Biological and Water Quality Study of Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries, 2014

Guernsey, Coshocton, Muskingum, Noble, Monroe, Tuscarawas and Belmont Counties, Ohio

Wills Creek at Campbell Rd, Cambridge, OH

Ohio EPA Technical Report AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Division of Surface Water Assessment and Modeling Section July 2019 TMDL DEVELOPMENT |

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries, 2014

Guernsey, Coshocton, Muskingum, Noble, Monroe, Tuscarawas and Belmont counties, Ohio

July 2019 Ohio EPA Report DSW/AMS 2014‐WILLS‐2

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

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

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

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

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 1 Wills Creek Mainstem ...... 1 Wills Creek Tributaries ...... 2 Overview: Wills Creek Watershed ...... 10 Study Area ...... 16 Land Use...... 18 Census Data ...... 19 Wastewater Discharge Overview ...... 19 Mining ...... 22 Oil and Gas Development ...... 25 Spills ...... 26 Inland Lakes ...... 27 Cambridge City Reservoir ...... 27 Fox Lake ...... 30 Salt Fork Lake ...... 32 Seneca Lake ...... 37 Wills Creek Lake ...... 41 Beneficial Use Results and Discussion ...... 44 Aquatic Life Use ...... 44 Water Chemistry ...... 44 Sediment ...... 56 Physical Habitat for Aquatic Life ...... 59 Fish Community ...... 63 Fish Trends ...... 72 Macroinvertebrate Community ...... 76 Macroinvertebrate Trends ...... 86 Recreation Use ...... 87 Water Supply Use ...... 90 Human Health Use (Fish Tissue)...... 93 Recommendations ...... 96 Acknowledgements ...... 101 References ...... 102

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Tables Table 1 – Comparison of average IBI, MIwb, ICI and QHEI scores for the Wills Creek mainstem by survey year...... 1 Table 2 – Aquatic life use (ALU) attainment status for stations sampled in the Wills Creek basin, 2014. All streams in the Wills Creek Basin are in the WAP ecoregion1. 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 biotic community. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) is a measure of the ability of the physical habitat to support a biotic community. Assessments are based on criteria for the current ALU designations (effective 05/22/2017); please refer to the “Recommendations” section of this report for details about current uses and future monitoring needs...... 4 Table 3 – Wills Creek study area sample locations, 2014. Sample types are presented below...... 11 Table 4 – Wills Creek and principal tributary characteristics (ODNR, 2001)...... 16 Table 5 - Facilities regulated by an individual NPDES permit for the Wills Creek Watershed Assessment Unit (05040005) ...... 19 Table 6 – Summary of data collected in Cambridge City Reservoir. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized...... 29 Table 7 – Summary of data collected in Fox Lake. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized...... 31 Table 8 - Summary of data collected in Salt Fork Lake. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized...... 33 Table 9 – Summary of data collected in Salt Fork Lake L-2. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized...... 36 Table 10 – Summary of data collected in Salt Fork Lake L-3. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized...... 37 Table 11 – Summary of data collected in Seneca Lake. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized...... 38 Table 12 – Summary of data collected at Seneca Lake L-2. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized...... 40 Table 13 – Summary of data collected in Wills Creek lake L-1 and L-2. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized...... 42 Table 14 – 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 Wills Creek study area, 2014. Water parameters are assessed based on water quality criteria for the existing Aquatic Life Use Designations...... 47 Table 15 – Exceedances and violations of ALU criteria (OAC 3745-1) for chemical water quality parameters (D.O., mg/L and SC, µS/cm) based on diel monitoring in the Wills Creek watershed, 2014...... 50 Table 16 – Summary statistics for select mining parameters sampled in the Wills Creek watershed, 2014. The 90th percentile values from reference sites from the Western Allegheny Plateau ecoregion is shown for comparison at the bottom of the table. Values above the reference conditions are shaded. RM is River Mile and DA is Drainage Area. Aluminum reference value is based on U.S. EPA maximum criteria...... 51 Table 17 - Average selected nutrient concentrations in the Wills Creek watershed, 2014. Values greater than the 90th percentile of WAP ecoregion reference sites are shaded...... 54 Table 18 — Sediment concentrations (mg/kg dry weight) at selected Wills Creek study area sites, 2014...... 58 Table 19 — QHEI matrix with WWH and MWH attribute totals and ratios for the Wills Creek study area, 2014...... 60

I

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Table 20 - Average Wills Creek mainstem biological and habitat scores compared to streams with a drainage area between 200 to 900 square miles from all the ecoregions of Ohio. Blue shading is exceptional, green is good and yellow is fair...... 64 Table 21 – Summary of fish community data based on pulsed D.C. electrofishing samples collected in the Wills Creek study area, 2014...... 68 Table 22 – Average IBI and MIwb fish scores from Wills Creek tributaries sampled in 1984, 1994 and 2014...... 75 Table 23 – Summary of macroinvertebrate data collected in the Wills Creek study area, 2014...... 76 Table 24 – Locations and types of uncommon sensitive macroinvertebrate taxa and of all freshwater mussels in Wills Creek study area, 2014...... 81 Table 25 — Attainment status of recreation use criteria for Wills Creek study area streams, May-August, 2014...... 88 Table 26 — Nitrate+nitrite-N (mg/L) and atrazine (µg/L) concentrations in proximity to public water supply intakes in the Wills Creek watershed, 2014. Other descriptions are presented below...... 91 Table 27 — Mercury concentrations (mg/kg) in fish tissue samples (n) collected from Wills Creek and Wills Creek Lake, 2014. Bold values exceed the biweekly unrestricted consumption risk trigger (0.110), bold italicized values exceed the biweekly consumption risk trigger (0.220). Yellow and red highlighted mean values support respective consumption advisories...... 94 Table 28 — Arsenic concentrations (mg/kg) in fish tissue samples collected from Wills Creek and Wills Creek Lake, 2014. A less than symbol indicates results below MDL (0.05). Bold values exceed the weekly unrestricted consumption risk trigger (0.15). No values exceed the weekly consumption risk trigger (0.656)...... 95 Table 29 — Selenium concentrations (mg/kg) in fish tissue samples collected from Wills Creek and Wills Creek Lake, 2014. No values approached the weekly unrestricted consumption risk trigger (2.5) or the weekly consumption risk trigger (10.938)...... 95 Table 30 – Existing waterbody use designations for the Wills Creek study area (effective May 22, 2017). Designations based on the 1978 and 1985 Ohio Water Quality Standards are indicated with asterisks (*) while designations based on the results of a previous bio biological field assessment performed by Ohio EPA are symbolized using a (+) sign. Verification of current designations based on 2014 study are symbolized as (*/+) while a (▲) denotes a new recommended use based on the findings of this study. Streams not assessed in this study appear in bold blue font...... 98

Figures Figure 1 – Recovery of water quality in the Wills Creek mainstem between 1994 and 2014 based on biological performance...... 1 Figure 2 – ALU attainment in the Wills Creek basin, 2014...... 3 Figure 3 – Wills Creek watershed in red and the Muskingum River watershed in blue ...... 10 Figure 4 – The Wills Creek basin showing glacial lacustrine and outwash deposits. Wills Creek formed the headwaters of the Teays-Stage Cambridge River. During the Teays stage, Wills Creek flowed north through the Center Creek valley. Eventually, the numerous glaciations repeatedly damned the Wills Creek northern outlet which resulted in the Center Creek valley filling with as much as 200 feet of glacial drift (Camp, 2006). ... 17 Figure 5 – Land use in the Wills Creek watershed (source: 2011 National Land Cover Dataset)...... 18 Figure 6 – The Big Muskie bucket, large enough to hold two Greyhound buses, is now a tourist attraction at Miners' Memorial Park, located west from Caldwell on SR 78...... 23 Figure 7 – Surface and underground coal mining in the Wills Creek watershed as well as major impoundments which include Senecaville Lake, Salt Fork Reservoir and Wills Creek Lake...... 24 Figure 8 – Fresh water pumped from Glady Run for hydraulic fracturing...... 25 Figure 9 – Ohio’s oil and gas shale plays and horizontal well locations relative to the Wills Creek watershed, 2014. Red dots indicate the location of the well pad and the black lines indicate the direction of the horizontal drilling...... 26 Figure 10 – Wills Creek watershed lakes sampled in 2014 and 2015...... 27 Figure 11 – Salt Fork Lake sampling locations...... 34

II

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Figure 12 – Seneca Lake sampling locations...... 37 Figure 13 – Wills Creek Lake inundation map, 100-year flood zone...... 41 Figure 14 – Wills Creek Lake algal bloom July 2015...... 43 Figure 15 – Flow hydrograph for Wills Creek at Cambridge (USGS gage #03142000, RM 64.10) and Leatherwood Creek near Kipling (USGS gage #03141870, RM 9.80) from January 2014 through January 2015. Dates of surface water chemical and bacteria sampling are shown...... 44 Figure 16 – Box and whisker plot of field specific conductivity measurements in the Wills Creek watershed, 2014. .... 45 Figure 17 – Flow hydrograph for Wills Creek at Cambridge (USGS gage #03142000, RM 64.10) including average and normal daily air temperature (GHCND: USC00331197, in Cambridge) from May through October, 2014. Dates of sonde deployment are shown...... 46 Figure 18 – Ohio EPA permitted biosolid, sewage sludge disposal fields in pink totaling 193.8 acres near Plainfield, 2014...... 53 Figure 19 – eDMR average and maximum vanadium concentrations in Chapman Run downstream from outfall 001 submitted by AMG Vanadium, 2002 - 2016...... 56 Figure 20 — Longitudinal performance of the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) in Wills Creek, 1984-2014...... 59 Figure 21 – Fish community performance in the Wills Creek basin, 2014...... 67 Figure 22 — Longitudinal performance of the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI, upper plot) and of the Modified Index of well-being (MIwb, lower plot) in Wills Creek, 1984-2014...... 73 Figure 23 – Macroinvertebrate biocriterion achievement was 94 percent with Orconectes sanbornii ...... 76 Figure 24 – Macroinvertebrate community performance in the Wills Creek basin, 2014...... 82 Figure 25 – Longitudinal trend of the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI), number of EPT taxa in the qualitative sample, and the number of sensitive taxa in the qualitative sample in Wills Creek, 1984-2014...... 85

III

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

List of Acronyms AMD acid mine drainage or alkaline mine drainage ALU aquatic life use CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second cfu colony forming units CSO combined sewer overflow CWA Clean Water Act CWH cold water habitat DC direct current DELT deformities, erosions, lesions, tumors D.O. dissolved oxygen DMR discharge monitoring report (formerly called monthly operating report – MOR) DSW Division of Surface Water ECBP eastern corn belt plains ecoregion EOLP Erie Ontario lake plains ecoregion EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera EWH exceptional warmwater habitat FASL feet above sea level GIS geographic information system GPS Global Positioning System HELP Huron Erie lake plains ecoregion HHEI headwater habitat evaluation index HUC hydrologic unit code IBI index of biotic integrity I/I inflow and infiltration ICI invertebrate community index IP Interior plateau ecoregion IPS Integrated Prioritization System LRAU large river assessment unit LRW limited resource water MGD million gallons per day MIwb modified index of well-being MWH modified warmwater habitat NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OAC Ohio Administrative Code ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources

IV

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

ORC Ohio Revised Code PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls PCR primary contact recreation PEC probable effects concentration QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index RM river mile SCR secondary contact recreation SRV sediment reference value SSO sanitary sewer overflow TALU tiered aquatic life use SVOC Semi-volatile organic compound TDS total dissolved solids TEC threshold effects concentration TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen TMDL total maximum daily load TSS total suspended solids UAA use attainability analysis USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USGS United States Geological Survey VOC volatile organic compound WAP western Allegheny plateau WAU watershed assessment unit WQS water quality standards WWH warmwater habitat WWTP wastewater treatment plant

V

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Executive Summary Rivers and streams in Ohio support a variety of uses such as recreation, water supply and aquatic life. Ohio EPA evaluates streams to determine use designations and if uses are meeting the goals of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). In 2014, 46 streams were evaluated in the Wills Creek watershed for aquatic life and recreation use potential in Guernsey, Tuscarawas, Muskingum, Coshocton, Belmont, Noble and Monroe counties. Previous surveys were conducted in the Wills Creek watershed in 1984, 1987, 1994 and 1999. Aquatic life use (ALU) designations were previously verified for Wills Creek and 15 tributaries. The remaining 30 streams were assessed for the first time during the 2014 survey. Wills Creek Mainstem The Wills Creek mainstem has a history of degraded habitat Clean Water Act and poor water quality from logging, mining, dams and Aquatic Life Use Goals intensive agricultural practices. Wills Creek is a naturally low gradient stream lacking well developed riffle habitat. 6% Because sediment transport capacity is so limited in low 24 % gradient streams, the Wills Creek mainstem has been slow to 71 % recover from habitat disturbances such as channelization and sedimentation. In 1994, Ohio EPA conducted a biological and water quality study of the Wills Creek mainstem at 17 1994 locations (OEPA, 1995). At that time, only one location near the mouth was in full attainment of the warmwater habitat (WWH) aquatic life use. A total of four locations (24 percent) were in partial attainment due to fish impairment and 12 31 % locations (71 percent) were in non-attainment for both fish 69 % and aquatic insects (Figure 1). Habitat during the 1994 survey was very limited, primarily due to sedimentation, with an average QHEI score of 44.9. 2014 Table 1 – Comparison of average IBI, MIwb, ICI and QHEI FULL PARTIAL NON scores for the Wills Creek mainstem by survey year. Year IBI MIwb ICI QHEI Count Figure 1 – Recovery of water quality in the Wills 1984 27 6.6 23 43.5 14 Creek mainstem between 1994 and 2014 based on 1994 29 7.0 29 44.9 17 biological performance. 2014 38 9.2 38 62.1 13

Since the 1984 and 1994 water quality surveys, Wills Creek mainstem has experienced impressive reestablishment of WWH communities and improved habitat scores (Table 1). Of the 13 sites assessed for biology in 2014, nine (69 percent) were fully meeting the WWH aquatic life use and four (31 percent) were in partial attainment (Figure 1). Only one location was meeting expectations for fish in 1994, but 10 of the 13 sites sampled in 2014 met the WWH biocritieria. In 2014, only one location did not meet for the aquatic insects because of flow alteration from a lowhead dam used by the City of Cambridge for drinking water. The other locations sampled for macroinvertebrates were marginally good to exceptional and showed a major improvement in the number of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) and sensitive taxa compared to the 1984 and 1994 surveys. Nine different species of freshwater mussels were found in the Wills Creek mainstem in 2014, including the state threatened Threehorned Wartyback (Obliquaria reflex). Habitat dramatically improved with an average QHEI score of 62.1. Sedimentation is still limiting habitat in

Page 1 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

the mainstem, but reclamation of mineland and improved agricultural practices has greatly reduced the amount of sediment contribution to Wills Creek. Dams on the mainstem of Wills Creek are also identified as a source of impairment impeding fish recruitment and migration and altering habitat. See Table 2 for a complete list of sampling locations and attainment status for the Wills Creek mainstem surveyed in 2014. Wills Creek Tributaries A total of 45 Wills Creek tributaries were sampled at 68 locations with 42 (62 percent) in full attainment, 21 (31 percent) in partial attainment and five (7 percent) in non-attainment of the assigned ALU. Sixty- four of the 68 sites sampled fully met applicable macroinvertebrate biocriteria with ICI and narrative scores ranging from marginally good to exceptional. Impaired macroinvertebrate communities are typically associated with poor water quality. Fair to very poor macroinvertebrate communities were found at Dare Run due to poor habitat from channelization and unrestricted cattle access causing excessive sedimentation and siltation, Rannells Creek due to high total dissolved solids (TDS) from historic coal mining, and Center Creek and Bacon Run due to poor water quality and sedimentation. The macroinvertebrate community showed an overall trend of improvement from previous Wills Creek tributary surveys. Eleven streams (six in 1994 and five in 1984) were surveyed again in 2014 and showed a drastic increase in the number of EPT and sensitive taxa from the earlier surveys. For example, in 1984, Seneca Fork (RM 2.07) had four qualitative EPT and two sensitive taxa, whereas in 2014 the same site (Seneca Fork RM 2.07) had 23 qualitative EPT and 16 sensitive taxa. In 1994, Bushy Fork (RM 3.35) had 12 qualitative EPT and five sensitive taxa but in 2014 the same site had 28 EPT and 18 sensitive taxa. For the fish communities in the Wills Creek tributaries, 28 of 68 locations (41 percent) were in non- attainment of the IBI or MIwb ALU criteria. WWH fish communities are typically associated with QHEI scores of 60 or higher (Rankin, 1989). The average QHEI scores from the impaired streams was 50.7 (ranging from 29.5 to 68) and the average QHEI from the streams meeting the WWH aquatic life use was 60 (ranging from 40.5 to 83.5). While other factors could account for impairment, QHEI scores below 60 will often be the most significant cause of impairment for the fish community. Tributaries in the Buffalo Fork subwatershed are still significantly impacted by historic strip-mining, which used the world’s largest walking dragline known as the Big Muskie. The Big Muskie was used to strip mine coal from 1969 to 1991. The bucket of the Big Muskie could reach 185 feet deep and excavate 220 cubic yards in one scoop. Even though mining ceased more than 18 years ago and much of the land was reclaimed, Collins Fork, Rannels Creek and Buffalo Fork are all still impacted by mine drainage with extremely high levels of TDS and specific conductivity, causing impairment to the biological communities. See Table 2 for a complete list of sampling locations and attainment status for the Wills Creek tributaries surveyed in 2014. Wills Creek Lake is used by the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) to store water during flood events to prevent downstream flooding. MWCD owns and leases large areas of land up-stream of the dam to allow for flood water storage which is known as the inundation zone (see Figure 13 in the Wills Creek Lake Section). As a result, several tributaries are impacted with backwaters from the lake which increases sedimentation and reduces in-stream habitat. These tributaries include Bacon Run, Bird Run, Two Mile Run and unnamed tributary to Wills Creek at RM 34.43.

Page 2 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Figure 2 – ALU attainment in the Wills Creek basin, 2014.

Page 3 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Table 2 – Aquatic life use (ALU) attainment status for stations sampled in the Wills Creek basin, 2014. All streams in the Wills Creek Basin are in the WAP ecoregion1. 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 biotic community. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) is a measure of the ability of the physical habitat to support a biotic community. Assessments are based on criteria for the current ALU designations (effective 05/22/2017); please refer to the “Recommendations” section of this report for details about current uses and future monitoring needs. Stream Name (river code) – ALU2 Drain. ALU HUC 12 River Station Location Area IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Attain. Causes Sources (05040005) Milea (mi2) Status Wills Creek (17‐800‐000) – WWH R17S06 Upst. Byesville 02 07 75.9B 280.0 43 8.7 38 47.5 FULL Flow alteration R17P04 Dst. Byesville 02 07 68.1B 293.0 37ns 8.3ns F* 51.8 PARTIAL Impoundment Low dissolved oxygen R17W13 Upst. Cambridge 05 04 64.1B 406.0 39ns 8.9 36 63.0 FULL 611760 Dst. Cambridge 05 04 57.4B 472.0 38ns 8.9 46 69.0 FULL Legacy surface Twp. Rd.365 Sedimentation R18S01 90 01 46.6B 659.0 30* 8.3ns 46 60.0 PARTIAL disturbance DST Salt Fork Low dissolved oxygen Impoundment Legacy surface R18S22 St. Rt. 541 90 01 37.7B 672.0 35* 9.0 44 68.5 PARTIAL Sedimentation disturbance 302467 St. Rt. 658 90 01 31.6B 699.0 43 9.6 42 59.8 FULL R18S21 St. Rt. 541 90 01 27.0B 738.0 37ns 8.8 VG 74.5 FULL Altered habitat Channelization 302623 CR 106 90 01 23.2B 749.0 33* 8.1ns G 49.5 PARTIAL Downstream Low dissolved oxygen impoundment 302624 Plainfield 90 01 18.5B 770.0 36ns 8.5ns MGns 50.0 FULL 611770 Dst. Dam 90 01 7.0B 842.0 38ns 11.1 34ns 78.5 FULL R18S20 Wills Creek 90 01 5.3B 849.0 45 10.9 38 75.8 FULL 302625 Dst. Coal Wash 90 01 3.1B 851.0 42 10.0 VG 59.3 FULL Buffalo Creek (17‐890‐000) – WWH Legacy surface 302611 Sarahsville 02 03 11.0H 5.7 36* ‐ E 41.0 PARTIAL Sedimentation disturbance 302610 Twp. Rd. 134 02 04 9.2W 21.2 44 9.0 48 57.5 FULL Legacy surface 302609 Twp. Rd. 109 02 04 5.4W 35.9 38* 9.0 VG 56.5 PARTIAL Sedimentation disturbance ns ns R17S11 St. Rt. 146 02 04 0.1W 49.9 42 8.0 44 49.0 FULL

