumn day. place to lose track of time. The surprising thing is that here It is not easy wading over the cob- on Little Beaver Creek, it is so wild, ble for hours, but too soon the sun- so quiet, so remote that you wonder shot shadows are getting long and whether you actually are in Ohio. you realize that you are a steady, 45- Hard by the Pennsylvania line on minute hike from the Jeep, follow- the eastern border of Ohio, 36 miles ing an old mule towpath. Tracing it of the Little Beaver system comprise is a godsend when you are hungry a state and national wild and scenic and tired and want to “get back.” river. A 2,722-acre state park named The raised path was used in the for the creek is a good place for an 1830s and 1840s by muleskinners outing, the bridges at its upper and prodding teams that pulled tow- lower ends making nice bookends boats through the 90 locks of the 73- for a day astream. mile-long Sandy and Beaver Canal.
    [Show full text]
  • Maumee Watershed Alliance
    Clean Water Indiana 2021 Non-SWCD Led Competitive Grant Application Contact Information Lead Entity Maumee Watershed Alliance Address 425 Van Buren St City, State, ZIP Fort Wayne, IN 46802 Lead Entity Contact Name Sharon Partridge Email Address [email protected] Phone 260-755-8111 Amount Requested $114,500 Authorized Signatory Name Mike Werling Authorized Signatory Email [email protected] Local SWCD Contact Cooperating SWCD Allen County Point of Contact Greg Lake SWCD Phone 260-410-8205 SWCD Email [email protected] Project Information Project Title Advancing Partnerships to Safeguard Soil & Water Resources in the WLEB Project Description Key Project Objectives: 1. Advance efforts to improve water quality and soil health in the upper reaches of the Western Lake Erie Basin. 2. Strengthen local Soil and Water Conservation Districts through partnerships. 3. Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of local watershed organizations. Project Background: Excessive nutrient loading in the Western Lake Erie Basin resulting in toxic algae blooms has been a pervasive issue for many years. While a significant amount of progress has been made through the resources committed to this issue thus far, much more needs to be done. Discussions with local, state and federal officials as well as conservation agencies, NGOs, municipalities and other interested stakeholders have identified the need for further coordination and collaboration to solve this problem. This conclusion is evidenced by a Letter of Support signed by numerous state legislators in support of this application (Attached). The Maumee Watershed Alliance (MWA) has been recognized by watershed organizations, municipalities and SWCDs as the appropriate entity to potentially lead this effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Basin Descriptions and Flow Characteristics of Ohio Streams
    Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Water BASIN DESCRIPTIONS AND FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF OHIO STREAMS By Michael C. Schiefer, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Bulletin 47 Columbus, Ohio 2002 Robert Taft, Governor Samuel Speck, Director CONTENTS Abstract………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 2 Purpose and Scope ……………………………………………………………. 2 Previous Studies……………………………………………………………….. 2 Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………… 3 Factors Determining Regimen of Flow………………………………………………... 4 Weather and Climate…………………………………………………………… 4 Basin Characteristics...………………………………………………………… 6 Physiology…….………………………………………………………… 6 Geology………………………………………………………………... 12 Soils and Natural Vegetation ..………………………………………… 15 Land Use...……………………………………………………………. 23 Water Development……………………………………………………. 26 Estimates and Comparisons of Flow Characteristics………………………………….. 28 Mean Annual Runoff…………………………………………………………... 28 Base Flow……………………………………………………………………… 29 Flow Duration…………………………………………………………………. 30 Frequency of Flow Events…………………………………………………….. 31 Descriptions of Basins and Characteristics of Flow…………………………………… 34 Lake Erie Basin………………………………………………………………………… 35 Maumee River Basin…………………………………………………………… 36 Portage River and Sandusky River Basins…………………………………….. 49 Lake Erie Tributaries between Sandusky River and Cuyahoga River…………. 58 Cuyahoga River Basin………………………………………………………….. 68 Lake Erie Tributaries East of the Cuyahoga River…………………………….. 77 Ohio River Basin………………………………………………………………………. 84
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Industrial Pollution on the Aquatic and Shore Angiosperm Flora in the Ottawa River, Allen and Putnam Counties, Ohio1' 2 Ronald L
    226 S. M. TOTTEN, S. R MORAN, AND D. L. GROSS Vol. 69 EFFECT OF INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION ON THE AQUATIC AND SHORE ANGIOSPERM FLORA IN THE OTTAWA RIVER, ALLEN AND PUTNAM COUNTIES, OHIO1' 2 RONALD L. STUCKEY AND W. ALAN WENTZ College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 ABSTRACT Industrial wastes are continually being emptied into rivers and streams across the country. This paper considers the effect that these wastes have had on the species com- position, distribution, and abundance of individuals of the late summer aquatic and shore angiosperm flora in the industrially polluted Ottawa River downstream from Lima. This flora is compared with the flora in the Ottawa River upstream from Lima and with the flora in the nearby Auglaize River, both of which are not significantly polluted by industrial wastes. The flowering plants in northwestern Ohio rivers mostly belong in two categories: (1) southern species usually restricted to rivers, and (2) widespread species infrequent or common in rivers, but also in other wet habitats. Each species in the former group, being restricted, probably has a narrow ecological tolerance, whereas those in the latter group, being widespread, apparently have a wider ecological amplitude. Water- quality data from several published reports on the pollution of northwestern Ohio rivers reveals the great magnitude of the pollution in the Ottawa River downstream from Lima. A floristic survey of this grossly polluted portion of the river shows that many of the southern, ecologically narrow species, such as Justicia americana, Lippia lanceolata, Phy- stostegia virginiana, Samolus parvifiorus, Saururus cernuus, and Rutnex verticillatus, are rare or absent, whereas many of the more tolerant widespread species are frequent or even abundant.
    [Show full text]