Page 4 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Stream Name (river code) – ALU2 Drain. ALU HUC 12 River Station Location Area IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Attain. Causes Sources (05040005) Milea (mi2) Status South Fork Buffalo Creek (17‐892‐000) – WWH Legacy surface 302615 Adj. St. Rt. 146 02 03 2.9H 5.0 34* ‐ VG 49.8 PARTIAL Sedimentation disturbance 302614 St. Rt. 285 02 03 0.5H 12.4 40ns ‐ G 60.3 FULL Little Buffalo Creek (17‐893‐000) – WWH 302616 Adj. St. Rt. 147 02 03 0.1H 3.8 42ns ‐ MGns 50.0 FULL North Fork Buffalo Creek (17‐891‐000) – MWH mine affected 302612 Co. Rd. 37 02 04 0.7H 6.7 30 ‐ G 29.5 FULL Buffalo Fork (17‐870‐000) – WWH R17S24 Cumberland 02 02 6.1W 33.6 44 7.5* 32ns 45.5 PARTIAL Total dissolved solids Coal mining 203820 Adj. St. Rt. 146 02 05 2.2W 67.0 44 7.7* MGns 48.0 PARTIAL Total dissolved solids Coal mining R17S21 Upst. St. Rt. 821 02 05 0.2W 71.6 42ns 7.5* 34ns 49.0 PARTIAL Total dissolved solids Coal mining Miller Creek (17‐879‐000) – WWH R17S31 From St. Rt. 146 02 02 0.2H 11.9 40ns ‐ MGns 47.0 FULL Collins Fork (17‐878‐000) – WWH R17S18 St. Rt. 83 02 02 0.2W 22.6 46 7.7* 34ns 58.0 PARTIAL Total dissolved solids Coal mining Rannells Creek (17‐881‐000) – WWH R17S33 From St. Rt. 83 02 02 1.06H 5.5 32* ‐ F* 40.0 NON Total dissolved solids Coal mining Yoker Creek (17‐872‐000) – WWH R17S16 Twp. Rd. 127 02 01 0.3W 23.1 47 8.4 48 63.0 FULL Seneca Fork (17‐850‐000) – WWH 302653 St. Rt. 379 01 01 24.8H 17.7 46 ‐ E 75.5 FULL R17K16 Senecaville 01 05 7.4W 125.0 32* 8.9 50 51.3 PARTIAL Flow alteration Impoundment R17P03 Co. Rd. 25 01 05 2.1W 150.0 35* 7.9ns 44 49.0 PARTIAL Flow alteration Impoundment South Fork Seneca Fork (17‐859‐0000) – WWH Legacy surface 203816 Twp. Rd. 199 01 03 3.3W 27.6 36* 8.3 50 57.0 PARTIAL Sedimentation disturbance Skin Creek (North Fork Seneca Fork) (17‐860‐000) – EWH 302663 Twp. Rd. 636 01 01 1.6H 4.9 48 ‐ E 83.5 FULL Glady Run (17‐858‐000) – WWH 302662 Adj. CR 5A 01 03 0.9H 8.3 46 ‐ VG 56.3 FULL

Page 5 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Stream Name (river code) – ALU2 Drain. ALU HUC 12 River Station Location Area IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Attain. Causes Sources (05040005) Milea (mi2) Status Beaver Creek (17‐856‐000) – WWH 203815 Twp. Rd. 189 01 02 2.4H 17.0 34* ‐ G 56.5 PARTIAL Altered habitat Impoundment Opossum Run (17‐852‐000) – WWH Flow alteration 302661 Co. Rd. 25 01 05 0.5H 12.4 22* ‐ MGns 44.0 NON Sedimentation Cattle pasture Altered habitat Chapman Run (17‐817‐000) – WWH R17S36 From Twp. Rd. 349 02 06 5.7H 6.3 40ns ‐ G 73.5 FULL Altered habitat Channel R17K08 Dst. Shieldalloy 02 06 0.9H 16.7 36* ‐ MGns 44.5 PARTIAL Sedimentation relocation Leatherwood Creek (17‐840‐000) – WWH R17L11 Twp. Rd. 949 03 01 23.8H 17.8 48 ‐ G 66.5 FULL R17K14 Salesville 03 01 20.7W 29.5 49 8.8 38 52.8 FULL 302465 Co. Rd. 546 03 02 9.8W 68.5 51 9.5 VG 64.0 FULL R17K11 Twp. Rd. 452 03 02 6.3W 82.6 47 8.7 G 46.0 FULL 302537 Cambridge 03 02 3.4W 90.0 46 9.3 MGns 40.5 FULL Shannon Run (17‐844‐000) – WWH R17P01 Twp. Rd. 497 03 01 0.1H 4.4 38* ‐ MGns 68.0 PARTIAL Sedimentation Cattle pasture Infirmary Run (17‐843‐000) – WWH R17K15 Lore City 03 02 0.4H 7.2 42ns ‐ G 62.5 FULL Crooked Creek (17‐830‐000) – WWH R18K08 Co. Rd. 14 05 02 13.3H 11.7 46 ‐ G 60.3 FULL Altered habitat R18S08 Co. Rd. 143 05 03 11.2W 33.9 39* 8.0ns 48 49.0 PARTIAL Channelization Sedimentation R18K06 Co. Rd. 340 05 03 6.3W 55.0 42ns 8.5 36 62.5 FULL Dare Run (17‐836‐000) – MWH channel modification 302608 Co. Rd. 44 05 02 0.7H 1.6 32 ‐ VP* 38.0 NON Altered habitat Channelization North Crooked Creek (17‐834‐000) – WWH 302606 New Concord 05 01 1.4H 16.3 44 ‐ VG 51.5 FULL Fox Creek Headwaters to RM 0.9 (17‐835‐000) – MWH mine affected 302607 New Concord 05 01 0.96H 3.8 34 ‐ G 53.3 FULL

Page 6 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Stream Name (river code) – ALU2 Drain. ALU HUC 12 River Station Location Area IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Attain. Causes Sources (05040005) Milea (mi2) Status Fox Creek RM 0.9 to mouth (17‐835‐000) – WWH 302571 U.S. 83 05 01 0.7H 7.8 48 ‐ VG 63.5 FULL Peters Creek (17‐832‐000) – WWH 302604 Co. Rd. 416 05 03 3.0H 3.4 42ns ‐ MGns 57.5 FULL R18P04 U.S. 40 05 03 0.3H 10.4 48 ‐ VG 65.3 FULL Bobs Run (17‐833‐000) – WWH 302605 Co. Rd. 416 05 03 0.2H 2.6 44 ‐ VG 55.0 FULL Jackson Run (17‐831‐000) – MWH mine affected 302603 U.S. 40 05 03 0.6H 1.6 28 ‐ MG 45.5 FULL Sarchett Run (17‐816‐000) – WWH 302636 TR 361 05 04 1.6H 7.1 40ns ‐ VG 59.0 FULL Salt Fork (17‐820‐000) – WWH 302637 Co. Rd. 49 04 02 32.3H 17.8 44 ‐ E 65.0 FULL 203793 Co. Rd. 73 04 02 20.8W 45.0 37* 7.6* 50 46.5 PARTIAL Altered habitat Impoundment 302466 Adj. CR 638 04 06 0.3W 158.3 35* 8.6 VG 60.5 PARTIAL Ammonia Impoundment Brushy Fork (17‐827‐000) – WWH R18S26 St. Rt. 285 04 01 3.4H 13.6 40ns ‐ E 65.0 FULL Sugartree Fork (17‐821‐000) – WWH R18S13 Twp. Rd. 871 04 05 11.1H 15.4 46 ‐ E 77.0 FULL Turkey Run (17‐825‐000) – EWH/CWH R18S19 Twp. Rd. 8730 04 05 1.2H 2.2 52 ‐ E 75.5 FULL Clear Fork (17‐824‐000) – WWH R18S30 Twp. Rd. 5880 04 03 1.8H 13.7 42ns ‐ E 74.5 FULL Rocky Fork (17‐822‐000) – WWH R18S28 Twp. Rd. 855 04 01 5.6H 12.2 40ns ‐ E 59.0 FULL Indian Camp Run (17‐812‐000) – WWH 203774 St. Rt. 658 05 05 3.9H 11.2 44 ‐ VG 74.5 FULL

Page 7 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Stream Name (river code) – ALU2 Drain. ALU HUC 12 River Station Location Area IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Attain. Causes Sources (05040005) Milea (mi2) Status Unnamed Tributary to Wills Creek at RM 34.43 (17‐800‐009) – WWH 302786 Adj Little Indian Rd 05 08 2.35H 1.1 46 ‐ ‐ ‐ N/A Habitat alteration Downstream 302777 Twp. Rd. 820 05 08 0.5H 3.3 36* ‐ MGns 53.0 PARTIAL Sedimentation impoundment Birds Run (17‐809‐000) – WWH 302654 Co. Rd. 86 05 06 4.3H 14.3 46 ‐ VG 57.8 FULL Habitat alteration Downstream R18K03 St. Rt. 541 05 07 0.2W 31.1 32* 6.9* 46 47.5 PARTIAL Sedimentation impoundment Johnson Fork (17‐810‐000) – WWH 203773 Twp. Rd. 385 05 07 1.2H 8.6 46 ‐ VG 63.5 FULL Trib. to Johnson Fork (RM 1.04) (17‐810‐001) – WWH 302769 Twp. Rd. 384 05 07 0.2H 0.7 38* ‐ VG 51.5 PARTIAL Natural Natural Twomile Run (17‐808‐000) – WWH Downstream 302660 Twp. Rd. 108 06 02 0.5H 2.6 38* ‐ VG 65.8 PARTIAL Sedimentation Impoundment Marlatt Run (Trib. to Wills Creek (RM 23.49) (17‐800‐008) – WWH 302536 Co. Rd. 106 06 02 0.4H 7.1 42ns ‐ E 66.8 FULL Bacon Run (17‐805‐000) – WWH Legacy surface 301753 St. Rt. 93 06 01 1.0H 7.9 36* ‐ ‐ 63.3 (NON) Sedimentation disturbance Habitat alteration Downstream 302634 Co. Rd. 410 06 01 0.1H 15.6 24* ‐ P* 55.0 NON Sedimentation impoundment Center Creek (17‐807‐000) – WWH 302635 Twp. Rd. 456 06 01 0.1H 6.8 ‐ ‐ F* ‐ N/A White Eyes Creek (17‐803‐000) – WWH R18P07 Twp. Rd. 103 06 03 11.9H 4.2 50 ‐ E 61.8 FULL 301752 Twp. Rd. 339 06 03 10.1H 16.2 42ns ‐ MGns 44.8 FULL 302572 Twp. Rd. 173 06 03 4.8W 35.4 45 8.6 42 54.0 FULL R18P06 Twp. Rd. 145 06 03 0.1W 43.8 42ns 8.4 36 58.5 FULL Brush Run (17‐804‐000) – WWH Riparian removal 302602 Twp. Rd. 339 06 03 0.4H 7.3 34* ‐ G 61.0 PARTIAL Sedimentation Livestock

Page 8 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Stream Name (river code) – ALU2 Drain. ALU HUC 12 River Station Location Area IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Attain. Causes Sources (05040005) Milea (mi2) Status Unnamed Tributary to White Eyes Creek at RM 4.50 (17‐803‐009) – WWH 302633 Twp. Rd. 173 06 03 0.4H 2.7 40ns ‐ MGns 53.5 FULL

* 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. ns Nonsignificant departure from biocriteria (≤4 IBI or ICI units; ≤0.5 MIwb units). a River Mile (RM) represents the Point of Record (POR) for the station and may not be the actual sampling RM. b The MIwb (Modified Index of well‐being) is not applicable to headwater sites (<20mi2). 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. H Headwater site (draining ≤20 miles2). W Wading site (non‐boat site draining >20 miles2). B Boat site (large or deep waters, necessitating the use of boat sampling methods). 1 Level III Ecoregions: Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP). 2 Aquatic Life Use (ALU) designations: Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH), Warmwater Habitat (WWH), Modified Warmwater Habitat – Mine Affected (MWH‐M), Modified Warmwater Habitat – Channel Modified (MWH‐C), Coldwater Habitat (CWH). ALU designations for Wills Creek are listed in OAC‐3745‐1‐24 3 Biological criteria presented in OAC 3745‐1‐07, Table 7‐1.

Biological Criteria3 – WAP Index – Site Type EWH WWH MWH‐C MWH‐M IBI – Headwaters 50 44 24 24 IBI – Wading 50 44 24 24 IBI – Boat 48 40 24 24 MIwb – Wading 9.4 8.4 6.2 5.5 MIwb – Boat 9.6 8.6 5.8 5.4 ICI 46 36 22 30

Page 9 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Overview: Wills Creek Watershed During 2014 and 2015, Ohio EPA conducted a water resource assessment of 46 streams in the Wills Creek watershed study area using Ohio EPA protocols which are described in Appendix A. Included in this study are assessments of the biological, surface water, sediment and recreation (bacterial) condition. A total of 71 biological, 56 water chemistry, 15 sediment and 53 bacteria stations were sampled in the Wills Creek watershed study area (Table 3). The Wills Creek watershed location is shown in Figure 3. Specific objectives of the evaluation were to:  assess the physical, chemical and biological integrity at selected sites in the Wills Creek study area;  evaluate influences from point source dischargers as well as non-point source Figure 3 – Wills Creek watershed in red and the influences; Muskingum River watershed in blue  determine recreational water quality;  verify and update fish tissue consumption advisories;  determine attainment status of Aquatic Life Uses;  compare present results with historic conditions; 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).

Page 10 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Table 3 – Wills Creek study area sample locations, 2014. Sample types are presented below. Assessment Unit River Station Location Sample Type1 Drain. Area Latitude Longitude (05040005) Mile Wills Creek (17‐800‐000) R17S06 Twp. Rd. 2360, Seneca Ln. 02 07 75.90 F, M, CL, B, N, D 280.0 39.9403 ‐81.5486 R17P04 Co. Rd. 347, Byesville Rd. 02 07 68.13 F, M, CL, B, N, D 293.0 39.9917 ‐81.5581 R17W13 Co. Rd. 513, South 9th St. 05 04 64.10 F, M, CL, B, N, D, S 406.0 40.0145 ‐81.5871 611760 Twp. Rd. 3644, Wills Creek Valley Dr. 05 04 57.36 F, M, CL, B, N, D 472.0 40.0453 ‐81.5758 R18S01 Twp. Rd. 365, Bell Rd. 90 01 46.57 F, M, CL, B, N, D 659.0 40.1217 ‐81.5928 R18S22 St. Rt. 541, Plainfield Rd. 90 01 37.74 F, M, CL, B, N, D 672.0 40.1614 ‐81.6256 302467 St. Rt. 658, Hopewell Rd. 90 01 31.59 F, M, CL, B, N, D, S 699.0 40.1682 ‐81.6486 R18S21 St. Rt. 541 90 01 27.04 F, M, CL, B, N, D 738.0 40.1797 ‐81.6906 302623 Co. Rd. 106 90 01 23.16 F, M, CL, B, N, D 749.0 40.2111 ‐81.6728 302624 St. Rt. 93/541, Main St. 90 01 18.54 F, M, CL, B, N, D 770.5 40.2046 ‐81.7142 611770 Co. Rd. 497, Dst. Wills Creek Dam 90 01 7.04 F, M, CL, B, N, D, S 842.0 40.1594 ‐81.8475 R18S20 Co. Rd. 274 90 01 5.25 F, M, CL, B, N, D 849.0 40.1775 ‐81.8508 302625 Adj. Twp. Rd. 263, Dst. Coal Prep. Plant 90 01 3.05 F, M, CL, B, N, D 851.0 40.1609 ‐81.8705 Buffalo Creek (17‐890‐000) 302611 Mill Rd. 02 03 11.00 F, M, CF 5.7 39.8050 ‐81.4716 302610 Twp. Rd. 134, Pleasant Hill Rd. 02 04 9.20 F, M, C 21.2 39.8238 ‐81.4872 302609 Twp. Rd. 109, Charleston Rd. 02 04 5.40 F, M, C 35.9 39.8588 ‐81.5230 R17S11 St. Rt. 146, West Main St. 02 04 0.08 F, M, C, B, N, D, S 49.9 39.9028 ‐81.5506 South Fork Buffalo Creek (17‐892‐000) 302615 Co. Rd. 211, Fredericksdale Rd. 02 03 2.85 F, M, C 5.0 39.8034 ‐81.4266 302614 St. Rt. 285, Sarahsville Rd. 02 03 0.45 F, M, C, B 12.4 39.8123 ‐81.4690 Little Buffalo Creek (17‐893‐000) 302616 Adj. St. Rt. 147, Ust. Shenandoah School 02 03 3.84 F, M, CF 0.1 39.8072 ‐81.4470 North Fork Buffalo Creek (17‐891‐000) 302612 CR 37, North Halley Ridge Rd. 02 04 0.73 F, M, C 6.7 39.8413 ‐81.5049 Buffalo Fork (17‐870‐000) R17S24 Twp. Rd. 127, Iowa Rd. 02 02 6.12 F, M, C, B, N, D, S 33.6 39.8708 ‐81.6242 203820 Adj. St. Rt. 146, Bluebell Rd. 02 05 2.20 F, M, C 67.0 39.9011 ‐81.5867 R17S21 St. Rt. 821, Marietta Rd. 02 05 0.2 F, M, C, B, N, D, S 68.8 39.9044 ‐81.5661

Page 11 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Assessment Unit River Station Location Sample Type1 Drain. Area Latitude Longitude (05040005) Mile Miller Creek (17‐879‐000) R17S31 St. Rt. 340, Zeno Rd. 02 02 0.15 F, M, C 11.9 39.8478 ‐81.6714 Collins Fork (17‐878‐000) R17S18 St. Rt. 83, South Church St. 02 02 0.18 F, M, C 22.6 39.8475 ‐81.6614 Rannells Creek (17‐881‐000) R17S33 From St. Rt. 83, South Church St. 02 02 1.06 F, M, C 5.5 39.8333 ‐81.6636 Yoker Creek (17‐872‐000) R17S16 Twp. Rd. 127, Iowa Rd. 02 01 0.34 F, M, C, B, N, D, S 23.1 39.8714 ‐81.6258 Seneca Fork (17‐850‐000) 302653 At St. Rt. 379 01 01 24.80 F, M, C, B 17.7 39.8542 ‐81.2772 R17K16 St. Rt. 285, Wintergreen Rd. 01 05 7.43 F, M, C 127.0 39.9255 ‐81.4624 R17P03 Co. Rd. 25, Walhonding Rd. 01 05 2.07 F, M, C, B, N, D, S 150.0 39.9125 ‐81.5172 South Fork Seneca Fork (17‐859‐000) 203816 Twp. Rd. 199, Jerome Morris Rd. 01 03 3.30 F, M, C, B 27.6 39.8433 ‐81.3175 Skin Creek (North Fork Seneca Creek) (17‐860‐000) 302663 Twp. Rd. 636 01 01 1.66 F, M, C 4.9 39.8298 ‐81.2794 Glady Run (17‐858‐000) 302662 Co. Rd. 62, McVicker Rd. 01 03 0.89 F, M, C 8.3 39.8640 ‐81.3443 Beaver Creek (17‐856‐000) 203815 Twp. Rd. 189, Oak Hill Rd. 01 02 2.40 F, M, C, B, N, D 17.0 39.9011 ‐81.3197 Opossum Run (17‐852‐000) 302661 Co. Rd. 25, Walhonding Rd. 01 05 0.55 F, M, C 12.4 39.9138 ‐81.4769 Leatherwood Creek (17‐840‐000) R17L11 Twp. Rd. 949, Eldon Rd. 03 01 23.75 F, M, C, B 17.8 39.9636 ‐81.2719 R17K14 Twp. Rd. 9420, Iron Horse Ln. 03 01 20.70 F, M, C 29.5 39.9708 ‐81.3408 302465 Co. Rd. 546, Deerfield Rd. 03 02 9.80 F, M, C, B, N, D, S 68.5 39.9897 ‐81.4959 R17K11 Twp. Rd. 452, Reservoir Rd. 03 02 6.29 F, M, C 82.6 40.0111 ‐81.5308 302537 Co. Rd. 35, Byesville Rd. 03 02 3.40 F, M, C, N, D 90.6 40.0212 ‐81.5657 Shannon Run (17‐844‐000) R17P01 St. Rt. 265, Leatherwood Rd. 03 01 0.05 F, M, CF 4.4 39.9636 ‐81.2672

Page 12 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Assessment Unit River Station Location Sample Type1 Drain. Area Latitude Longitude (05040005) Mile Infirmary Run (17‐843‐000) R17K15 St. Rt. 265, Leatherwood Rd. 03 02 0.42 F, M, C 7.2 39.9889 ‐81.4578 Chapman Run (17‐817‐000) R17S36 Twp. Rd. 349, Richards Rd. 02 06 5.73 F, M, C 6.3 39.9494 ‐81.6125 R17K08 From Twp. Rd. 4371, Vanadium Rd. 02 06 0.95 F, M, C, B, N, D, S 16.7 39.9918 ‐81.5682 Crooked Creek (17‐830‐000) R18K08 Co. Rd. 14, Patch Rd. 05 02 13.25 F, M, C, B 11.7 39.9678 ‐81.7003 R18S08 Co. Rd. 143, Shaw Rd. 05 03 11.15 F, M, C 33.9 39.9903 ‐81.6772 R18K06 Co. Rd. 340, Phillips Rd. 05 03 6.28 F, M, C, B, N, D, S 55.0 40.0108 ‐81.6122 Dare Run (17‐836‐000) 302608 CR 44, Holmes Rd. 05 02 0.70 F, M, CF 1.6 39.9777 ‐81.6841 North Crooked Creek (17‐834‐000) 302606 Co. Rd. 44, Morgan Rd. 05 01 1.40 F, M, C, B, N, D 16.3 39.9879 ‐81.7011 Fox Creek (17‐835‐000) 302607 U.S. 40/22, East Pike, S Bridge 05 01 0.96 F, M, CF 3.8 39.9931 ‐81.7464 302571 St. Rt. 83, South Friendship Dr. 05 01 0.70 F, M, C, N, D 7.8 39.9920 ‐81.7431 Peters Creek (17‐832‐000) 302604 Co. Rd. 416, Peters Creek Rd. 05 03 2.96 F, M, CF 3.4 40.0260 ‐81.6982 R18P04 U.S. 40/22, Glenn Hwy. 05 03 0.28 F, M, C 10.4 40.0103 ‐81.6575 Bobs Run (17‐833‐000) 302605 Co. Rd. 416, Peters Creek Rd. 05 03 0.15 F, M, CF 2.6 40.0187 ‐81.6699 Jackson Run (17‐831‐000) 302603 Twp. Rd. 19, Jackson Run Rd. 05 03 0.60 F, M, CF 1.6 40.0164 ‐81.6467 Sarchett Run (17‐816‐000) 302636 Twp. Rd. 361, Rabbit Rd. 05 04 1.60 F, M, C 7.1 40.0616 ‐81.6107 Salt Fork (17‐820‐000) 302637 St. Rt. 513, Batesville Rd. 04 02 32.30 F, M, C 17.8 40.0233 ‐81.3079 203793 Co. Rd. 73, Fairground Rd. 04 02 20.80 F, M, C, B, N, D, S 45.0 40.0578 ‐81.4147 302466 Twp. Rd. 384, Leeper Rd. 04 06 0.32 F, M, C, B, N, D, S 158.3 40.1005 ‐81.5627 Brushy Fork (17‐827‐000) R18S26 St. Rt. 285, Wintergreen Rd. 04 01 3.35 F, M, C, B 13.6 40.1008 ‐81.4175

Page 13 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Assessment Unit River Station Location Sample Type1 Drain. Area Latitude Longitude (05040005) Mile Turkey Run (17‐825‐000) R18S19 Twp. Rd. 8730, Tanglewood Ln. 04 05 1.19 F, M 2.2 40.1644 ‐81.4106 Sugartree Fork (17‐821‐000) R18S13 Twp. Rd. 871, Gunn Rd. 04 05 11.05 F, M, C, B 15.4 40.1344 ‐81.4353 Clear Fork (17‐824‐000) R18S30 Twp. Rd. 5880, Rye Ln. 04 03 1.83 F, M, C, B 11.6 40.1569 ‐81.4487 Rocky Fork (17‐822‐000) R18S28 Twp. Rd. 855, Rocky Fork Rd. 04 01 5.56 F, M, C, B 12.2 40.1747 ‐81.4947 Trib. to Wills Creek (RM 34.43) (17‐822‐009) 302786 Adj. Little Indian Creek Rd 05 08 2.35 M 1.1 40.1385 ‐81.6923 302777 Twp. Rd. 820, Little Indian Rd. 05 08 0.50 F, M 3.3 40.8459 ‐81.3945 Indian Camp Run (17‐812‐000) 203774 St. Rt. 658, Hopewell Rd. 05 05 3.90 F, M, C, B, N, D 11.2 40.1050 ‐81.6547 Birds Run (17‐809‐000) 302654 Co. Rd. 86, Guernsey Valley Rd. 05 06 4.30 F, M, C, B 14.3 40.1823 ‐81.5947 R18K03 St. Rt. 541, Plainfield Rd. 05 07 0.17 F, M, C, B, N, D, S 31.1 40.1692 ‐81.6481 Johnson Fork (17‐810‐000) 203773 Twp. Rd. 384, Plum Rd. 05 07 1.20 F, M, C 8.6 40.1775 ‐81.5764 Trib. to Johnson Fork (17‐810‐001) 302769 Twp. Rd. 384, Plum Rd. 05 07 0.20 F, M 0.7 40.1047 ‐81.3432 Twomile Run (17‐808‐000) 302660 Twp. Rd. 108 06 02 0.50 F, M, C 2.6 40.1699 ‐81.6782 Trib. to Wills Creek (RM 24.9) (Marlatt Run) (17‐800‐008) 302536 Twp. Rd. 187, Standing Rock Rd. 06 02 0.40 F, M, C, B 7.1 40.2105 ‐81.6642 Center Run (17‐806‐000) 302635 Twp. Rd. 456 06 01 0.01 M, C 6.8 40.2178 ‐81.7260 Bacon Run (17‐805‐000) 301753 St. Rt. 93/541, Main St. 06 01 1.00 F 7.9 40.1335 ‐81.4337 302634 Co. Rd. 410 06 01 0.10 F, M, C, B 15.6 40.2104 ‐81.7145 White Eyes Creek (17‐803‐000) R18P07 Twp. Rd. 103, Highland Grange Rd. 06 03 11.9 F, M, CF 4.2 40.0731 ‐81.7740 301752 Twp. Rd. 177, Dent Rd. 06 03 10.14 F, M, C 16.2 40.0940 ‐81.7715

Page 14 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Assessment Unit River Station Location Sample Type1 Drain. Area Latitude Longitude (05040005) Mile 302572 Twp. Rd. 173, Houts Rd. 06 03 4.75 F, M, C, B, N, D, S 35.4 40.1347 ‐81.7361 R18P06 Twp. Rd. 145 06 03 0.67 F, M, C 43.8 40.1695 ‐81.7398 Brush Run (17‐804‐000) 302602 Twp. Rd. 339, Dent Rd. 06 03 0.40 F, M, C 7.3 40.0974 ‐81.7782 Trib. to White Eyes Creek (RM 4.50) (17‐803‐017) 302633 Twp. Rd. 173, Houts Rd. 06 03 0.35 F, M, C 2.7 40.1345 ‐81.7315

1 Sample Types: F: Fish sampling, once or twice; M: Macroinvertebrate qualitative sampling, and with a Hester‐Dendy where appropriate; C: Chemistry sampling with field parameters (acid mine drainage, AMD template); CF: Field parameter measurements without chemistry sampling; CL: Chemistry sampling with field parameters and acidity (large river, LR template); N: Nutrient sampling (chlorophyll a and ortho‐phosphate analysis); D: Sonde deployment site; B: E coli bacteria sampling; S: Sediment sampling.

Page 15 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Study Area The Wills Creek study area covers most of Guernsey county as well as portions of Coshocton, Muskingum, Noble, Monroe, Belmont and Tuscarawas counties in southeastern Ohio (Figure 2). The Will Creek watershed drainage area is 853 square miles and is the third largest direct tributary to the Muskingum River. Principle drainages are listed in Table 4 along with stream characteristics. The entire Wills Creek watershed is in the coal bearing Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) ecoregion, characterized by steep hills with narrow valleys and ridges (Omernik, 1987) . Beginning at the confluence of Buffalo Creek and Buffalo Fork in southern Guernsey County, Wills Creek flows north through the towns of Byesville, Cambridge and Kimbolton then turns south and west near Plainfield and enters the Muskingum River just south of the town of Conesville in Coshocton County. Wills Creek is 77.7 miles long with a fall of 77 feet and is among the largest, lowest gradient streams in Ohio with an average fall of 1.0 foot per mile (Table 4).

Table 4 – Wills Creek and principal tributary characteristics (ODNR, 2001). Stream Flows into Length (mi) Average fall (ft/mi) Drains (mi2) Wills Creek Muskingum River 77.7* 1.0 853.0 Buffalo Creek Wills Creek 14.5* 15.3 50.0 Buffalo Fork Wills Creek 13.2 14.0 71.6 Seneca Fork Wills Creek 30.3 14.8 151.0 Leatherwood Creek Wills Creek 28.6 11.9 91.6 Crooked Creek Wills Creek 16.5 9.9 61.6 Salt Fork Wills Creek 32.0 11.2 160.0 White Eyes Creek Wills Creek 13.1 10.6 43.8 *The ODNR 2001 stream gazetteer lists Wills Creek as 92.2 miles long with an average fall of 3.5 ft/mi but includes Buffalo Creek in the calculations.

Beginning approximately 2 million years ago, huge continental glaciers moved southward over Ohio which blocked north flowing drainages including Wills Creek. This created large glacial lakes for extended periods smothering the Wills Creek drainages with clay lake deposits. Eventually the northerly flow of Wills Creek was altered when the pre-glacial drainage divide was breeched forcing flow southward (Figure 4). The reason that Wills Creek and other unglaciated streams in this area such as Stillwater Creek are low gradient has to do with their location west of the Flushing escarpment and east of the glacial boundary. The Flushing escarpment is a drainage divide where streams on the east side of the escarpment are high gradient and flow into the Ohio River and streams on the west side are low gradient and flow into the Tuscarawas and Muskingum rivers. Low gradient streams such as Wills Creek typically do not have well developed riffle habitat and do not recover quickly from habitat disturbances such as channelization and sedimentation because the sediment transport capacity is so limited.

Page 16 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Figure 4 – The Wills Creek basin showing glacial lacustrine and outwash deposits. Wills Creek formed the headwaters of the Teays‐Stage Cambridge River. During the Teays stage, Wills Creek flowed north through the Center Creek valley. Eventually, the numerous glaciations repeatedly damned the Wills Creek northern outlet which resulted in the Center Creek valley filling with as much as 200 feet of glacial drift (Camp, 2006).

Page 17 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Land Use Land use and land cover have an important influence on water quality conditions found in the watershed. According to the 2011 national land cover dataset (NLCD), 61 percent of the land is forested in the Wills Creek watershed however domestic livestock are found grazing even in forested areas resulting in increased sedimentation. Hay or pastured lands covered 15 percent of the watershed, cultivated crops are grown on nine percent of the land, eight percent is developed, four percent is herbaceous or scrub/shrub and one percent of the watershed is open water (Figure 5). There are three large impoundments in the Wills Creek watershed which include Wills Creek Lake, Senecaville Lake and Salt Fork Reservoir. The Senecaville dam was built on Seneca Fork in 1937 and the Wills Creek Dam was constructed on the mainstem of Wills Creek at RM 7.2 in 1936 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District’s (MWCD) flood control and water conservation program. The Salt Fork dam was built by Ohio DNR in 1967 on Salt Fork Creek to create a recreational lake for the Salt Fork State Park. More information about all three lakes as well as monitoring data can be found in the lakes section.

Figure 5 – Land use in the Wills Creek watershed (source: 2011 National Land Cover Dataset).

Page 18 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Census Data According to the 2010 census, the population of the largest communities in the study area include the city of Cambridge (10,635) which is the largest developed area located along the mainstem of Wills Creek. Other municipalities located in the watershed include the villages of Byesville (2,438), New Concord (2,491) and Quaker City (572). The large populations centers are served by central sewer systems. Residents outside of the cities within the watershed are served by home septic treatment systems (HSTS) which could be failing if not properly maintained or installed. Wastewater Discharge Overview A total of 33 individual NPDES permitted facilities discharge sanitary or industrial wastewater to the Wills Creek watershed (Table 5). 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 – See Appendix Table M). 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 and minor NPDES facilities in the Wills Creek watershed are listed in Table 5. An Interactive map with NPDES facility locations can be found at: http://oepa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=25cf405adc3444139f4b410e69a2bbc9. 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 https://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/permits/gplist. Table 5 ‐ Facilities regulated by an individual NPDES permit for the Wills Creek Watershed Assessment Unit (05040005) Permit No. Facility Name Design Wastewater Type and Stream and County Discharge Treatment System RM at (MGD) Discharge

050400050104 – Depue Run‐Seneca Fork

0PX00002 Seneca Lake Camp Area 0.031 Sanitary Water/Aerated UNT to Seneca Guernsey Lagoons and Disinfection Fork (10.43)

0PX00003 Lake Seneca Resorts 0.025 Sanitary Water/Extended UNT to Seneca Guernsey Association Aeration Plant Fork (10.43)

050400050105 – Opossum Run‐Seneca Fork

0PT00010 Rolling Hills Secrest 0.004 Sanitary Water/Extended UNT to Seneca Guernsey Elementary School Aeration Plant Fork (7.82)

0PA00089 Village of Senecaville 0.042 Sanitary Water/Aerated Seneca Fork Guernsey WWTP Lagoons, Stabilization and (8.2) Disinfection

Page 19 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Permit No. Facility Name Design Wastewater Type and Stream and County Discharge Treatment System RM at (MGD) Discharge

050400050202 – Headwaters Collins Fork

0PA00111 Village of Cumberland 0.033 Sanitary Water/Extended Buffalo Fork Guernsey WWTP Aeration Plant (8.8)

050400050206 – Chapman Run

0PR00143 Spring Valley Outdoors 0.008 Sanitary/Extended Aeration Chapman Run Guernsey Plant

0II000018 AMG Vanadium Industrial Wastewater UNT to Guernsey Corporation Chapman Run (0.9)

050400050207 – Trail Run‐Wills Creek

0PD000028 Village of Byesville – 1.0 Sanitary and Industrial Wills Creek Guernsey Sewage Treatment Wastewater/Primary (69.95) Works Treatment, Oxidation Ditch, Clarifier and Disinfection

0IY00100 Village of Byesville – 0.198 Filter Backwash Water/Sand UNT to Wills Guernsey Wetzler Haynes Water Filter Creek (73.65) Filtration Plant

0PW00007 Rolling Hills Subdivision 0.083 Sanitary Water/Extended UNT to Wills Guernsey Sewage Treatment Aeration Plant Creek (74.8) Facility

0PB00088 Village of Pleasant City 0.225 Sanitary Water/Aerated Wills Creek Guernsey WWTP Lagoon, Clarifier and (80.1) Disinfection

0IY00061 Village of Pleasant City 0.007 Filter Backwash Water/Sand Wills Creek Guernsey WTP Filter (81.1)

0IH00025 Kerry (formerly Island Industrial Wastewater/ Wills Creek Guernsey Aseptics, LLC) (69.76)

050400050301 – Headwaters Leatherwood Creek

0PA000003 Village of Quaker City 0.054 Sanitary Waste/ Clarifier and Leatherwood Guernsey Disinfection Creek (21.85)

050300050302 – Hawkins Run‐Leatherwood Creek

0PR00089 Go‐Mart, Inc. Station 0.005 Sanitary Waste/Extended UNT to Guernsey #57 Aeration Plant Hawkins Run (0.5)

0PS00004 CFJ Properties 0.08 Sanitary Waste/Extended UNT to Guernsey Aeration Plant Hawkins Run (0.6)

Page 20 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Permit No. Facility Name Design Wastewater Type and Stream and County Discharge Treatment System RM at (MGD) Discharge

0PG00010 Coventry Estates # 1 0.025 Sanitary Waste/Extended Wills Creek Guernsey Aeration Plant (62.23)

0PG00043 Coventry Estates # 2 0.03 Sanitary Waste/Extended UNT to Guernsey Aeration Plant Leatherwood Creek (1.8)

0PA000113 Village of Lore City 0.065 Sanitary Waste/ UNT to Guernsey Leatherwood Creek (11.67)

050400050402 – Headwaters Salt Fork

0PP00051 1‐70 EB Rest Area 05‐ 0.01 Sanitary Waste/Extended UNT to Salt Guernsey 27 Aeration Plant Creek (20.78)

0PR00079 Ports Petroleum Co., 0.003 Sanitary Waste/Extended UNT to Salt Guernsey Inc. Aeration Plant Creek (1.9)

050400050406 – Beeham Run‐Salt Fork

0PP00068 Sugartree Marina 0.004 Sanitary Waste/Extended Salt Fork Lake Guernsey WWTP Aeration Plant

0PP00027 Salt Fork Lodge and 0.09 Sanitary Waste/Extended Salt Fork Lake Guernsey Cabin WWTP Aeration Plant

0PP00028 Salt Fork Campground 0.167 Sanitary Waste/Extended Salt Fork Lake Guernsey WWTP Aeration Plant

0PP00026 Salt Fork Marina 0.043 Sanitary Waste/Extended Salt Fork Lake Guernsey Aeration Plant

0PP00034 Salt Fork Beach WWTP 0.199 Sanitary Waste/Extended Salt Fork Lake Guernsey Aeration Plant

050400050501 – North Crooked Creek

0PB00028 Village of New Concord 0.448 Sanitary Waste/Primary Crooked Creek Muskingum WWTP Treatment, Oxidation Ditches, (14.37) Clarification, Filtration and Disinfection

050400050503 ‐ Peters Creek‐Crooked Creek

0PG00018 Beech Meadows Sanitary Waste/Extended UNT to Guernsey Aeration Plant Crooked Creek (9.85)

Page 21 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Permit No. Facility Name Design Wastewater Type and Stream and County Discharge Treatment System RM at (MGD) Discharge

050400050504 – Sarchet Run‐Wills Creek

0PH00013 Appalachian Behavioral 0.09 Sanitary Waste/ Aerated Wills Creek (55) Guernsey Healthcare & Lagoon, Clarification and two Cambridge Stabilization Lagoons Development Center Sewage Treatment Facility

0IQ00008 Plastic Compounders, 0.074 Non‐Contact Cooling Water UNT to Wills Guernsey Inc. Creek

0PD00020 City of Cambridge 9.0 Sanitary Waste/ Primary Wills Creek Guernsey WWTP Treatment, Flow Equalization, (61.6) Activated Sludge, Secondary Clarification and Disinfection

050400050605 – Mouth Wills Creek

0IN00101 Conesville Residual Flow Storm Water/Sedimentation UNT to Wills Coshocton Waste Disposal Facility Dependent and Neutralization Creek (5.47 & 5.76)

0IL00073 Conesville Coal 0.3 Storm Water, Process and Wills Creek (3.1 Coshocton Preparation Plant Sanitary Wastewater & 3.2)

Mining Surface and underground mining occurred near Buffalo Fork, Leatherwood Creek, Salt Fork, White Eyes Creek and in the lower reaches of Wills Creek between Planefield and Conesville. Currently there is one active underground mine in the headwaters of Sugertree Fork for Rosebud Mine which has a permitted discharge to Crabapple Creek in the Stillwater Creek watershed (Figure 7). Two surface mines were active in the Wills Creek watershed in 2014 during the Ohio EPA survey. Although Ohio coal production has generally declined since 1970, a sharp drop off occurred in the Wills Creek basin in 2013. In the ten years prior to 2010, strip mines in the Wills Creek basin annually averaged producing 905,378 tons of coal. In 2010, Wills Creek basin mines generated 904,478 tons. In 2011, 802,972 tons were produced. In 2012, 716,065 tons were produced. In 2013, production dropped to 343,111 tons. Only 16,345 tons of coal were mined in the basin in 2015. Mining in the Wills Creek watershed began in the 1800’s (Crowell, 1995). The establishment of railroads in the 1870s allowed coal to be transported to outside markets significantly increasing mining activity in Guernsey and surrounding counties. Coal from massive underground mine complexes near Cambridge and Byesville provided a considerable source of wealth to the area which also attracted other industries such as steel and iron mills. During and after the Great Depression from 1933-1939, the iron and steel mills closed, and the underground mines were mostly abandoned in the watershed (Appleby, 1951).

Page 22 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Surface mining began on a large scale in the mid- 1940s with the advent of machinery big enough to make surface strip mining commercially viable (Crowell, 1995). The Central Ohio Coal Company (COCCo) mined 39,000 acres in the headwaters of Wills Creek South of Cumberland using the world’s largest walking dragline known as the Big Muskie. The bucket of the Big Muskie could reach 185 feet deep and excavate 220 cubic yards in one scoop (Figure 6). The Big Muskie operated in Muskingum and Noble counties from 1969 to 1991. The COCCo was a subsidy of American Electric Power (AEP) and was the main source of coal for the AEP Muskingum River coal fired power plant in Beverly. The Figure 6 – The Big Muskie bucket, large enough to hold two Muskingum River Plant in Beverly was built in 1953 Greyhound buses, is now a tourist attraction at Miners' Memorial Park, located west from Caldwell on SR 78. but was closed in 2015 as energy production shifted toward oil and gas. Due to re-mining, many of the old unreclaimed strip mines are now reclaimed. There are still unreclaimed lands that are contributing mine drainage to streams in the Wills Creek watershed, but most of the land has been reclaimed. Over 58,800 acres of land mined by the Big Muskie was reclaimed and is open to the public for camping, horseback riding, hunting and fishing as the AEP ReCreation Land. In 1984 AEP donated 9,154 acres to a private non-profit animal conservation group now known as The Wilds. The Wilds opened for public tours in 1994 and in 2001, formed a partnership with the Columbus Zoo. Approximately 10,635 acres of former mine land east and south from Conesville is also open to the public for hunting and fish and is called the Conesville Coal Lands.

Page 23 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Figure 7 – Surface and underground coal mining in the Wills Creek watershed as well as major impoundments which include Senecaville Lake, Salt Fork Reservoir and Wills Creek Lake.

Page 24 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Oil and Gas Development Oil and gas development in the Wills Creek watershed has experienced a dramatic increase with the use of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the Marcellus and Utica shale plays (Figure 9). Many of the horizontal wells drilled in the Wills Creek watershed are concentrated around Senecaville Lake and along Leatherwood Creek. Hydraulic fracturing can have the following impacts to water resources:  Each well requires 10 to 14 million gallons of water, with some using more than 20 million gallons of fresh water (Auch, 2018). Much of the freshwater is being pumped from local streams such as Leatherwood Creek, Salt Fork, Seneca Fork and Glady Run and is also being sold by the MWCD from Senecaville Lake (Figure 8).  Flowback water from the well drilling results in a significant amount of brine wastewater that cannot be treated due to high levels of TDS, toxic metals, radionuclides, hydrocarbons and other chemical Figure 8 – Fresh water pumped from Glady Run for hydraulic fracturing. additives (biocides, hydrochloric acid, corrosion inhibitors, gelling agents, scale inhibitors and surfactants). The brine wastewater must be disposed of in an approved Ohio DNR Class II brine injection well and will no longer be part of the freshwater budget (Ohio DNR, 2018).  There has been an increase of inadvertent returns and illegal discharges of toxic brine wastewater due to accidental spills, explosions and illegal dumping to local waterways.  Pipeline construction has resulted in bentonite clay spills and sedimentation in streams and wetlands. Steep slope pipeline construction continues to be challenging for the oil and gas industry which often results in reported and unreported landslides, slips and debris flow. The industry has tried to address this issue in eastern Ohio by developing steep slope construction best management practices with The Nature Conservancy to minimize adverse effects on habitat and water quality (The Nature Conservancy, 2018).

Page 25 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Figure 9 – Ohio’s oil and gas shale plays and horizontal well locations relative to the Wills Creek watershed, 2014. Red dots indicate the location of the well pad and the black lines indicate the direction of the horizontal drilling. Spills Ohio EPA’s Division of Environmental Response and Revitalization received numerous reported spills from 2009 through 2014 with only 22 having the potential to reach the Wills Creek waterways. Diesel fuel, crude oil, food grade oil, flowback water (from oil and gas drilling), liquid friction reducer, bentonite clay (from pipeline construction) and a fish kill of unknown origins were involved in the incidents investigated by emergency responders in the Wills Creek watershed. The fish kill was investigated on October 21, 2014, by Ohio DNR’s Division of Wildlife, in Buffalo Creek along State Route 146 in Noble County and was attributed to a common lawn care herbicide known as Mecoprop (MCPP). Most fuel spills were located along major roadways within the watershed and were contained. One crude oil spill was attributed to a cow breaking a valve off a storage tank.

Page 26 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Inland Lakes Ohio EPA has implemented a sampling strategy that focuses on evaluating chemical conditions near the surface and physical conditions in the water column of inland lakes. Physical profile measurements are summarized either for the entire water column or the epilimnion depending on the existence of thermal stratification. The sampling target consists of an even distribution of 10 sampling events divided over a two-year period and collected during the recreation season of May 1 through October 31. Key parameters analyzed in lakes include chlorophyll-a, ammonia, D.O., pH, total dissolved solids along with various metals for multiple beneficial use assessments. Other parameters used to evaluate lakes include Secchi depth, total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN). Details of the sampling protocol used at the time of this sampling are outlined in Appendix E of the Ohio EPA Surface Water Field Sampling Manual. Ohio EPA has revised those sampling protocols in Appendix I of the Ohio EPA Surface Water Field Sampling Manual in 2016. The current ALU designation for all inland lakes in Ohio is EWH except for upground reservoirs which are designated WWH. Important criteria for assessing lake condition include nutrient parameters (e.g. total phosphorus, total nitrogen) and biological response variables (e.g. chlorophyll-a). Currently in Ohio, no nutrient or biological criteria exists for inland lakes. Ohio EPA is evaluating data Figure 10 – Wills Creek watershed lakes sampled and methodologies to develop appropriate ALU criteria for in 2014 and 2015. inland lakes. During 2014 and 2015, three recreational lakes (Salt Fork Reservoir, Seneca Lake and Wills Creek Lake) and two drinking water reservoirs (Fox Lake and Cambridge City Reservoir) in the Wills Creek watershed were sampled to evaluate beneficial use. All five lakes are man-made in-stream impoundments in the WAP ecoregion (Figure 10). Cambridge City Reservoir

Cambridge City Reservoir is in Guernsey County on Reservoir Road, east of Interstate 77 in the City of Cambridge. The lake is an impoundment of an unnamed tributary to Wills Creek. The lake is 12.6 acres and has a maximum depth of approximately 10 meters. Water is pumped from Wills Creek into the reservoir as the primary source of water. The reservoir’s watershed is only 0.6 square miles and is heavily forested but there are a few homes located within the watershed. While the primary use of the Cambridge City Reservoir is a public water supply, recreation is permitted such as fishing and boating with non-gas- powered boats. Lake Water Quality Assessment Aquatic Life Use Lake samples were collected near the surface of Cambridge City Reservoir five times each during the 2014 and 2015 recreation seasons. Statewide Outside Mixing Zone Average (OMZA) water quality criteria listed in tables 35-1 through 35 of section 3745-1-35 of the OAC (Water Quality Standards) were used to evaluate the existing EWH use designation for the Cambridge City Reservoir. Dissolved oxygen was compared

Page 27 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

against the statewide Outside Mixing Zone Minimum (OMZM) criteria. If the statewide criterion is exceeded in more than 10 percent of the total samples tested for any parameter, the use is considered in non- attainment of the existing EWH use designation. Sampling results determined that Cambridge City Reservoir was not in attainment of the existing EWH use based on four exceedances of the OMZM criteria for copper during the 2014 field season. The use of the algaecide copper sulfate in the reservoir is the suspected source. Copper sulfate is often used to control blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) by drinking water treatment plant operators and is sometimes used on a routine basis whether algae is present or not (Illinois State Water Supply, 1989). Algae blooms can cause taste and odor issues in the finished water as well as cyanotoxins that can cause serious health issues. Applying copper sulfate in excess of what is necessary to treat for algae is uneconomical and can be ecologically harmful. Copper can be toxic to fish, mussels and other bottom dwelling organisms as copper will accumulate in the sediment (Illinois State Water Supply, 1989). The Cambridge City Reservoir’s sediment results for copper were 30 times the Ohio Sediment Reference Value of 33 mg/kg. Where criteria do not exist, a common approach to assess relative lake condition is to compare lake water quality sampling data to a regionally derived percentile (e.g. 25th) of existing lake data. The lower 25th percentile generally represents minimally impacted conditions protective of designated uses. Inland lake aquatic life use benchmarks were calculated for TN, TP and chlorophyll‐a (Chl. a) based on the lower 25th percentile of lake median data and for Secchi depth based on the upper 75th percentile of lake median data. Data used to determine these benchmarks were collected by Ohio EPA from Ohio inland lakes between 1989 and 2006. The Cambridge City Reservoir was greater than the regional 25th percentile benchmarks for TP, Chl. a, and for transparency based on the 75th percentile Secchi data Table 6). These results are indicative of nutrient enrichment and likely play an important role in the trophic dynamics, diel chemistry and associated biological functioning of Cambridge City Reservoir. During the 2014 and 2015 sampling seasons, the Cambridge City Reservoir was stratified on all dates except October 2014. Hypoxic conditions reached to within 4 meters of the surface. The internal loading of nutrients in Cambridge City Reservoir is a factor in trying to understand the nutrient function of this system. Hypolimnion (bottom) samples can provide helpful information on internal nutrient loading. The sources of nutrients can be from lake tributaries or from lake sediments which act as a nutrient sink or source. The internal loading or regeneration of phosphorus within the hypolimnion under hypoxic (DO <2 - 4 mg/L range) (GLEAM, 2017) conditions happens through chemical, biological and physical processes resulting in an available form released into the water column. Ammonia values from the hypolimnion ranged from below detection to 2.18 mg/L. Hypolimnetic generation of ammonia during stratification rapidly converts to nitrate (NO2-NO3) upon autumnal mixing. Phosphorus in sediment can account for 30 to 40 percent of a lake’s phosphorus load and can be released from as deep as 20 cm from the lake sediment under hypoxic conditions (Søndegarrd, et al., 2003). The sequestration of total phosphorus in Cambridge City Reservoir’s lake sediment was 980 mg/kg. The generation of orthophosphate during periods of hypoxia in the hypolimnion affect overall lake nutrient budgets. The average epilimnion total phosphorus water result was 19.7 part per billion (ppb) and the average hypolimnion total phosphorus water result was 339.3 ppb for the two year of sampling. These nutrients contribute to elevated chlorophyll a and are a potential nutrient source for harmful algal blooms (HABS).

Page 28 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Table 6 – Summary of data collected in Cambridge City Reservoir. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized.

Secchi Chl. a TN TP D.O. pH NH3‐N Parameter (m) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (mg/l)* (SU)* (mg/l)*

ALU Benchmarks ≥2.16 ≤6.2 ≤350 ≤14 ≥6.0 6.5‐9.0 WQS

6/18/2014 0.98 15.2 890 20 8.31 8.32 <0.05

7/9/2014 0.92 16.5 290 22 6.55 7.99 <0.05

7/23/2014 0.86 19.6 290 16 9.18 8.31 <0.05

8/20/2014 1.05 24.6 650 17 8.41 8.18 <0.05

10/1/2014 1.16 25.3 310 43 7.84 8.13 <0.05

5/7/2015 0.82 21 340 14 9.99 8.48 <0.05

6/11/2015 0.834 20.5 540 11 8.19 8.33 <0.05

7/15/2015 0.88 26.2 280 22 7.63 8.23 0.054

8/4/2015 0.81 14.9 520 12 5.85 8.07 <0.05

9/9/2015 0.82 24.3 380 17 7.82 8.42 0.06

Median 0.87 20.75 345 17 N/A N/A N/A

* Bold values indicate an exceedance of the water quality standard Sediment Contamination A sediment sample was collected from the Cambridge City Reservoir during October 2014 and analyzed for metals, nutrients, semi volatile organic compounds (s-VOCs) poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides (organo-chlorine insecticides). Lab analysis of all volatile organic compounds, semi-VOCs, and PCBs parameters were below detection. Nickel concentration was above the threshold effect concentration (TEC), but below the probable effect concentration (PEC) and Sediment Reference Values (SRV) and thus is unlikely to cause harmful effects to aquatic life. Barium and copper were above the SRV, TEC and PEC levels presenting an ecological concern. All other sediment metals sampled were below Ohio Sediment Reference Values, TEC values and PEC values. Recreation Use The recreation use was evaluated by measuring levels of E. coli bacteria at the lake (L-1) station. The site was sampled 10 times over the two-year assessment period and respective geometric mean values were compared to the bathing water criterion of 126 cfu (colony forming units)/100 mL. The recreation use is in full attainment with results below the detectable limit of 10cfu/100 mL in 7 of the 10 samples collect and the remaining three ranged from 10 cfu/100mL to 40 cfu/100 mL at L-1. Phytoplankton Assessment The phytoplankton community in Cambridge City Reservoir is characterized based on water samples collected using an integrated tube sampler deployed to either a maximum of 2 meters (m) or two times the Secchi depth if <1 m. From June to October, 2014 and May through September, 2015, samples were

Page 29 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

collected, preserved with Lugol’s and submitted to a contract lab for analysis. The phytoplankton present in a representative aliquot were identified to at least genus level (usually species) and cell densities (cells/L) and bio-volumes (µm3/L) were estimated. Phytoplankton communities exhibit a seasonal succession when factors like water temperature, nutrients, transparency and photoperiod favor certain types. Grazing by larval fish and zooplankton can also affect plankton dynamics. Temperate lakes in Ohio are usually dominated by diatoms in the spring until micronutrients like silica are depleted and cyanobacteria often dominates in the fall when an ability to control buoyancy and fix nitrogen from the atmosphere gives certain types a competitive edge. In general, the phytoplankton population in the Cambridge City Reservoir seems diverse and balanced, with six different classes of algae represented in 2015. Only five classes of algae were present in 2014 with dinoflagellates missing. Cyanobacteria represented less than one percent of the total biovolume (µm3/L) of phytoplankton in 2015 but represented 9.6 percent in 2014. The repetitive use of copper sulfate in the Cambridge City Reservoir may have a great impact on algae production and species variation. A community dominated by cyanobacteria is a concern when types that produce cyanotoxins are present. Ohio has drinking and recreation action levels for Microcystins to protect public health. A “Do Not Drink” advisory is issued at concentrations in finished water ≥ 1ppb. For public beaches a “Recreational Public Health” advisory is posted at surface water levels ≥6ppb and a “No Contact” advisory is posted at levels ≥ 20ppb if human or animal illness is also documented. Samples for a suite of cyanotoxins (Microcystins, Cylindrospermopsin and Saxitoxin) are submitted during all routine sampling events at public drinking water supply lakes. In recreation lakes, samples for analysis of Microcystins only are submitted when phytoplankton enumeration samples are collected. Cambridge City Reservoir is considered a public drinking water supply lake, so Microcystin, Cylindrospermopsin and Saxitoxin samples were collected each year. Sampling results for Microcystin, Cylindrospermopsin and Saxitoxin were below the detection limit. Genera documented with the ability to produce toxin included: Anabaenopsis, Planktothrix, Aphanocapsa, and Pseudaanabaena.

Fox Lake

Fox Lake is in Muskingum County on Shady Side Road, one-mile northwest of New Concord and close to the Guernsey County line. The lake is an impoundment of an unnamed tributary to Fox Creek. The lake is 12.6 acres and has a maximum depth of approximately 10 meters. The watershed is 0.33 square miles and is mostly forested with some agriculture. Several houses exist along State Route 83, which runs along the upper eastern edge of the watershed. The primary use of this reservoir is for public drinking water supply, but recreation is permitted such as fishing and boating with non-gas-powered boats. The water from the Fox Lake can be pumped to a holding-reservoir that is located near the water treatment plant, when needed. Lake Water Quality Assessment Aquatic Life Use Lake samples were collected during the 2014-15 recreation seasons. On June 17, 2014, the water column copper concentration was 23.7 ug/L, likely due to a recent copper sulfate reservoir treatment. The WQS OMZA for copper is 10 ug/L. No other copper samples exceeded the OMZA.

Page 30 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

In 2014 and 2015, the Fox Lake was stratified during each sampling event. Hypoxic conditions reached to within 2 meters of the surface. The internal loading of nutrients in Fox Lake should be considered when trying to understand the nutrient function of this system. Ammonia ranged from 0.058 mg/L to 4.87 mg/L in the samples collected from the hypolimnion. Hypolimnetic generation of ammonia during summer stratification rapidly converts to nitrate (NO2-NO3) upon autumnal mixing. Phosphorus can be released as deep as 20 cm into the sediment under hypoxic conditions (Søndegarrd, et al., 2003). The sequestration of total phosphorus in sediment and the generation of orthophosphate during periods of hypoxia in the hypolimnion can affect overall nutrient budgets. The average epilimnion total phosphorus water result was 7.34 ppb while the average hypolimnion total phosphorus water result was 37.7 ppb for the two years of sampling. These nutrients contribute to elevated chlorophyll a and can be a potential nutrient source for cyanobacteria. Many cyanobacteria species are capable of fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere as well. Table 7 – Summary of data collected in Fox Lake. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized.

Secchi Chl. a TN TP D.O. pH NH3‐N Parameter (m) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (mg/l)* (SU)* (mg/l)*

ALU Benchmarks ≥2.16 ≤6.2 ≤350 ≤14 ≥6.0 6.5‐9.0 WQS

6/17/2014 1.34 21.9 740 13 9.59 8.68 <0.05

7/8/2014 1.51 18.1 530 <10 9.60 8.58 <0.05

7/22/2014 2.65 8.5 660 10 8.79 8.52 <0.05

8/19/2014 2.36 12.2 380 <10 9.34 8.34 <0.05

10/2/2014 1.89 16.4 590 <10 9.64 8.62 <0.05

5/6/2015 2.69 2.6 150 <10 10.58 8.44 <0.05

6/10/2015 3.23 5.2 490 6.8 11.01 8.72 <0.05

7/16/2015 2.65 9.8 420 9.3 8.29 8.18 <0.05

8/12/2015 3.59 5.7 400 6.5 8.55 8.45 0.042

9/29/2015 ‐‐‐ 13.3 1180 7.8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ <0.05

Median 2.96 11 510 6.65 N/A N/A N/A

* Bold values indicate an exceedance of the water quality standard

Sediment Contamination A surficial sediment sample was collected in October 2014 and analyzed for metals, nutrients, s-VOCs (PAHs), PCBs and pesticides (organo-chlorine insecticides). All volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and PCBs parameters were reported as non‐detect. The arsenic, nickel and zinc concentrations were above the threshold effect concentration (TEC), but below the probable effect concentration (PEC), thus are unlikely to cause any harmful effects. The arsenic concentration was 20.4 mg/kg while the Sediment Reference Values (SRV) guideline is 19 mg/kg. The copper sediment result is

Page 31 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

approaching the SRV value and likely due to the repeated use of copper sulfate. All other sediment metals sampled were below Ohio SRV, TEC and PEC values. Recreation Use The recreation use was evaluated by measuring levels of E. coli bacteria at the lake (L-1) station. The site was sampled 10 times over the two-year assessment period and respective geometric mean values were compared to the bathing water criterion of 126 cfu (colony forming units)/100 mL. The recreation use was in full attainment since all samples were below detectable limit (<10 cfu/100mL) except for one result at 30 cfu/100mL. Phytoplankton Assessment The phytoplankton community in Fox Lake was characterized based on water samples collected using an integrated tube sampler deployed to either a maximum of 2 m or two times the Secchi depth if <1 m. Samples were collected during the June, July, August and October 2014 and May, July and September 2015 sampling events, preserved with Lugol’s and submitted to a contract lab. The phytoplankton present in a representative aliquot was identified to at least genus level (usually species) and cell densities (cells/L) and bio-volumes (µm3/L) were estimated. In general, the population seems diverse and balanced, with seven different classes of algae represented each year. Cyanobacteria represented, almost, one-hundred percent of the total biovolume (µm3/L) of phytoplankton in 2014 while representing only 23 percent in 2015. The continued use of copper sulfate on Fox Lake may have greatly reduced blue-green algae production in 2015. A community dominated by cyanobacteria is a concern when types that produce cyanotoxins are present. Ohio has drinking and recreation action levels for Microcystins to protect public health. A “Do Not Drink” advisory is issued at concentrations in finished water ≥ 1ppb. Samples for a suite of cyanotoxins (Microcystins, Cylindrospermopsin and Saxitoxin) are submitted during all routine sampling events at public water supply lakes. Fox Lake is considered a public water supply lake, so Microcystin, Cylindrospermopsin and Saxitoxin samples were collected each year. Results for all samples for Microcystin, Cylindrospermopsin and Saxitoxin were below the detection limit in each sampled collected. Genera documented with the ability to produce toxin include Planktothrix, Aphanizmenon, and Woronichinia. Salt Fork Lake

Salt Fork Lake is located within the Salt Fork State Park in Guernsey County along US Route 22, about six miles northwest of the City of Cambridge. Planning for the Salt Fork Lake started in 1956 and was initially intended to be a water source for the City of Cambridge. However, interest in establishing a major recreation area lead to land acquisition in 1960 creating Salt Fork State Park. The earthen dam construction for Salt Fork was completed in 1967. Salt Fork State Park is Ohio’s largest state park at 17,229 acres. Unlimited horse power boat motors are permitted with sections of the lake reduced to no-wake zones. There are two marinas, one in each arm of the lake, and 10 boat ramps throughout the lake. Salt Fork has numerous sport fish including largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill sunfish, black crappie, white crappie, white bass, flathead catfish, walleye and muskellunge. During the 2014 and 2015 sampling season, recreation on the lake during ranged from light to heavy with numerous fishermen and skiers using the lake. Salt Fork Lake is contained within a 160 square mile watershed and has 3,060 surface acres of water with 63 miles of shoreline. The three major tributaries that form the lake include Sugartree Fork, Brushy Fork

Page 32 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

and Salt Fork. The lake is shaped like a wish-bone with Sugartree Fork entering on the north side and the Brushy and Salt Forks on the south side of the lake. These two long arms of the lake necessitated adding two additional sampling locations with the L-1 station in the deepest part of the dam pool, L-2 at mid-lake of the Brushy and Salt Forks arm and L-3 at mid-lake of the Sugartree Fork arm. The lakes maximum depth is approximately 11 meters at L-1. Small portions of the upper reaches of Salt Fork have been surface mined. During the two years of sampling, eight shale gas wells were developed using hydrologic fracturing or fracking in the Salt Creek Lake watershed. The watershed land use is 26 percent agricultural, 65 percent forest or scrub and 6 percent developed. Lake Water Quality Assessment Aquatic Life Use Lake samples were collected from Salt Fork Lake during the 2014-15 recreation seasons (Figure 11). Data collected from near the surface is summarized in Table 8. All metals were below or at detectable limits. Total dissolved solids were well below WQS. Table 8 ‐ Summary of data collected in Salt Fork Lake. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized.

Secchi Chl. a T‐N TP D.O. pH NH3‐N Parameter (m) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (mg/l)* (SU)* (mg/l)*

ALU Benchmarks ≥2.16 ≤6.2 ≤350 ≤14 ≥6.0 6.5‐9.0 WQS

5/20/2014 1.29 11.5 510 9.8 ‐‐‐ 8.75 <0.05

6/17/2014 1.48 8.9 560 19.3 7.82 8.52 <0.05

7/16/2014 0.65 45 410 8.5 6.72 8.69 <0.05

8/20/2014 0.85 30 530 18.9 8.12 8.92 <0.05

9/11/2014 0.83 31.9 530 10.2 5.65 8.25 <0.05

5/21/2015 1.156 10.7 470 9.3 10.73 8.695 <0.05

6/24/2015 0.787 19 1150 7.1 6.81 8.6 <0.05

7/15/2015 0.749 40 300 12.8 7.158 8.39 <0.05

8/11/2015 0.68 59 910 9.9 7.45 9.05 0.037

9/3/2015 0.68 39.7 520 11.1 8.79 8.74 0.021

Median 0.809 30.95 525 10.05 N/A N/A N/A

The L-1 location on Salt Fork Lake was stratified during each sampling event in 2014 and 2015. Hypoxic conditions reached to within 3.5 meters of the surface. Internal nutrient loadings are a source of elevated nutrients found in the water and sediment samples at the L-1sampling station. Ammonia ranged from 0.3 mg/L to 2.3 mg/L in the hypolimnion. Hypolimnetic generation of ammonia during stratification rapidly converts to nitrate (NO2-NO3) upon autumnal mixing. The sequestration of total phosphorus in sediment (Salt Fork Lake L-1 sample result was 1,060 mg/kg) and the generation of orthophosphate during periods of hypoxia in the hypolimnion affect overall nutrient budgets. Out of thirty total phosphorus sediment

Page 33 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

samples collected in the WAP ecoregion, from 2008 – 2016, Salt Fork Lake L-1 had the third highest sediment phosphorus value collected. The average epilimnion total phosphorus water result was 11.7 ppb and the average hypolimnion total phosphorus water result was 79.2 ppb for the two year of sampling. These nutrients contribute to the increased chlorophyll a production and can be a potential nutrient source for cyanobacteria dominance. Many species of cyanobacteria are capable of fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere. Hydrogen sulfide gas was detected during the later summer months in the hypolimnion sample. Hydrogen sulfide results from anaerobic decomposition of organic material and the reduction of sulfate by bacteria. The gas can be toxic to aquatic organisms. Hydrogen sulfide gas is what gives water the “rotten egg” smell (Tobin, et al., 1975).

Figure 11 – Salt Fork Lake sampling locations.

Sediment Contamination A surficial sediment sample was collected in October 2014. All volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and PCBs parameters were reported as non‐detect. Arsenic, nickel and zinc concentrations were above the TEC in Salt Fork Lake L-1, but below the PEC and are unlikely to cause any harmful effects. The cadmium result was 0.849 mg/kg while the SRV guideline is 0.8 mg/kg. All other sediment metals sampled were below Ohio SRV, TEC values and PEC values.

Page 34 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Recreation Use The recreation use was evaluated by measuring levels of E. coli bacteria at the lake (L-1) station. The site was sampled 11 times over the two-year assessment period. The recreation use was in full attainment with nine of the eleven samples below the detectable limit (<10 cfu/100mL). Phytoplankton Assessment The phytoplankton community in Salt Fork Lake L-1 was characterized based on water samples collected using an integrated tube sampler deployed to either a maximum of 2 m or two times the Secchi depth if greater than one meter. Samples were collected during the May, and July 2014 and August and September 2015 sampling events. In general, the population seems less diverse and balanced, with four to six different classes of algae represented during the two sampling years. Cyanobacteria represented 8% of the total biovolume (µm3/L) of phytoplankton in May 2014 while representing only 43% in July 2014. Results from 2015 were 15 and 12 % in August and September respectively. A community dominated by cyanobacteria is a concern when types that produce cyanotoxins are present. For public beaches a “Recreational Public Health” advisory is posted at surface water levels ≥6ppb and a “No Contact” advisory is posted at levels ≥ 20ppb if human or animal illness is also documented. Samples for recreation lakes are analyzed for Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin when phytoplankton enumeration samples are collected. Salt Fork Lake is considered a recreation lake. Cyanotoxin results for all samples collected were below detectable limits. Genera documented with the ability to produce toxin include Aphanocapsa, Cylindrospermopsis, Planktolyngbya, Pseudaanabaena, Raphidiopsis and Synechococcus.

Salt Fork Lake L‐2 and L‐3 Because Salt Fork Lake branches into two long arms, additional sampling stations (L-2 and L-3) were created in the mid-point of each arm (Figure 11). Metals and TDS were below the water quality standard criteria at both L-2 and L-3 stations. Both stations exhibited little to no thermal stratification during both years of sampling, in part due to the shallowness of the lake at these stations. Dissolved oxygen at each station dropped to hypoxic or near-hypoxic conditions near the bottom of the lake. The L-2 station is only three meters deep so complete, continuous mixing was observed during some sampling events, while the L- 3 station is six meters deep so hypoxic conditions generally occurred at three and half meters deep. Chlorophyll a and total nitrogen exceeded target values at each location and Secchi depth was below the target at both stations (Table 9 and Table 10). The lack of dissolved oxygen in the hypolimnion at L-3 allowed for the generation of phosphorus from sediments. The average epilimnion total phosphorus water result was 13.21 ppb and the average hypolimnion total phosphorus water result was 39.1 ppb for the two year of sampling. Water column mixing at L-2 resulted in average epilimnion total phosphorus concentrations to be closer to the hypolimnion average result. The L-2 epilimnion average phosphorus was 19.21 ppb and the average hypolimnion total phosphorus water result was 22.8 ppb for the two years of sampling. The lack of stratification allowed the hypolimnion phosphorus to be mixed more readily with the surface water. Sediments were not collected at the L-2 or L-3 stations. Recreation Use The recreation use was evaluated by measuring levels of E. coli bacteria at the L-2 station which is located at the Salt Fork Marina on Park Road 14. The site was sampled 11 times over the two-year assessment period.

Page 35 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

The recreation use was in full attainment with four samples were below detect (<10 cfu/mL) and the remaining seven samples ranging from 10 cfu/mL to 350 cfu/mL. The higher bacteria was most likely from geese which were commonly observed near the beach. Table 9 – Summary of data collected in Salt Fork Lake L‐2. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized.

Secchi Chl. a TN TP D.O. pH NH3‐N Parameter (m) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (mg/l)* (SU)* (mg/l)*

ALU Benchmarks ≥2.16 ≤6.2 ≤350 ≤14 ≥6.0 6.5‐9.0 WQS

5/20/2014 0.68 20.8 510 29 ‐‐‐ 7.46 <0.05

6/17/2014 0.72 13.3 490 23.3 8.92 8.60 <0.05

7/16/2014 0.35 33.1 570 19.2 6.14 8.50 <0.05

8/20/2014 0.513 59.3 610 15.7 8.58 8.96 <0.05

9/11/2014 0.405 88.4 510 10 6.44 8.14 <0.05

5/21/2015 0.47 33.3 470 8.4 10.2 8.42 <0.05

6/24/2015 0.45 45.3 710 9.8 6.39 8.06 <0.05

7/15/2015 0.38 58.2 510 16.1 6.60 8.15 <0.05

8/11/2015 0.42 78.4 910 46 4.77 8.67 0.032

9/3/2015 0.5 34.8 600 14.6 8.85 8.75 0.022

Median 0.46 40.05 585 15.9 N/A N/A N/A

* Bold values indicate an exceedance of the water quality standard

Phytoplankton Assessment The phytoplankton communities at Salt Fork Lake L-2 and L-3 were characterized based on water samples collected during the May and July 2014 and May, July and September 2015 sampling. Cyanobacteria represented no or a small percent of the total biovolume (µm3/L) of phytoplankton in the spring months while representing nearly 100 percent of the biovolume in the late summer months both years. Salt Fork Lake is considered a recreation lake. Cyanotoxin results for all samples collected were below detectable limits. Genera documented with the ability to produce toxin include Anabaena, Anabaenopsis, Aphanocapsa, Chroococcus, Cylindrospermopsis, Limnothrix, Merismopedia, Planktolyngbya, Pseudaanabaena and Raphidiopsis.

Page 36 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Table 10 – Summary of data collected in Salt Fork Lake L‐3. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized.

Secchi Chl. a T‐ N T‐P D.O. pH NH3‐N Parameter (m) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (mg/l)* (SU)* (mg/l)*

ALU Benchmarks ≥2.16 ≤6.2 ≤350 ≤14 ≥6.0 6.5‐9.0 WQS

5/20/2014 1.5 126 580 10.4 10.83 8.24 <0.05

6/17/2014 1.19 35.1 650 19.3 7.66 8.56 <0.05

7/16/2014 0.595 36.7 450 12.7 7.13 8.89 <0.05

8/20/2014 0.725 12.5 470 17.9 10.0 8.88 <0.05

9/11/2014 0.73 11 450 13.5 5.47 8.23 <0.05

5/21/2015 0.776 20.8 490 9.2 9.14 7.96 <0.05

6/24/2015 0.665 30.6 680 9.0 7.88 8.64 <0.05

7/15/2015 0.755 39.6 340 12.6 6.64 8.33 0.37

8/11/2015 0.63 67.6 780 15.0 10.87 8.89 0.36

9/3/2015 0.61 43.6 420 12.5 9.71 9.20 <0.05

Median 0.728 43.6 480 12.64 N/A N/A N/A * Bold values indicate an exceedance of the water quality standard Seneca Lake

Seneca Lake (also called Senecaville Lake) is in Guernsey and Noble Counties along State Routes 313 and 574. Seneca Lake was built in 1937 as a flood control structure in the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) and is MWCD’s largest reservoir and Ohio’s third largest inland water. The MWCD manages the area behind the dams where easements are acquired to store water as necessary for the safe release downstream. This includes land upstream of the lake, beyond the normal lake pool elevation. MWCD lands around the lake include 4,060 acres. The dam is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Seneca Lake has 3,550 surface acres of water, is 9.1 miles long, has 45 miles of shoreline and a drainage area of 118 square miles. The lake has a maximum depth of 6 meters. Normal summer lake pool is 832.2 feet and the record flood pool was 842.33 feet on July 3rd, 1998. At flood pool level, Figure 12 – Seneca Lake sampling locations. State Route 313 floods in many locations causing the Parkside campground to be evacuated. Seneca Lake has a marina and two boat ramps. Seneca Lake allows 399 horse-power limit boat motors and has designated water skiing areas. Sport fish in the lake include largemouth bass, white crappie, black crappie, bluegill sunfish, bullhead catfish, channel catfish, saugeye

Page 37 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

and hybrid striped bass. Recreation was light to moderate during the 2014-2015 sampling season with numerous fishermen and pleasure boaters observed. Due to the long length of the lake, a L-2 station was created for mid-lake sampling (Figure 12). The upper reaches of many streams that feed Seneca Lake have been surface mined for coal, but very little underground mining occurred in the watershed (Figure 7). Up to twelve shale gas wells were observed in the Seneca Lake watershed at the time of sampling.

Lake Water Quality Assessment Aquatic Life Use Seneca lake samples were collected during the 2014-15 recreation seasons. Data collected from the surface is summarized in Table 11. All water column metals were below or at detectable limits. Total dissolved solids were well below the WQS. Table 11 – Summary of data collected in Seneca Lake. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized.

Secchi Chl. a TN TP D.O. pH NH3‐N Parameter (m) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (mg/l)* (SU)* (mg/l)*

ALU Benchmarks ≥2.16 ≤6.2 ≤350 ≤14 ≥6.0 6.5‐9.0 WQS

5/12/2014 3.0 4.2 410 5.0 10.07 8.54 <0.05

6/18/2014 1.5 8.3 420 7.4 7.0 8.38 0.078

7/17/2014 1.165 5.9 1470 0.1 3.92 7.79 <0.05

8/21/2014 1.3 69.6 420 5.5 8.43 8.45 <0.05

9/10/2014 0.82 42.1 440 9.5 6.71 8.03 <0.05

5/14/2015 1.847 5.8 440 6 8.59 8.38 0.054

6/23/2015 1.075 8.2 330 7.2 6.15 8.25 <0.05

7/8/2015 0.726 15.2 440 8.4 12.21 8.51 <0.05

8/11/2015 0.884 30.4 580 9.2 6.95 8.52 0.038

9/8/2015 0.35 24.7 420 10.4 7.73 8.45 0.009

Median 1.12 11.75 430 7.4 N/A N/A N/A

* Bold values indicate an exceedance of the water quality standard During the 2014 and 2015 sampling, Seneca Lake L-1 was not thermally stratified during any sampling event, although the lake was well stratified for dissolved oxygen. Hypoxic conditions reached to within one meter of the surface. Hydrogen sulfide gas was noticed during the summer months in the hypolimnion sample. The internal loading of nutrients in Seneca Lake L-1 is a source of elevated TP, TN, and ammonia which can cause increased algal production. The sequestration of TP in sediment (Seneca Lake L-1 sediment sample result was 891 mg/kg) and the generation of orthophosphate during periods of hypoxia

Page 38 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

in the hypolimnion affect overall nutrient budgets. Out of thirty total phosphorus sediments collected in the WAP, from 2008 – 2016, Seneca Lake L-1 was slightly above the average total phosphorus in lake sediments. The average epilimnion total phosphorus water result was 6.87 ppb and the average hypolimnion total phosphorus water result was 20.7 ppb for the two years of sampling. These nutrients contributed to high chlorophyll a concentrations and can be a potential nutrient source for cyanobacteria. Sediment Contamination A surficial sediment sample was collected in May 2014. All VOC, SVOC and PCB parameters were reported as non‐detect. Nickel concentrations were above the TEC in Seneca Lake L-1, but below the PEC and are unlikely to cause any harmful effects. The calcium result was 34,200 mg/kg while the SRV guideline is 27,000 mg/kg. All other sediment metals sampled were below Ohio’s SRV, TEC values and PEC values. Recreation Use The recreation use was evaluated by measuring levels of E. coli bacteria at the L-1 station. The recreation use was in full attainment with five samples below the detectable limit (<10 cfu/100mL) and the remaining five samples ranging from 10 cfu/100mL to 50 cfu/100mL. Phytoplankton Assessment The phytoplankton community at Seneca Lake L-1 was characterized based on water samples collected during the May and July 2014 and July and September 2015 sampling events. In general, the population seems less diverse and balanced, with four to six different classes of algae represented during the two years. Cyanobacteria were absent in the May 2014 sampling but then represented 42.6 percent of the total biovolume (µm3/L) of phytoplankton in July 2014 while representing nearly 100 percent of the biovolume in August and September 2015. A community dominated by cyanobacteria is a concern when types that produce cyanotoxins are present. Seneca Lake L-1 is considered a recreation lake. Cyanotoxin results for all samples collected were below detectable limits. Genera documented with the ability to produce toxin include Anabaena, Aphanizomenon, Aphanocapsa, Chroococcus, Cylindrospermopsis, Limnothrix, Merismopedia, Planktolyngbya, Pseudaanabaena and Raphidiopsis.

Seneca Lake L‐2 As mentioned in the introduction to Seneca Lake, the lake is 9.1 miles long, so a lake sampling station (L-2) was created at the mid-point of the lake. Sampling methods and procedures were conducted the same as the L-1 station. The L-2 sampling station had no exceedances of the metals or total dissolved solids criteria. The station exhibited no thermal stratification and very little dissolved oxygen stratification during both years of sampling. Near-hypoxic conditions ½ meter from the bottom of the lake were reached only during the June 2014 and September 2015 sampling. The L-2 station is only three meters deep so complete, continuous mixing was observed during most sampling events. Chlorophyll a and total nitrogen exceeded target values at each location and Secchi depth was below the target at both stations (Table 12). The low dissolved oxygen throughout the water column resulted in the station in non-support status for the WQS for dissolved oxygen. Bacteria and sediment samples were not collected at this station. The lack of dissolved oxygen in the hypolimnion at L-2 allowed for the generation of phosphors from sediments. The average epilimnion total phosphorus water result was 13.89 ppb and the average

Page 39 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

hypolimnion total phosphorus water result was 21.6 ppb for the two year of sampling. The lack of stratification allowed the hypolimnion phosphorus to be mixed more readily with the surface water.

Table 12 – Summary of data collected at Seneca Lake L‐2. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized.

Secchi Chl. a TN TP D.O. pH NH3‐N Parameter (m) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (mg/l)* (SU)* (mg/l)*

ALU Benchmarks ≥2.16 ≤6.2 ≤350 ≤14 ≥6.0 6.5‐9.0 WQS

5/12/2014 0.69 13.8 420 12.0 9.11 8.33 <0.05 6/18/2014 0.21 18.4 350 13.3 5.35 8.05 <0.05 7/17/2014 0.49 22.3 850 14.9 6.95 8.14 <0.05 8/21/2014 0.234 9.0 1430 18.1 5.59 8.12 <0.05 9/10/2014 0.515 39.5 370 14.6 7.05 8.2 <0.05 5/14/2015 0.55 5.0 630 10.0 7.9 8.27 0.081 6/23/2015 0.47 17.7 350 8.0 6.65 8.02 <0.05 7/8/2015 0.37 51.7 380 18.8 9.49 7.91 <0.05 8/11/2015 0.59 24.1 350 10.6 5.37 7.97 0.036 9/8/2015 0.34 17.0 300 18.6 5.17 7.83 0.006 Median 0.48 18.05 375 13.95 N/A N/A N/A

* Bold values indicate an exceedance of the water quality standard Phytoplankton Assessment The phytoplankton community at Seneca Lake L-2 was characterized based on water samples collected during the May and July 2014 and July and September 2015 sampling. In general, the population seems diverse and balanced, with five to six different classes of algae represented during the two consecutive sampling years. Cyanobacteria represented only 0.75 percent of the total biovolume (µm3/L) of phytoplankton in May 2014 but increased to 32.9 percent in July 2014. A predicable increase in cyanobacteria occurred resulting in cyanobacteria levels of 22.9 percent in July and then surging to nearly 100 percent of the biovolume by September 2015. Seneca Lake L-2 is considered a recreation lake. Cyanotoxin results for all samples collected were below detectable limits. Genera documented with the ability to produce toxin include Anabeana, Anabaenopsis, Aphanizomenon, Aphanocapsa, Aphanothece, Chroococcus, Cylindrospermopsis, Limnothrix, Merismopedia, Planktolyngbya, Plankothrix, Pseudanabaena and Raphidiopsis. The cyanobacteria community was very diverse at the L-2 station.

Page 40 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Wills Creek Lake

Wills Creek Lake (also called Wills Creek Reservoir) is in Coshocton and Muskingum Counties but inundates into Guernsey county (Figure 13). The lake is an on-stream impoundment of Wills Creek and has an 842 square mile drainage area (98 percent of Wills Creek entire drainage area). Motor boating is allowed with a maximum 10 horse power limit. The lake has one concrete boat ramp down a very narrow drive located off State Route 83 and another primitive landing off Wills Creek Road. The lake has a maximum depth of 12 feet, but much of the lake is 3 feet or less. Wills Creek Lake is 5.36 miles long with 20 miles of shoreline. Sport fishing opportunities include largemouth bass, bluegill sunfish, saugeye, channel catfish and muskellunge. Only fishing from the lake shore was observed during the sampling season with most fishing activity limited to the dam tailwaters. Wills Creek Lake was built in 1936 for flood control and is owned and managed by the MWCD. The dam structure is operated and maintained by the USACE. Wills Creek Lake acts as a partial dry dam. Dry dams are constructed for flood control allowing normal stream flow through the dam while impounding water only during flood events. A shallow lake is created at Wills Creek Lake by a nine-foot-high concrete control weir at the entrance to the outlet structure which maintains an average lake elevation of 742.0 ft. above sea level. Wills Creek Lake is a long riverine like impoundment which normally impounds 900 surface acres of water. On January 16th, 2005 Wills Creek Lake impounded 20,452 surface acres of water at an elevation of 779.36 feet above sea level, 0.36 feet above the emergency spillway crest. This represents the maximum reservoir storage volume. The water was stored and slowly released to reduce downstream flooding (Figure 13). MWCD owns and leases large areas of land up-stream of the dam to allow for flood water storage. State Routes 83, 93, 541, 658 and numerous county and township roads are flooded during these high-water events (Figure 13).

Figure 13 – Wills Creek Lake inundation map, 100‐year flood zone.

Page 41 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Wills Creek Lake has endured extensive surface and underground mining before and after the 1977 SMCRA requirements for surface mining reclamation. Many small tributaries along the lake shore contribute acid mine drainage to the lake. Lake Water Quality Assessment Aquatic Life Use Lake samples were collected during the 2014-15 recreation seasons. Data collected from near the surface is summarized in Table 13. Samples were collected at the L-1 and L-2 stations. The L-2 station was located in the upper reaches of the lake to determine if acid mine drainage affects the lakes water quality. The lake was only sampled five times over the two-year period, instead of ten times, due to resources and access issues. Metals were below or at detectable limits in the water samples and total dissolved solids were well below the WQS.

Neither sampling location, L-1 or L-2, exhibited thermal stratification due to the shallow nature of the lake and the rain induced high flows through the lake. When water temperatures were in the mid 20° C range, hypoxic conditions near the bottom of the lake occurred. Table 13 – Summary of data collected in Wills Creek lake L‐1 and L‐2. Values in bold are outside of the range for the aquatic life use (ALU) benchmarks. Median values that are outside of the range for the ALU benchmark are italicized.

Secchi Chl. a TN TP D.O. pH NH3‐N Parameter (m) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (mg/l)* (SU)* (mg/l)*

ALU Benchmarks ≥2.16 ≤6.2 ≤350 ≤14 ≥6.0 6.5‐9.0 WQS

Wills Creek Lake L‐1

7/2/2014 0.24 53.9 800 12.1 4.78 7.36 <0.05

8/12/2014 0.24 ‐‐‐ 480 51 4.68 7.83 <0.05

6/3/2015 0.31 11.9 1080 13 6.31 7.32 0.185

7/1/2015 0.20 9.6 950 24.4 5.71 7.48 0.089

7/30/2015 0.47 26.1 440 12.1 5.70 7.45 <0.05

Median 0.24 19 800 13 N/A N/A N/A

Wills Creek Lake L‐2

7/2/2014 0.17 15.2 77 29.4 4.72 7.4 <0.05

8/12/2014 0.20 24.7 58 13.5 4.11 7.58 0.119

6/3/2015 0.17 10.0 84 21.8 7.57 7.43 0.133

7/1/2015 0.18 8.6 80 58.3 5.98 7.48 0.07

7/30/2015 0.24 33.6 32 19.9 8.49 7.89 <0.05

Median 0.18 15.2 77 21.8 N/A N/A N/A

* Bold values indicate an exceedance of the water quality standard

Page 42 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Sediment samples collected from Wills Creek Lake L-1 had the highest total phosphorus levels in lake sediments sampled in the WAP between 2008 - 2016. Average phosphorus concentrations in the epilimnion was 22.52 ppb and the average hypolimnion total phosphorus water result was 39.4 ppb for the five samples in two years (L-2 averages were slightly higher). These nutrients inevitably contribute to the high chlorophyll a concentrations and are a potential nutrient source for harmful algal blooms (HABS). Large green algae blooms were notice on August 14th, 2014 and July 30th, 2015. These blooms were significant covering the entire length of the lake (Figure 14). Sediment Contamination Surficial sediment samples were collected, at L-1 and L-2, in July 2014 and again at L-2 in July 2015. Sediment samples collected at L-2 were used to determine the potential impact of the acid mine drainage (AMD) entering the lake. All volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and PCBs parameters were reported as non‐detect. Sediment at the L-1 station had zinc concentration was above the SRV and TEC, but below the PEC and thus is unlikely to cause any harmful effects. All other sediment metals sampled were below SRV, TEC and PEC values. Sediment at the L-2 station were below SRV, TEC and PEC values for both sediment sampling events during 2014 and 2015. There appears to be no lasting accumulation of metals from the AMD in the lake sediments. Recreation Use The recreation use was evaluated by measuring levels of E. coli bacteria at the L-1 station. The site was sampled five times in 2014 and three times in 2015. The recreation use was in full attainment with three samples below detectable limit (<10 cfu) and the remaining five samples ranging from 10 cfu to 130 cfu which is well below the recreation use criterion. Phytoplankton Assessment The phytoplankton community in Wills Creek Lake L-1 and L-2 was characterized based on water samples collected during the July and August 2014 and June and July 2015 sampling events. At the L-1 station, the population seems less diverse and balanced, with four to six different classes of algae represented thru the two years. Diatoms, Dinoflagellates, Cryptomonds and Green Algae dominated the populations during each sampling event. In August 2014 and July 2015 an algal bloom covered much of length of Wills Creek Lake (Figure 14). Phytoplankton samples were collected during the bloom and Green Algae and Cryptomonds dominated the population. At the L-2 station, the population mirrored that of the L-1 station, with four to five different classes of algae represented thru the two years. Diatoms, Cryptomonds and Green Algae dominated the populations during each sampling event. Cyanobacteria made up less than one Figure 14 – Wills Creek Lake algal bloom July 2015. percent of the total biovolume (µm3/L) of phytoplankton in 2014 and 2015 at both sampling stations.

Page 43 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Wills Creek Lake is considered a recreation lake. Cyanotoxin results for all samples collected were below detectable limits for each sample collected at each sampling station. Genera documented with the ability to produce toxin within the lake include Anabeana, Aphanizomenon, Aphanocapsa, Aohanothece, Chroococcus, Limnothrix, Microcystis, Planktolyngbya, Pseudaanabaena and Raphidiopsis.

Beneficial Use Results and Discussion Aquatic Life Use Water Chemistry Surface water chemistry samples were collected from the Wills Creek study area from March 2014 through February 2015 at 70 locations (Appendix H). Stations were established in free-flowing sections of the stream and samples were primarily collected from bridge crossings. Surface water samples were collected directly into appropriate containers, preserved and delivered to Ohio EPA’s Division of Environmental Services laboratory. Collected water was preserved using appropriate methods, as outlined in the Surface Water Field Sampling Manual for Water Column Chemistry, Bacteria and Flows (Ohio EPA, 2013). Additionally, five chemistry samples were collected from seeps or mine ponds in the Buffalo Fork sub-basin. Data from these historically mined areas along Yoker and Rannels Creek may support reclamation efforts. USGS gage data from Wills Creek at Cambridge and from Leatherwood Creek near Kipling were used to show flow trends in the Wills Creek watershed during the 2014 survey (Figure 15). Dates when water or bacteria samples were collected in the study area are noted on the graphs. Additional samples were collected in January and February 2015 at sentinel sites and quarterly samples were collected from 2015 to 2016 at Wills Creek at Campbell Avenue as part of the National Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network. Figure 15 – Flow hydrograph for Wills Creek at Cambridge (USGS gage #03142000, RM 64.10) and Leatherwood Creek Flow conditions in Wills Creek from January near Kipling (USGS gage #03141870, RM 9.80) from January through May were often well below the historic 2014 through January 2015. Dates of surface water chemical median but were elevated on a few days due to rain and bacteria sampling are shown. events. Flows generally followed the historic median daily flows during the low flow summer period for both Wills Creek and Leathewood Creek with the exception of significant rain events during the month of

Page 44 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

July. Bacteria was collected during the recreation use season (May 1 through October 31) and was collected during low flows except for two samples collected in May. Fresh water withdrawals have significantly increased thoughout eastern Ohio for the purpose of oil and gas well deveopment using hydraulic fracturing. Facilities that have the capacity to withdraw over 100,000 gallons per day have to register with Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Soil and Water Resources and provide an annual report of their daily water withdrawal. In the Wills Creek watershed, 11 facilities reported surface water withdrawals to ODNR totaling 1.79 billion gallons in 2014. Historic low flows were observed in Leatherwood Creek at the USGS gage station in September 2014 and were often below the historic median flows from July through December 2014 (Figure 15). Four facilites reported a total withdrawal of 90.1 million gallons of water from Leatherwood Creek from April through December 2014. These unnatural low flow conditions could affect the instream habitat and have a negative impact on the aquatic life (Novak, et al., 2016). Additionally, NPDES permit limits (which are based on historic low flow data) may no longer be protective of aquatic life or human health for facilities discharging to streams with significant water withdrawal pressures. In Ohio, a permit to withdraw water from streams is not required and there are no restrictions on when or how much water can be withdrawn. Surface water samples were analyzed for metals, nutrients, semi-volatile organic compounds, bacteria, pH, temperature, specific conductivity, D.O., percent D.O. saturation, total suspended solids (TSS) and total dissolved solids (TDS). Vanadium and bromide were also sampled at several targeted locations. Parameters which were in exceedance of the Ohio WQS criteria are reported in Table 14. Bacteriological samples were collected from 40 stream and six lake locations. The results for the bacteriological stream and lake samples are reported in the Recreation Use section and the Inland Lake section respectively. Parameters associated with mine drainage were elevated throughout the watershed. Abandoned underground mines are found around the Cambridge and Byesville area and near the mouth of Wills Creek. The Buffalo Fork sub-watershed was strip mined by the Big Muskie which was the world’s largest walking dragline ever built. Strip mining also occurred in numerous sub- watershed throughout Wills Creek (Figure 7). Tributaries to Wills Creek that had no water quality exceedances or indication of mining impacts include Clear Fork, Figure 16 – Box and whisker plot of field specific conductivity measurements in Rocky Fork, Sugartree Fork, Upper the Wills Creek watershed, 2014. Birds Run, Johnson Fork, Indiancamp Creek, Sarchett Run, and upper Chapman Run. Numerous iron exceedances occurred during one sampling event on June 25, 2014 mostly in historically mined sub-watersheds such as North Crooked Creek, Crooked Creek, Fox Creek, South Fork Seneca Fork, Buffalo Fork, South Fork Buffalo Fork, White Eyes Creek, Brush Run, Birds Run, Leatherwood Creek, upper

Page 45 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Salt Fork, Buffalo Creek and Yoker Creek (Table 14). Total dissolved solids (TDS) exceedances were commonly found in the mined sub-watersheds especially Buffalo Fork. Average aluminum values above reference conditions were found throughout the mainstem of Wills Creek (Table 16). The upper reaches of Wills Creek had significant mine drainage indicators such as high TDS, magnesium, sulfate, specific field conductivity (Figure 16) and sodium with averages above the target reference values (Table 16). Even though many areas of the Wills Creek watershed were historically mined, streams in the Buffalo Fork sub-watershed were the most impacted with mine drainage and sedimentation due to the usage of the Big Muskie dragline which allowed for a massive amount of land disturbance in a short period of time. Mine drainage was observed and sampled from unreclaimed ponds on The Wilds property (South Fork Yoker Creek) and seeps draining to Rannels Creek. Field specific conductivity from the Buffalo Fork sub- watershed was significantly higher than any other watersheds in Will Creek with a median value of 1,737 uhoms/cm and a maximum value of 4,017 uhoms/cm. In contrast, median values from tributaries to Wills Creek in the other sub-watersheds ranged from 323 to 767 with a maximum value of 1156 uhoms/cm found in Leatherwood Creek (Figure 16). Surprisingly though, these streams can still support a biological community because the mine drainage is not acidic but rather alkaline mine drainage. Alkaline mine drainage is typically associated with high levels of TDS, sulfate, conductivity and metals (Table 16) but pH values above 7.0 S.U.

Figure 17 – Flow hydrograph for Wills Creek at Cambridge (USGS gage #03142000, RM 64.10) including average and normal daily air temperature (GHCND: USC00331197, in Cambridge) from May through October, 2014. Dates of sonde deployment are shown.

A subset of the sites that were sampled for chemistry were also sampled with water quality sondes deployed in-stream for typically a 24 hour period to monitor temperature, dissolved oxygen (D.O.), pH and specific conductance (conductivity). Temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH are influenced by diel (24- hour) patterns. These diel patterns have the greatest impact on streams during a critical condition that includes stable, low streamflow. Specific conductance is not influenced by the same diel triggers but is monitored because it is a strong indicator of changes in streamflow. 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

Page 46 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019 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. Two deployments occurred in the Wills Creek watershed at 33 locations (Table 3) from July 29-31, 2014, and August 26-28, 2014 (Figure 17). In 2014, weather conditions were generally cooler and wetter than normal. However, the conditions were still sufficient to describe general stream conditions. Summary plots of hourly temperature, D.O., pH, and SC measurements are in Appendix J. Sondes were deployed at all thirteen locations on the Wills Creek mainstem. Values below the average and minimum WQS for dissolved oxygen were measured at three Wills Creek sites during sonde deployments (Table 15). All three locations with low D.O. on Wills Creek were in partial attainment for aquatic life use. Below are the locations with possible sources for low D.O.:  Wills Creek (RM 68.1) downstream from Byesville is impacted by flow alteration created by a lowhead dam at RM 66.8 for the city of Cambridge’s drinking water supply. This dam pool has poor habitat (QHEI = 52) with sluggish flow and no riffles.  Wills Creek (RM 46.6) downstream from Salt Fork is just downstream from the Salt Fork Reservoir spillway. Low dissolved oxygen was also measured in Salt Fork below the spillway and could have an impact on Wills Creek during low flows. Even though the Salt Fork reservoir discharges as a top release, high algal production in the lake could result in a D.O. sag further downstream from the discharge point.  Wills Creek (RM 23.2) east of Plainfield at County Road 106 is impacted by sluggish flow and poor habitat conditions (QHEI = 49.5). There’s a heavy sediment bedload with low sinuosity, poor development and no riffles. Because Wills Creek is so low gradient, this location is seasonally impacted by the Wills Creek Lake dam which is located downstream at RM 7.2. The MWCD owns and leases large areas of land up-stream from the dam to allow for flood water storage creating lake like conditions in Wills Creek during these high-water events.

D.O. values below the minimum WQS were recorded in grab water column samples from Salt Fork downstream from the Salt Fork Reservoir at RM 0.3 and from Opossum Run at RM 0.5 (Table 14). Opossum Run receives treated sanitary wastewater from the Buffalo Hills Campground, a private 360-acre, 100 campsite facility. Monitoring data submitted by the Buffalo Hills Campground noted an NPDES permit ammonia exceedance during the summer of 2014. The facility samples ammonia quarterly, but is not required to analyze other nutrients such as total phosphorus, TKN or nitrate+nitrite. Those nutrient parameters and ammonia were elevated in Opossum Run water column samples. This loading, presumably from the campground and likely aggravated by pastured livestock, contributed to low D.O. condition.

Table 14 – 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 Wills Creek study area, 2014. Water parameters are assessed based on water quality criteria for the existing Aquatic Life Use Designations. Stream (river code) use designation a Parameter (value) — units are µg/l for iron, C° for 12‐digit temperature and mg/L for dissolved oxygen and total Station WAU b River Mile dissolved solids (TDS) Wills Creek (17‐800‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS (PWS intake at RM 66.7)

Page 47 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Stream (river code) use designation a Parameter (value) — units are µg/l for iron, C° for 12‐digit temperature and mg/L for dissolved oxygen and total Station WAU b River Mile dissolved solids (TDS) R17S06 02 07 75.90 none R17P04 02 07 68.13 none R17W13 05 04 64.10 none 611760 05 04 57.36 none R18S01 90 01 46.57 none R18S22 90 01 37.74 none 302467 90 01 31.59 none R18S21 90 01 27.04 none 302623 90 01 23.16 none 302624 90 01 18.54 Iron (5930) 611770 90 01 7.04 none R18S20 90 01 5.25 none 302625 90 01 3.05 none Buffalo Creek (17‐890‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 302610 02 04 9.20 Iron (18100) 302609 02 04 5.40 Iron (5400) R17S11 02 04 0.08 TDS (1680)* South Fork Buffalo Creek (17‐893‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 302615 02 03 2.85 Iron (23500) 302614 02 03 0.45 none North Fork Buffalo Creek (17‐891‐000) MWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 302612 02 04 0.7 Iron(12100) Buffalo Fork (17‐870‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 6.12 Iron (23700), TDS(1520,1580,2170, 1680, 2210, 2490, 2550, R17S24 02 02 2050, 2270, 1990)* 203820 02 05 2.20 TDS (1930, 1750, 2290)* R17S21 02 05 0.23 TDS (1910, 1740, 2300,2390, 2130)* Miller Creek (17‐879‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS R17S31 02 02 0.15 TDS (1650, 1560, 1790)* Collins Fork (17‐878‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS R17S18 02 02 0.18 TDS (2000, 1930, 2180)* Rannells Creek (17‐881‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS R17S33 02 02 1.06 TDS (2350, 2970, 3070, 3220)* Yoker Creek (17‐872‐000) WWH– PCR – AWS – IWS R17S28 02 01 4.73 none R17S16 02 01 0.34 Iron (9370) Seneca Fork (17‐850‐000) WWH– PCR – AWS – IWS 302653 01 01 24.80 Iron (6080) R17K16 01 05 7.43 none R17P03 01 05 2.07 none South Fork Seneca Fork (17‐859‐0000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 203816 01 03 3.30 Iron (25100) Skin Creek (North Fork Seneca Fork) (17‐860‐000) EWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 302663 01 01 1.66 Iron (15700) Glady Run (17‐858‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 302662 01 03 0.89 Iron (8380) Beaver Creek (17‐856‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 203815 01 02 2.40 Iron (5580) Opossum Run (17‐852‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS

Page 48 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Stream (river code) use designation a Parameter (value) — units are µg/l for iron, C° for 12‐digit temperature and mg/L for dissolved oxygen and total Station WAU b River Mile dissolved solids (TDS) 302661 01 05 0.5 Dissolved Oxygen (3.11)** Chapman Run (17‐817‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS R17S36 02 06 5.73 none R17K08 02 06 0.92 none Leatherwood Creek (17‐840‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS (PWS intake at RM 22.36) R17L11 03 01 23.75 Iron (9880) R17K14 03 01 20.70 Iron (19700) 302465 03 02 9.80 none R17K11 03 02 6.29 none 302537 03 02 3.40 Iron (5730) Infirmary Run (17‐843‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS R17K15 03 01 0.1 none Crooked Creek (17‐830‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS R18K08 05 02 13.25 Iron (25300) R18S08 05 03 11.15 Iron (27000) R18K06 05 03 6.28 none North Crooked Creek (17‐834‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS (PWS intake at RM 4.46) 302608 05 02 1.4 Iron (27600) Fox Creek (17‐835‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 302571 05 01 0.70 Iron (25700) Peters Creek (17‐832‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS R18P04 05 03 0.28 none Sarchett Run (17‐816‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 302636 05 04 1.60 none Salt Fork (17‐820‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 302637 04 02 32.30 Iron (7740) 203793 04 02 20.80 none 302466 04 06 0.32 Dissolved Oxygen (3.51)** Brushy Fork (17‐827‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS R18S26 04 01 3.35 none Sugartree Fork (17‐821‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS R18S13 04 05 none Clear Fork (17‐824‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS R18S30 04 03 none Rocky Fork (17‐822‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS R18S28 04 01 none Indian Camp Run (17‐821‐000) WWH– PCR – AWS – IWS 203774 04 01 3.9 none Birds Run (17‐809‐000) WWH– PCR – AWS – IWS 302654 05 06 4.30 Iron (10500) R18K03 05 07 0.17 Iron (6310) Johnson Fork (17‐810‐000) WWH– PCR – AWS – IWS 203773 05 07 1.20 none Twomile Run (17‐808‐000) WWH– PCR – AWS – IWS 302660 06 02 0.50 Iron (5640) Marlatt Run (Trib. to Wills Creek at RM 23.49) (17‐800‐008) WWH– PCR – AWS – IWS 302536 06 02 0.40 Iron (7070) Bacon Run (17‐805‐000) WWH– PCR – AWS – IWS 302634 06 01 0.01 Iron (10900)

Page 49 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Stream (river code) use designation a Parameter (value) — units are µg/l for iron, C° for 12‐digit temperature and mg/L for dissolved oxygen and total Station WAU b River Mile dissolved solids (TDS) Center Creek (17‐807‐000) WWH– PCR – AWS – IWS 302635 06 01 0.01 Iron (5260) White Eyes Creek (17‐803‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 301752 06 03 10.14 Iron (19100) 302572 06 03 4.78 Iron (16000, 7270) R18P06 06 03 0.01 Iron (16000) Brush Run (17‐804‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 302602 06 03 0.40 Iron (19900) Tributary to White Eyes Creek at RM 4.5 (17‐803‐017) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 302633 06 03 0.35 Iron (17900) a Use designations: Aquatic Life Use Water Supply Recreation WWH ‐ warmwater habitat IWS ‐ industrial water supply PCR ‐ primary contact EWH – Exceptional warmwater Habitat AWS ‐ agricultural water supply MWH – modified warmwater habitat PWS – public water supply CWH – coldwater habitat

b Watershed Assessment Unit within HUC8 05040005  Exceedance of the statewide water quality criteria for the protection of agricultural uses. * Exceedance of OMZA (outside mixing zone average) numerical criteria for prevention of chronic toxicity. ** Values below the applicable minimum D.O. criteria –CWH – 6.0 mg/l, EWH:5.0 mg/l, WWH: 4.0 mg/l, MWH: 3.0 mg/l

Table 15 – Exceedances and violations of ALU criteria (OAC 3745‐1) for chemical water quality parameters (D.O., mg/L and SC, µS/cm) based on diel monitoring in the Wills Creek watershed, 2014. Sondes were deployed at 29 locations on July 29‐31, encompassing 44‐54 hours at any site. A second deployment at 18 locations on August 26‐28 entailed 49‐55 hours. Criteria excursions were recorded at seven (below) of 33 assessed locations. Sites that were sampled during both deployments are identified. Hourly measurements were used to calculate rolling 24‐ hour averages for comparison against criteria. The duration in number of consecutive hours (h.), the magnitude shown parenthetically as the most extreme value exceeding the criterion and the type of excursion are listed. Relevant criteria are presented below. Location RM Parameter Excursion Wills Creek (2 Deployments) Co. Rd. 347 68.13 D.O.: 4 h. (3.78 mg/L) Minimum criterion violation D.O.: 18 h. (4.5 mg/L) Average criterion exceedance Twp. Rd. 365 46.57 D.O.: 2 h. (3.98 mg/L) Minimum criterion violation D.O.: 9 h. (4.8 mg/L) Average criterion exceedance Co. Rd. 106 23.16 D.O.: 14 h. (2.82 mg/L) Minimum criterion violation D.O.: 12 h. (4.0 mg/L) Average criterion exceedance Buffalo Fork (2 Deployments) Twp. Rd. 127 6.12 SC: 48 h. (2,662 µS/cm), 52 h. (2,814 µS/cm) Average criterion exceedance St. Rt. 821 0.23 SC: 28 h. (2,482 µS/cm), 3 h. (2,422 µS/cm) Average criterion exceedance Collins Fork St. Rt. 83 0.18 SC: 54 h. (2,930 µS/cm) Average criterion exceedance Rannells Creek From St. Rt. 83 1.06 SC: 55 h. (4,003 µS/cm) Average criterion exceedance

Page 50 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Table 16 – Summary statistics for select mining parameters sampled in the Wills Creek watershed, 2014. The 90th percentile values from reference sites from the Western Allegheny Plateau ecoregion is shown for comparison at the bottom of the table. Values above the reference conditions are shaded. RM is River Mile and DA is Drainage Area. Aluminum reference value is based on U.S. EPA maximum criteria. DA Al Iron Sp Cond Sulfur Mg Mn TDS Stream RM Sq Mi ug/l ug/l umhos/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l Wills Creek 75.90 280 1216.5 1888.3 1146.4 433.2 51.2 222.3 852.3 Wills Creek 68.13 293 1098.7 1651.2 1181.8 446.7 52.1 243.3 887.7 Wills Creek 64.10 406 895.1 1397.5 905.8 281.8 35.8 232.3 621.8 Wills Creek 57.36 472 1284.0 2085.0 842.4 243.8 33.3 263.8 579.0 Wills Creek 46.57 659 1209.7 2138.3 748.7 194.9 27.5 283.3 501.3 Wills Creek 37.74 672 823.7 1539.3 737.5 189.7 27.1 252.3 455.0 Wills Creek 31.59 699 961.2 1730.6 673.1 167.9 23.8 231.7 434.4 Wills Creek 27.04 738 981.5 1835.8 679.7 172.6 25.4 253.5 450.0 Wills Creek 23.16 749 1381.0 2640.0 617.2 162.0 26.0 330.7 437.3 Wills Creek 18.54 770.5 1401.5 2837.5 747.4 221.0 30.7 438.3 526.8 Wills Creek 7.04 842 704.2 1370.1 638.3 165.7 24.9 359.9 420.1 Wills Creek 5.25 849 994.5 1845.7 603.7 165.4 24.2 400.8 416.7 Wills Creek 3.05 851 966.3 1854.0 603.3 165.4 24.2 382.2 411.7 Marlatt Run 0.40 7.1 740.0 2607.5 616.5 229.1 36.1 378.5 449.5 White Eyes 10.14 16.2 2010.0 4325.8 341.8 26.0 12.5 410.0 220.4 White Eyes 4.78 35.4 1000.8 2690.6 486.0 126.9 21.0 433.2 331.1 White Eyes 0.01 43.8 1270.4 4302.0 719.3 260.6 42.5 546.8 539.2 Trib To White Eyes Cr 0.35 2.7 1303.8 4161.6 392.4 120.1 21.7 464.8 292.8 Brush Run 0.40 7.3 2002.0 4603.2 283.5 20.9 11.5 398.0 185.2 Bacon Run 0.01 14.9 1110.0 3201.5 720.1 241.0 38.3 352.3 563.0 Center Creek 0.01 6.8 534.0 1242.8 733.1 218.2 35.6 181.6 526.4 Twomile Run 0.50 2.6 567.4 1687.2 608.8 194.2 33.0 497.8 430.4 Birds Run 4.30 14.3 878.0 2790.8 401.1 42.2 12.7 291.4 254.8 Birds Run 0.17 31.1 467.9 1544.2 383.3 55.0 13.6 222.3 243.6 Johnson Fork 1.20 8.6 201.0 775.4 300.5 19.9 10.0 186.8 188.8 Indian Camp Run 3.90 11.2 281.8 1213.0 271.7 22.1 8.6 317.4 168.4 Sarchett Run 1.60 7.1 420.0 1213.8 307.2 19.9 10.1 186.6 196.4 Chapman Run 5.73 6.3 213.2 506.0 318.4 33.5 11.4 180.0 203.2 Chapman Run 0.92 16.7 439.6 995.3 508.5 73.2 15.9 204.8 312.1 Salt Fork 32.30 17.8 1497.0 2801.7 740.7 292.7 34.3 350.3 561.3 Salt Fork 20.80 45 740.7 1199.9 646.8 170.2 23.5 323.4 436.1 Salt Fork 0.32 158.3 195.1 718.3 378.0 32.2 9.5 543.0 217.6

Page 51 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

DA Al Iron Sp Cond Sulfur Mg Mn TDS Stream RM Sq Mi ug/l ug/l umhos/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l Sugartree Fork 11.05 15.4 472.4 1251.4 314.0 20.7 8.6 184.8 192.0 Rocky Fork 5.56 12.2 185.8 829.6 320.5 45.3 12.0 270.0 195.2 Clear Fork 1.83 13.7 148.0 652.6 270.7 23.2 7.8 150.4 159.2 Brushy Fork 3.35 13.6 623.0 1353.6 396.3 24.7 10.9 237.4 229.6 Crooked Creek 13.25 11.7 2860.0 5287.4 511.3 73.9 20.9 369.4 329.2 Crooked Creek 11.15 33.9 2680.0 5681.4 560.8 63.4 18.3 364.2 361.6 Crooked Creek 6.28 55 655.4 1396.3 518.4 66.1 15.6 235.1 326.0 Peters Creek 0.28 10.4 583.8 1550.0 359.5 42.7 11.9 253.6 224.0 North Crooked 1.41 16.3 2880.8 5799.0 619.1 60.9 16.8 407.2 391.2 Fox Creek 0.70 7.8 2915.0 5787.2 362.9 23.1 10.8 436.0 244.8 Leatherwood Creek 23.75 17.8 1297.4 2602.2 1108.4 498.8 58.9 615.4 892.4 Leatherwood Creek 20.70 29.5 2378.8 4511.0 984.2 418.4 53.1 562.6 763.6 Leatherwood Creek 9.80 68.5 618.1 1000.7 750.5 223.6 31.9 191.1 515.6 Leatherwood Creek 6.29 82.6 550.0 965.0 741.8 209.6 31.3 246.0 510.0 Leatherwood Creek 3.40 90 1239.8 2144.0 681.0 177.4 27.5 375.0 474.4 Infirmary Run 0.42 7.2 349.8 785.4 402.5 24.0 14.0 456.2 246.0 Seneca Fork 24.8 17.7 1030.8 1627.8 417.9 21.2 14.5 413.0 246.4 Seneca Fork 7.43 125 572.4 841.8 357.5 37.3 12.6 174.6 218.0 Seneca Fork 2.07 150 905.3 1372.0 361.6 40.5 12.9 163.3 214.9 Opossum Run 0.55 12.4 829.4 1552.4 427.3 35.6 13.8 574.6 260.4 Beaver Creek 2.40 17 1062.2 1490.8 580.1 104.3 22.5 235.0 394.8 Glady Run 0.89 8.3 1492.4 2127.4 430.2 26.2 15.5 420.6 262.0 S. Fk Seneca Fork 3.30 27.6 3762.4 5529.6 431.1 25.1 17.2 370.2 264.0 N. Fk. Seneca Fk 1.66 4.9 2638.0 3674.6 399.7 20.8 14.6 248.0 248.4 Buffalo Fork 6.12 33.6 1089.4 2069.9 2143.3 941.8 99.6 263.5 1682.6 Buffalo Fork 2.20 67 783.2 1373.0 2053.1 921.2 91.4 226.2 1619.6 Buffalo Fork 0.23 71.6 549.5 947.9 1679.9 701.5 77.3 156.6 1289.2 Yoker Creek 4.73 12.2 314.0 428.0 1047.5 412.0 57.8 127.0 806.0 Yoker Creek 0.34 23.1 742.5 1299.3 860.4 321.6 46.0 195.4 654.8 Collins Fork 0.18 22.6 710.8 1250.0 2133.6 987.4 113.4 247.4 1750.0 Miller Creek 0.15 11.9 612.4 1091.4 1815.5 904.8 122.3 261.2 1528.0 Rannells Creek 1.06 5.5 302.0 519.6 3226.6 1513.4 114.5 180.8 2564.0 Buffalo Creek 9.20 21.2 2949.6 4449.4 464.8 68.4 15.7 465.2 293.6 Buffalo Creek 5.40 35.9 1157.4 1632.8 417.0 55.1 14.3 174.2 267.6 Buffalo Creek 0.08 49.9 832.4 1257.6 580.6 116.2 19.7 152.6 369.1

Page 52 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

DA Al Iron Sp Cond Sulfur Mg Mn TDS Stream RM Sq Mi ug/l ug/l umhos/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l N. FK. Buffalo Creek 0.73 6.7 2128.8 2916.0 363.5 32.5 12.7 290.4 228.4 S. Fk Buffalo Creek 2.85 5 3327.8 5361.4 468.7 45.6 15.7 367.0 292.0

S. Fk Buffalo Creek 0.45 12.4 908.8 1259.2 511.2 87.0 17.9 292.8 336.8

90th% Reference target values Small River: 200‐1000 sq mi. 750 1982 900 269.1 34.6 1209 665 Wading: 20 ‐200 sq mi. 750 1820.0 800 241.6 25 610 570 Headwaters: < 20 sq mi. 750 1266.0 789 258.6 35 379 956.8

Nutrients, including ammonia-N (NH3-N), nitrate+nitrite-N (NO3+NO2-N), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and total phosphorus (TP), were measured at 70 sampling locations in the Wills Creek watershed. Most locations had median nutrient values well below the WAP ecoregion reference condition (Table 17). A few areas had elevated nutrients, most likely due to point source discharges of sanitary wastewater or runoff from agricultural areas. Excess nutrients are causing harmful algal blooms (HABs) throughout the state and tributaries to the Ohio River are contributing to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Many states as well as Ohio are working with USEPA on nutrient reduction strategies to reduce or prevent HABs and Gulf Hypoxia. The highest nitrite+nitrite-N values were in the North Crooked Creek downstream from the New Concord wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Monthly Operating Report data from the facility for 2014 had values ranging from 13.3 to 20.9 mg/l. Compliance sampling by Ohio EPA on May 13, also documented elevated Nitrate+nitrite-N. concentrations (17.9 mg/l) from the New Concord WWTP outfall 001 discharge to North Crooked Creek. There are currently no NPDES permit limit requirements for nitrate+nitrite-N in Ohio. Nitrate+nitrite-N values were also elevated in Bacon Run and Center Creek near the town of Plainfield. Plainfield is an unsewered community so it’s possible that untreated sewage is being discharged to Bacon Run or Wills Creek. There is a significant amount of row crops and pasture land upstream which could be contributing to nutrient runoff to both Center Creek and Bacon Run. Several farm fields totaling 193.8 acres just north of Plainfield are permitted to receive sewage sludge from the West Lafayette WWTP (Figure 18). One of the fields is adjacent to Bacon Run and could be contributing nutrients if runoff is occurring during rain events. Figure 18 – Ohio EPA permitted biosolid, sewage sludge disposal fields in pink totaling 193.8 acres near Plainfield, 2014.

Page 53 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Table 17 ‐ Average selected nutrient concentrations in the Wills Creek watershed, 2014. Values greater than the 90th percentile of WAP ecoregion reference sites are shaded.

Stream RM Drainage NH3‐N NO3+NO2‐N TKN TP area (Mi2) mg/L mg/L mg/Ll Mg/L Wills Creek 75.9 280.0 0.03 0.19 0.28 0.04 Wills Creek 68.1 293.0 0.04 0.23 0.31 0.10 Wills Creek 64.1 406.0 0.04 0.23 0.35 0.06 Wills Creek 57.4 472.0 0.04 0.56 0.32 0.13 Wills Creek 46.6 659.0 0.04 0.42 0.31 0.06 Wills Creek 37.7 672.0 0.03 0.36 0.32 0.04 Wills Creek 31.6 699.0 0.04 0.80 0.32 0.04 Wills Creek 27.0 738.0 0.03 0.31 0.29 0.03 Wills Creek 23.2 749.0 0.03 0.32 0.30 0.05 Wills Creek 18.5 770.5 0.03 0.74 0.34 0.05 Wills Creek 7.0 842.0 0.06 0.29 0.39 0.03 Wills Creek 5.3 849.0 0.06 0.33 0.34 0.04 Wills Creek 3.1 851.0 0.07 0.39 0.62 0.04 Buffalo Creek 9.2 21.2 0.03 0.14 0.30 0.05 Buffalo Creek 5.4 35.9 0.03 0.14 0.30 0.03 Buffalo Creek 0.1 49.9 0.03 0.21 0.34 0.02 S. Fk Buffalo Creek 2.9 5.0 0.08 0.37 0.43 0.07 S. Fk Buffalo Creek 0.5 12.4 0.05 0.10 0.26 0.02 N. FK Buffalo Creek 0.7 6.7 0.06 0.10 0.37 0.06 Buffalo Fork 6.1 33.6 0.03 0.17 0.34 0.06 Buffalo Fork 2.2 67.0 0.03 0.09 0.29 0.03 Buffalo Fork 0.2 71.6 0.03 0.17 0.31 0.02 Miller Creek 0.2 11.9 0.03 0.11 0.42 0.03 Collins Fork 0.2 22.6 0.03 0.09 0.21 0.02 Rannells Creek 1.1 5.5 0.03 0.09 0.21 0.02 Yoker Creek 4.7 12.2 0.03 0.14 0.24 0.02 Yoker Creek 0.3 23.1 0.03 0.15 0.44 0.03 Seneca Fork 24.8 17.7 0.40 0.15 0.70 0.04 Seneca Fork 7.4 125.0 0.04 0.09 0.35 0.03 Seneca Fork 2.1 150.0 0.03 0.09 0.34 0.03 S. Fk Seneca Fk 3.3 27.6 0.04 0.14 0.23 0.10 Skin Creek 1.7 4.9 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.06 Glady Run 0.9 8.3 0.06 0.11 0.24 0.08 Beaver Creek 2.4 17.0 0.04 0.10 0.30 0.04 Opossum Run 0.6 12.4 0.10 0.18 0.52 0.45 Leatherwood Creek 23.8 17.8 0.03 0.12 0.29 0.03 Leatherwood Creek 20.7 29.5 0.04 0.19 0.36 0.06 Leatherwood Creek 9.8 68.5 0.05 0.40 0.37 0.03 Leatherwood Creek 6.3 82.6 0.03 0.26 0.31 0.02 Leatherwood Creek 3.4 90.0 0.04 0.24 0.36 0.04 Infirmary Run 0.4 7.2 0.04 0.19 0.50 0.03 Chapman Run 5.7 6.3 0.03 0.08 0.28 0.02 Chapman Run 0.9 16.7 0.03 0.13 0.29 0.03 Crooked Creek 13.3 11.7 0.03 0.34 0.32 0.08 Crooked Creek 11.2 33.9 0.03 1.28 0.50 0.10 Crooked Creek 6.3 55.0 0.04 0.60 0.36 0.03 N. Crooked Creek 1.4 16.3 0.03 3.67 0.36 0.16 Fox Creek 0.7 7.8 0.04 0.49 0.32 0.09 Peters Creek 0.3 10.4 0.03 0.28 0.18 0.03

Page 54 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Stream RM Drainage NH3‐N NO3+NO2‐N TKN TP area (Mi2) mg/L mg/L mg/Ll Mg/L Sarchett Run 1.6 7.1 0.03 0.29 0.20 0.02 Salt Fork 32.3 17.8 0.03 0.17 0.22 0.03 Salt Fork 20.8 45.0 0.03 0.29 0.35 0.03 Salt Fork 0.3 158.3 0.16 0.16 0.47 0.01 Brushy Fork 3.4 13.6 0.03 0.25 0.32 0.03 Sugartree Fork 11.1 15.4 0.04 0.37 0.30 0.03 Clear Fork 1.8 13.7 0.03 0.23 0.12 0.01 Rocky Fork 5.6 12.2 0.03 0.17 0.18 0.02 Indian Camp Run 3.9 11.2 0.03 0.34 0.24 0.02 Birds Run 4.3 14.3 0.03 0.36 0.17 0.02 Birds Run 0.2 31.1 0.04 0.31 0.23 0.02 Johnson Fork 1.2 8.6 0.05 0.20 0.23 0.01 Twomile Run 0.5 2.6 0.03 0.10 0.25 0.02 Marlatt Run 0.4 7.1 0.03 0.11 0.19 0.02 Bacon Run 0.0 14.9 0.03 2.14 0.24 0.05 Center Ck 0.0 6.8 0.03 2.16 0.38 0.03 White Eyes Creek 10.1 16.2 0.07 0.41 0.31 0.05 White Eyes Creek 4.8 35.4 0.06 0.42 0.33 0.03 White Eyes Creek 0.0 43.8 0.07 0.42 0.50 0.04 Brush Run 0.4 7.3 0.05 0.27 0.24 0.05 White Eyes Creek Trib @ RM 0.4 2.7 0.03 0.24 0.13 0.22 4.50 90th% Reference target values Small River: 200‐1000 sq mi. 0.174 1.462 0.7 0.16 Wading: 20 ‐200 sq mi. 0.06 1.054 0.6 0.11 Headwaters: < 20 sq mi. 0.06 0.606 0.5 0.09

Ohio EPA conducted a biological and chemical survey of Chapman Run in 1994 near the former Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (now called AMG Vanadium) and determined that the biological communities were in non-attainment for Warmwater Habitat (WWH) due to many factors including contaminants from the Shieldalloy site (Ohio EPA, 1995). Improvements occurred in Chapman Run in 2014 with the upstream site (RM 5.73) meeting WWH, and the lower site partially meeting (RM 0.92). Habitat scores also improved from 2004 to 2014. During the 2014 survey, Chapman Run was sampled for vanadium and all results were below the method detection limit of 50 ug/l. Additionally, there were no water quality exceedances at either location of Chapman Run (Table 14). Mining and nutrient parameters were below reference condition at both locations as well (Table 16 and Table 17). AMG Vanadium monitoring data showed a significant increase in the amount of vanadium being discharged from outfall 001 in 2015 and 2016 (Appendix Table L). This has caused an increase in the concentration of vanadium in Chapman Run downstream from AMG Vanadium outfall 001 (Figure 19). Chapman Run enters Wills Creek at RM 67.18 just upstream from the primary water treatment plant intake for the city of Cambridge.

Page 55 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Figure 19 – eDMR average and maximum vanadium concentrations in Chapman Run downstream from outfall 001 submitted by AMG Vanadium, 2002 ‐ 2016.

Sediment Surficial sediment samples were collected at 15 locations in the Wills Creek study area between July 21 and October 15, 2014 (Table 18 ). Sampling locations were co-located with biological sampling sites. Sediment samples were conservatively sampled by focusing on depositional areas of fine grain material (silts and clays). These areas typically are represented by higher contaminant levels than coarse sands and gravels. Fine grained depositional areas were not a predominant substrate type at the sites; however, fine substrates were common along the stream margins. A hierarchy of guidelines is used to evaluate organic compound results. Sediment organic samples were evaluated using the MacDonald Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQG) (2000). MacDonald SQGs are consensus- based sediment guidelines designed to evaluate eco-toxic effects. These guidelines define two levels of ecotoxic effects. A Threshold Effect Concentration (TEC) is a level of sediment chemical quality below which harmful effects are unlikely to be observed. A Probable Effect Concentration (PEC) indicates a level above which harmful effects are likely to be observed. The RCRA ESL evaluates the lesser contaminated sediment results to determine if the level of contamination meets or exceeds the protective benchmark. Ohio Specific Sediment Reference Values (SRVs) were developed as guidelines by Ohio EPA to identify representative background sediment metal concentrations for lotic waterbodies (Ohio EPA 2010, Ohio EPA 2003). Sediment samples were collected from reference sites throughout the state. These reference sites have been used historically to develop biological criteria and were selected as being representative of the least impacted conditions in the watershed. SRVs are site-specific background metal concentrations based on ecoregion and identify whether a site has been contaminated. SRVs are not codified as criteria in the Ohio Water Quality Standards. Sediment metal samples were evaluated using both the Ohio SRV and the MacDonald SQG. Samples were analyzed for total analyte list inorganics (metals), volatile organic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds, PCBs and total petroleum hydrocarbons. The specific chemical parameters that were tested

Page 56 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

and their results are listed in Appendix I. Sediment metals exceeding the MacDonald TEC or PEC (adverse effects usually or always occur) are referenced in Table 18. Sites assessed in the Wills Creek study area did not have significant sediment contamination. Wills Creek in Cambridge at South 9th St., CR 513 (RM 64.10), and Buffalo Creek at Pleasant City, SR 146, West Main St. (RM 0.8), highest metal concentration for sediment in the watershed. Both sites had levels above the TEC but below the PEC for nickel and zinc. Wills Creek had levels above the TEC but below the PEC for lead while Buffalo Creek had levels above the TEC but below the PEC for arsenic. The higher levels in Wills Creek in Cambridge could be attributed to an urban area influence because heavy metals are common contaminants of vehicular emissions, asphalt pavement and their use in industrial processes. The only site that had a metal (nickel) concentration above the PEC was Chapman Run (RM 0.95) downstream of AMG Vanadium. All sediment metals sampled were below Ohio Sediment Reference Values.

Page 57 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Table 18 — Sediment concentrations (mg/kg dry weight) at selected Wills Creek study area sites, 2014. Results less than Threshold Effect Concentrations (TEC, in italics after parameter) are unlikely to be harmful (MacDonald, et.al 2000). Italicized results highlighted in gray exceed the TEC. Results exceeding the Probable Effect Concentration (PEC, in bold after parameters) appear in bold with gray shade.

White Eyes Creek RM 4.75 TR 173 Buffalo Creek RM0.08 SR 146 Buffalo Fork RM 6.12 TR 127 Buffalo Fork RM 1.00 SR 821 Yoker Creek RM 0.34 TR 127 Seneca Fork RM 2.07 CR 25 Leatherwood Creek RM 9.80 CR 546 Chapman Run RM 0.95 From TR4371 Crooked Creek RM 6.28 CR 340a Salt Fork RM 20.80 CR 73 Salt Fork RM 0.32 TR 384 Birds Run RM 0.17 SR 541 Parameter Wills Creek RM 64.10 CR 513 Wills Creek RM 31.59 SR 658 Wills Creek RM 7.04 CR 497 Aluminum 15,100 6,640 7,220 15,300 10,800 10,800 10,700 12,700 8,100 10,600 10,100 13,200 7,120 5,300 6,840 Ammonia 570 72 55 170 47 110 97 73 95 130 99 130 200 66 140 Arsenic 8.72 7.96 4.86 12.9 7.94 8.09 8.94 12.8 7.18 10.1 7.73 5.54 15.4 4.42 6.85 9.79, 33.0 Barium 173 94.3 83.6 191 121 118 132 176 116 106 128 138 260 72.1 72.2 Cadmium 0.744 0.503 0.336 0.606 0.555 0.5 0.454 0.514 0.497 0.608 0.521 0.583 0.406 0.306 0.316 0.99, 4.98 Calcium 14,300 2,730 1,140 7,020 12,200 11,800 9,100 4,060 4,750 11,100 8,100 3,650 3,410 1,930 2,340 Chromium 19.7 11.5 10.7 25.5 12.2 14.2 16.1 15.7 11.9 27.9 16.7 16.3 11.9 8.69 10.5 43.4, 111 Copper 25 12.2 9.05 20.5 15.6 14.3 13.9 16.7 12.6 16.9 15 15 13.1 9.80 10.2 31.6, 149 Iron 32,300 22,900 18,400 39,700 24,700 24,800 26,100 32,600 22,800 29,200 26,600 26,300 33,900 17,700 21,000 Lead 51.7 17.4 9.33 30.7 15.9 20 17.1 22.5 15.6 26.8 24.8 16.5 18.1 10.6 10.8 35.8, 128 Magnesium 6,250 2,290 1,880 4,100 3,860 3,770 3,550 3,180 2,230 5,060 3,820 3,180 2,120 1,730 2,050 Manganese 2,390 1,090 468 2,250 1,060 1,920 1,450 1,470 1,490 1,250 1,310 1,150 2,910 588 782 Nickel 29.1 17 14.3 26.6 23.8 23.1 21.8 20.2 21.2 53.7 19.7 23.6 17.7 12.7 15.3 22.7, 48.6 Phosphorus 951 705 367 808 723 715 813 878 559 859 743 681 805 445 453 Potassium ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Selenium ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Sodium ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Strontium 89 ND 16 47 111 89 45 31 29 51 36 26 29 ND ND Zinc 144 81.8 50.9 127 91.9 78.9 70.7 75.3 67.9 127 112 89.6 80.3 55.3 57.2 121, 459

Page 58 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Physical Habitat for Aquatic Life Stream habitat conditions were assessed at fish sampling locations in the Wills Creek watershed study area during 2014 (Table 19). Thirteen of these stations were located on Wills Creek. where QHEI scores ranged from fair to excellent (47.5 to 78.5). An additional site was sampled at the L-2 station of Wills Creek Lake and scored 52 for QHEI at RM 10.9. The average QHEI score for all Wills Creek sites was 62.1 which is a tremendous improvement from previous surveys when scores were mostly in the poor to fair range (Figure 20). Habitat during the 1994 survey was very limited primarily due to heavy sedimentation of the substrates with an average QHEI score of 44.9. Sedimentation is still limiting habitat in the mainstem, but reclamation of mineland and improved agricultural practices has greatly reduced the amount of sediment contribution to Wills Creek. The lowest habitat scores in the fair range (<60) on the mainstem of Wills Creek were associated with dams on Wills Creek at RM 66.8 and the Wills Creek reservoir at RM 7.22. These locations affected by the dam pools have a heavy sediment bedload with embedded substrates, very sluggish flow and no riffle habitat. Dams or impoundment have an impact on both habitat and the biological community by replacing a free-flowing (lotic) stream that contains pool, riffle and run complexes to an artificial lake-like (lentic) condition with sluggish flows and deep pools (Rice, et al., 2019). Impoundments also affect the water quality by increasing water temperature, decreasing dissolved oxygen and reducing the assimilative capacity of pollutants.

Figure 20 — Longitudinal performance of the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) in Wills Creek, 1984‐2014.

A total of 44 Wills Creek tributaries at 68 locations were assessed for habitat quality. Seven locations (10%) had excellent habitat (QHEI>70), 18 locations (26 %) had good habitat (QHEI 60-70), 34 locations (50%) had fair habitat (QHEI 45-60) and nine locations (13%) had poor habitat(QHEI<45) (Table 19). Tributaries to Salt Fork had the highest average QHEI scores ranging from good to excellent (65-75.5) which is a significant improvement since the 1994 survey when the average Salt Fork Tributary scores were 45.9 (OEPA, 1995). Only two tributaries in the Wills Creek watershed are designated EWH including Skin Creek (North Fork Seneca Fork), which had the highest overall QHEI score of 83.5, and Turkey Run in the Salt Fork sub-watershed. The Buffalo Creek and Buffalo Fork sub-watersheds had the lowest average QHEI score (49.6) and the North Fork of Buffalo Creek had the lowest overall score of 29.5

Page 59 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Table 19 — QHEI matrix with WWH and MWH attribute totals and ratios for the Wills Creek study area, 2014. Key QHEI WWH Attributes MWH Attributes types High Influence Moderate Influence +1)/ (WWH+1) Ratio +1)/ (WWH+1) Ratio ence MWH Attributes ce MWH Attributes (MWH High Influence (MWH Mod. Influence RM QHEI No Channelization or Recovered Boulder/Cobble/Gravel Substrates Silt Free Substrates Good/Excellent Development Moderate/High Sinuosity Extensive/Moderate Cover Fast Current/Eddies Low Normal Overall Embeddedness Maximum Depth > 40 cm Low Normal Riffle Embeddedness Total WWH Attributes Channelized or No Recovery Silt Muck Substrates No Sinuosity Sparse No Cover Maximum Depth < 40 cm (Wade, HW) Total High Influen Recovering Channel Heavy/Moderate Silt Cover Sand Substrates (Boat) Hardpan Substrate Origin Fair Poor Development Low Sinuosity Only 1‐2 Cover Types Intermittent and Poor Pools No Fast Current High/Moderate Overall Embeddedness High/Moderate Riffle Embeddedness No Riffle Total Moderate Influ Wills Creek 76.2 47.5 □ □ □ □ 4 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.40 1.60 69.3 51.8 □ □ □ □ □ 5 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.17 1.17 63.5 63.0 □ □ □ □ □ 5 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.17 1.17 57.3 69.0 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.13 0.88 46.6 60.0 □ □ □ □ □ 4 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.20 1.60 37.8 68.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ 4 0.13 0.75 31.6 59.8 □ □ □ □ 4 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.20 1.60 27.0 74.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 8 0 ○ ○ 2 0.11 0.44 23.2 49.5 □ □ □ □ 4 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.40 1.60 18.3 50.0 □ □ □ □ 4 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.40 1.60 10.9 56.0 □ □ □ □ 4 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.40 1.60 6.9 78.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 8 0 ○ ○ ○ 3 0.11 0.56 5.5 75.8 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 8 0 ○ ○ 2 0.11 0.44 3.1 59.3 □ □ □ □ 4 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.20 1.60 Buffalo Creek 11.1 41.0 □ □ 2 ◊ ◊ 2 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 1.33 2.67 9.2 57.5 □ □ □ □ 4 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.20 1.40 5.4 56.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ 6 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.14 0.86 0.2 49.0 □ □ □ □ □ 5 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.17 1.00 South Fork Buffalo Creek 2.1 49.8 □ □ □ 3 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.50 2.00 0.5 60.3 □ □ □ □ 4 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.20 1.40 Little Buffalo Creek 0.3 50.0 □ □ □ 3 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.50 1.75 North Fork Buffalo Creek 0.7 29.5 0 ◊ ◊ 2 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 7 4.00 8.00 Buffalo Fork 6.1 45.5 □ 1 ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 4 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 2.50 3.50 2.2 48.0 □ □ □ 3 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.50 2.00 0.2 49.0 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.25 0.75 Miller Creek 0.2 47.0 □ □ □ □ 4 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 7 0.40 1.60 Collins Fork 0.2 58.0 □ □ 2 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.14 0.86

Page 60 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Key QHEI WWH Attributes MWH Attributes types High Influence Moderate Influence +1)/ (WWH+1) Ratio +1)/ (WWH+1) Ratio ence MWH Attributes ce MWH Attributes

RM QHEI No Channelization or Recovered Boulder/Cobble/Gravel Substrates Silt Free Substrates Good/Excellent Development Moderate/High Sinuosity Extensive/Moderate Cover Fast Current/Eddies Low Normal Overall Embeddedness Maximum Depth > 40 cm Low Normal Riffle Embeddedness Total WWH Attributes Channelized or No Recovery Silt Muck Substrates No Sinuosity Sparse No Cover Maximum Depth < 40 cm (Wade, HW) Total High Influen Recovering Channel Heavy/Moderate Silt Cover Sand Substrates (Boat) Hardpan Substrate Origin Fair Poor Development Low Sinuosity Only 1‐2 Cover Types Intermittent and Poor Pools No Fast Current High/Moderate Overall Embeddedness High/Moderate Riffle Embeddedness No Riffle Total Moderate Influ (MWH High Influence (MWH Mod. Influence Rannells Creek 1.0 40.0 □ □ □ 3 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 7 0.50 2.00 Yorker Creek 0.4 63.0 □ □ □ □ □ □ 6 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ 4 0.14 0.86 Seneca Fork 24.8 75.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 8 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.11 0.78 7.3 51.3 □ □ □ □ 4 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.40 1.40 2.1 49.0 □ □ □ □ 4 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.20 1.20 South Fork Seneca Fork 3.3 57.0 □ □ □ □ 4 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 7 0.60 1.60 Skin Creek (North Fork Seneca Fork) 1.7 83.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 8 0 ○ ○ ○ 3 0.11 0.44 Glady Run 0.9 56.3 □ □ □ □ 4 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 8 0.60 2.00 Beaver Creek 2.4 56.5 □ □ □ 3 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 7 0.50 2.00 Opossum Run 0.7 44.0 □ □ □ 3 ◊ ◊ 2 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.75 1.50 Chapman Run 5.2 73.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ 4 0.13 0.63 0.9 44.5 □ □ 2 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 7 1.00 2.67 Leatherwood Creek 23.8 66.5 □ □ □ □ □ 5 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.17 1.00 20.7 52.8 □ □ □ □ □ 5 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 7 0.17 1.50 9.8 64.0 □ □ □ □ □ 5 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.33 1.17 6.3 46.0 □ □ □ □ 4 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.40 1.20 3.3 40.5 □ 1 ◊ ◊ ◊ 3 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 2.50 3.50 Shannon Run 0.1 68.0 □ □ □ □ □ □ 6 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ 4 0.14 0.71 Infirmary Run 0.5 44.3 □ □ □ □ 4 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 7 0.40 1.60 Crooked Creek 13.3 60.3 □ □ □ 4 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 7 0.20 1.80 11.2 49.0 □ □ 2 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 8 0.67 3.33 6.3 62.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ 6 0 ○ ○ ○ 3 0.14 0.71 Dare Run (dry in 2014, evaluated in 2015) 0.7 38.0 □ □ □ 3 ◊ ◊ 2 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.75 1.75

Page 61 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Key QHEI WWH Attributes MWH Attributes types High Influence Moderate Influence +1)/ (WWH+1) Ratio +1)/ (WWH+1) Ratio ence MWH Attributes ce MWH Attributes

RM QHEI No Channelization or Recovered Boulder/Cobble/Gravel Substrates Silt Free Substrates Good/Excellent Development Moderate/High Sinuosity Extensive/Moderate Cover Fast Current/Eddies Low Normal Overall Embeddedness Maximum Depth > 40 cm Low Normal Riffle Embeddedness Total WWH Attributes Channelized or No Recovery Silt Muck Substrates No Sinuosity Sparse No Cover Maximum Depth < 40 cm (Wade, HW) Total High Influen Recovering Channel Heavy/Moderate Silt Cover Sand Substrates (Boat) Hardpan Substrate Origin Fair Poor Development Low Sinuosity Only 1‐2 Cover Types Intermittent and Poor Pools No Fast Current High/Moderate Overall Embeddedness High/Moderate Riffle Embeddedness No Riffle Total Moderate Influ (MWH High Influence (MWH Mod. Influence North Crooked Creek 1.3 51.5 □ □ □ □ □ 5 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.33 1.17 Fox Creek 1.0 53.3 □ □ □ □ □ 5 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 8 0.17 1.67 0.7 63.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ 6 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.14 1.00 Peters Creek 3.0 57.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ 6 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.29 1.14 0.3 65.3 □ □ □ □ 4 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.60 1.60 Bobs Run 0.1 55.0 □ □ □ □ □ 5 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.33 1.17 Jackson Run 0.1 45.5 □ □ □ 3 ◊ ◊ 2 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.75 1.75 Sarchett Run 1.6 59.0 □ □ □ □ □ 5 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.33 1.33 Salt Fork 32.4 65.0 □ □ □ □ □ □ 6 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ 4 0.29 0.71 20.8 46.5 □ □ 2 ◊ ◊ 2 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 1.00 2.33 0.2 60.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ 6 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.14 0.86 Brushy Fork 3.4 65.0 □ □ □ □ □ □ 6 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 7 0.43 1.29 Turkey Run 1.2 75.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 8 0 ○ 1 0.11 0.22 Sugartree Fork 11.1 77.0 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 8 0 ○ ○ 2 0.11 0.44 Clear Fork 3.0 74.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7 0 ○ 1 0.13 0.38 Rocky Fork 5.6 59.0 □ □ □ □ □ 5 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ 4 0.17 1.00 Indian Camp Run 3.9 74.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7 0 ○ 1 0.13 0.38 Wills Creek Tributary @ RM 34.43 0.5 53.0 □ □ □ 3 ◊ ◊ 2 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.75 1.75 Birds Run 4.3 57.8 □ □ □ □ 4 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ 3 0.60 1.00 0.2 47.5 □ 1 ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ 4 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 2.50 3.50 Johnson Fork 1.2 63.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ 6 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.14 1.14

Page 62 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Key QHEI WWH Attributes MWH Attributes types High Influence Moderate Influence +1)/ (WWH+1) Ratio +1)/ (WWH+1) Ratio ence MWH Attributes ce MWH Attributes

RM QHEI No Channelization or Recovered Boulder/Cobble/Gravel Substrates Silt Free Substrates Good/Excellent Development Moderate/High Sinuosity Extensive/Moderate Cover Fast Current/Eddies Low Normal Overall Embeddedness Maximum Depth > 40 cm Low Normal Riffle Embeddedness Total WWH Attributes Channelized or No Recovery Silt Muck Substrates No Sinuosity Sparse No Cover Maximum Depth < 40 cm (Wade, HW) Total High Influen Recovering Channel Heavy/Moderate Silt Cover Sand Substrates (Boat) Hardpan Substrate Origin Fair Poor Development Low Sinuosity Only 1‐2 Cover Types Intermittent and Poor Pools No Fast Current High/Moderate Overall Embeddedness High/Moderate Riffle Embeddedness No Riffle Total Moderate Influ (MWH High Influence (MWH Mod. Influence Johnson Fork Tributary @ RM 1.04 0.2 51.5 □ □ □ □ □ 5 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ 4 0.33 1.00 Twomile Run 0.5 65.8 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ 4 0.25 0.75 Wills Creek Tributary @ RM 23.49 (Marlatt Run) 0.4 66.8 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 8 0 ○ ○ ○ 3 0.11 0.56 Bacon Run 1.0 63.3 □ □ □ □ 4 ◊ 1 ○ ○ 6 0.60 1.60 0.1 55.0 □ □ □ 3 ◊ 1 ○ ○ 4 0.50 1.50 White Eyes Creek 11.9 61.8 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7 0 ○ ○ ○ 3 0.13 0.63 10.2 44.8 □ 1 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 7 1.50 4.50 4.6 54.0 □ □ □ □ □ 5 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.17 1.17 0.7 58.5 □ □ □ □ □ 5 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.17 1.17 Brush Run 0.6 61.0 □ □ □ □ □ 5 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 6 0.17 1.17 White Eyes Creek Tributary @ RM 4.50 0.4 53.5 □ □ □ 3 ◊ 1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5 0.50 1.75

Fish Community A total of 47,320 fish representing 73 species and 14 hybrids were collected from the Wills Creek watershed between July and October 2014. Relative numbers and species collected per location are presented in Appendix Table D and IBI and MIwb scores are presented in Appendix Table E. Sampling locations were evaluated using the Warmwater Habitat (WWH), Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH) or Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH) biocriteria. A summary of the fish data is presented in Table 21.

Wills Creek Wills Creek mainstem sites sampled in 2014 achieved WWH bicriterion at 10 of the 13 sites evaluated (77%) with narrative scores ranging from fair to exceptional. The average IBI (38) and MIwb (9.2) for Wills Creek are reflective of a marginally good to very good biological community with eight of the 13 sites in nonsignificant departure of the WWH biocriteria.

Streams in the WAP ecoregion are typically high gradient streams draining from steep hills with narrow valleys and ridges. Wills Creek is more similar to streams in the Huron-Erie Lake Plain (HELP) ecoregion in north west Ohio which are typically low gradient with extensive clay lake deposits. The average fish

Page 63 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

scores of streams in the WAP ecoregion with a similar drainage area to Wills Creek (200 to 900 mi2) were in the exceptional range with average IBI score of 47, MIwb score of 9.6 and QHEI score of 73.5 (Table 20). Average biological and habitat scores of Wills Creek are more similar to the HELP ecoregion than the WAP.

Table 20 ‐ Average Wills Creek mainstem biological and habitat scores compared to streams with a drainage area between 200 to 900 square miles from all the ecoregions of Ohio. Blue shading is exceptional, green is good and yellow is fair. Ecoregion IBI MIwb ICI QHEI Count ECBP 50 9.9 45 76.6 154 IP 48 9.6 46 77.3 31 WAP 47 9.6 43 73.5 79 EOLP 41 8.8 36 70.9 119 HELP 39 9.0 38 57.3 63 Wills Creek (WAP) 38 9.2 38 62.1 13

The Wills Creek Dam, Salt Fork Lake and Senecaville Lake are significant barriers to fish movement in the basin. Among 53 fish species collected upstream from the Salt Fork dam, redside dace and mottled sculpin were only present in Turkey Run. Stable populations of southern redbelly dace were present in Turkey Run and Skin Creek. Individuals were also collected in Bobs, Glady and Sarchett runs and in Little Buffalo Creek. In 2014, Ohio EPA collected 52 species at three mainstem sites downstream from the Wills Creek Lake dam. Nineteen of these species were not collected in the basin upstream from the dam. Because the Wills Creek Lake dam is a barrier to fish migration, at least one third of the fish species that reasonably should be expected to reside throughout the Wills Creek basin are effectively extirpated. Tributaries Fish communities at 68 sites in 44 tributaries to Wills Creek were assessed during the 2014 sampling index period. Twenty-eight of 68 locations were in non-attainment of the IBI or MIwb aquatic life use criteria ranging from poor to exceptional (Table 21). WWH fish communities are typically associated with QHEI scores of 60 or higher (Rankin, 1989). The average QHEI scores from the impaired streams was 50.7 (ranging from 29.5 to 68) and the average QHEI from the streams meeting the WWH aquatic life use was 60 (ranging from 40.5 to 83.5). While other factors could account for impairment, QHEI scores below 60 will often be the most significant cause of impairment for the fish community. In 2014, Wills Creek tributary fish communities were highlighted by exceptional performance in Turkey Run (RM 1.2, IBI=52), Leatherwood Creek (RM 9.8, IBI=51, MIwb=9.5), and White Eyes Creek (RM 11.9, IBI=50). The exclusive presence of mottled sculpin and redside dace in Turkey Run were consistent with that stream’s intact assemblage that also included least brook lamprey and southern redbelly dace. Comparably less sedimentation in Leatherwood Creek bolstered darter presence (five species) and specifically aided stonecat and brindled madtoms at RM 11.9. These pollution intolerant catfish were unusual elsewhere in the basin. With 15 fish species, including 6 minnows and 3 darters, the small drainage (4 mi2) White Eyes Creek assemblage—comprised by 35 percent lithophilic spawners and 44 percent insectivores—was also less impacted by sedimentation. Downstream, White Eyes Creek fish populations were comprised of sequentially fewer lithophilic spawners, consistent with increasing silty, embedded substrates.

Page 64 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Seneca Fork sub-basin – HUC-10 (05040005 01) Seneca Fork, Opossum Run, Beaver Creek, Glady Run, South Fork Seneca Fork, North Fork Seneca Fork Eight locations were sampled in the Seneca Fork sub-basin with three of the eight meeting the WWH fish ALU. Fish scores were poor in Opossum Run, fair in Beaver Creek, fair to marginally good in South Fork Seneca Fork, fair to very good in Seneca Fork and very good in North Fork Seneca Fork (Skin Creek) and Glady Run. Three locations were sampled on Seneca Fork. The most upstream location on Seneca Fork (RM 24.8) had an IBI score of 46 which corresponded with an excellent QHEI score of 75.5. The downstream locations on Seneca Fork (RM 7.4 and 2.1) had much lower IBI scores (32 and 35 respectively) which also corresponded with fair QHEI scores (51.2 and 49 respectively). Opossum Run had the lowest IBI (22) and lowest QHEI (44) in the Seneca Fork sub-basin and was impacted by livestock with free access to the creek. Buffalo Fork sub-basin – HUC-10 (05040005 02) Buffalo Fork, Yoker Creek, Collins Creek, Miller Creek, Rannels Creek, Buffalo Creek, North Fork Buffalo Creek, South Fork Buffalo Creek, Little Buffalo Creek, Chapman Run Seventeen sites on ten streams in the Buffalo Fork sub-basin were evaluated for fish. Seven of the 17 sites were achieving the WWH fish biocriterion with scores ranging from poor to very good. The four sites sampled on Buffalo Creek (RMs 11.0, 9.20, 5.40 and 0.08) were fair to very good with two sites meeting the ALU (RM 9.2 and 0.1) and two locations not meeting the ALU (RM 11 and 5.4). Three sites sampled on Buffalo Fork (RMs 6.12, 2.20 and 0.23) had marginally good to good IBI scores but MIwb scores were all in the fair range so all three locations were not meeting the WWH ALU for fish. Buffalo Creek and Buffalo Fork come together to form Wills Creek. The Buffalo Fork watershed was extensively surface mined by the Big Muskie dragline. The sites on Buffalo Fork had a much lower relative numbers of fish than Buffalo Creek due to mine drainage that is still impacting many of the tributaries to Buffalo Fork. Collins Fork, Rannells Creek, Miller Creek and Yoker Creek are tributaries to Buffalo Fork. Collins Fork and Rannells Creek are impacted by mine drainage with fish scores ranging from fair to very good. Miller Creek had marginally good fish scores and Yoker Creek had good to very good fish scores. Tributaries to Buffalo Creek include South Fork Buffalo Creek, Little Buffalo Creek and North Fork Buffalo Creek. The average QHEI score in the Buffalo Creek watershed was 43 and ranged from 29.5 to 60.3. North fork Buffalo Creek had a fair fish community which corresponded with the lowest QHEI score in the entire Wills Creek watershed (29.5). The fish community in the South Fork of Buffalo Creek was fair at RM 2.9 and marginally good at RM 0.5. The fish community in Little Buffalo Creek was marginally good. Chapman Run had a marginally good fish community at RM 5.7 and an exceptional QHEI score of 73.5. The lower site on Chapman run was fair with a QHEI score of 44.5. Leatherwood Creek sub-basin – HUC-10 (05040005 03) Leatherwood Creek, Infirmary Run, Shannon Run Six of the seven sites on three streams in the Leatherwood Creek sub-basin were meeting the WWH fish biocriterion. Fish scores were fair at Shannon Run, marginally good at Infirmary Run and good to exceptional on Leatherwood Creek. Longear sunfish, smallmouth bass and northern hogsuckers are moderately intolerant of water pollution. An increasing abundance of these fish in Leatherwood Creek are evidence of improving water quality. Salt Fork sub-basin – HUC-10 (05040005 04) Salt Fork, Sugartree Fork, Rocky Fork, Clear Fork, Turkey Run, Brushy Run Six streams at eight sites were evaluated in the Salt Fork sub-basin. Clear Fork and Rocky Fork both scored marginally good. The Salt Fork mainstem was good in the headwaters at RM 32.3 but only fair at RM 20.8 due to poor habitat (QHEI = 46.5). The Salt Fork site at the mouth just below the Salt Fork dam spillway

Page 65 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

scored good for the MIwb but was only fair for the IBI. The highest scoring streams in the Salt Fork sub- basin included Turkey Run which scored exceptional and Sugartree Fork which scored very good. Turkey Run had coldwater fish taxa including mottled sculpin, southern redbelly dace and redside dace. Turkey Run is the only watershed sampled in Wills Creek with a known population of redside dace. Crooked Creek sub-basin – HUC-10 (05040005 05) Crooked Creek, Jackson Run, Peters Creek, Bobs Run, North Crooked Creek, Fox Creek, Dare Run, Trib. To Wills Creek (RM 34.43), Birds Run, Johnson Fork, Trib to Johnson Fork, Indian Camp Run, Sarchett Run Crooked Creek sub-basin fish communities were evaluated at 18 sites among 13 streams and ranged from fair to very good. Crooked Creek had very good to marginally good fish communities at the upper and lower site (RM 13.3 and RM 6.3) but was only fair to marginally good at RM 11.2 due to poor habitat (QHEI=49). Birds Run had a very good fish community at the upper location (RM 4.2) but dropped to fair at the lower site (RM 0.2) which correlated with a lower QHEI score of 47.5. This lower section of Birds Run as well as the Tributary to Wills Creek (RM 34.43) is periodically impounded by the Wills Creek Lake when extra water is being stored in the reservoir which alters the habitat and increases sedimentation. Dare Run fish assemblage failed to achieve the WWH biocriterion due to habitat impacts which included channelization and unrestricted cattle access causing excessive sedimentation and siltation. Johnson Fork tributary, Jackson Run, Wills Creek tributary (RM 34.43) and the upper Fox Creek (RM 1.0) also had fair fish communities due to poor habitat conditions with QHEI scores ranging from 45.5 to 53.3. The fish community at the lower site on Fox Creek (RM 0.7) was very good due to improved habitat (QHEI = 63.5). Marginally good to very good fish communities were found in North Crooked Creek, Peters Creek, Bobs Run, Sarchett Run, Indian Camp Run and Johnson Fork. White Eyes Creek sub-basin – HUC-10 (05040005 06) White Eyes Creek, Marlatt Run, Trib to White Eyes Creek, Brush Run, Bacon Run, Twomile Run Ten White Eyes Creek sub-basin fish communities were evaluated among six streams. White Eyes Creek had marginally good to exceptional fish communities. The tributary to White Eyes Creek at RM 4.5 had marginally good fish communities. Brush Run had fair fish communities and is most likely impacted by sedimentation from riparian removal and unrestricted livestock access to the creek. Bacon Run had poor to fair fish communities. The hillsides surrounding Bacon Run have been historically mined so it’s possible that mine drainage and sedimentation is impacting Bacon Run. Farming activity is intensive in this area and many of the tributaries to Bacon have been channelized which could also account for the heavy sediment bedload. High nitrate+nitrite-N from land application of sewage sludge was also present in water samples from Bacon Run. Bacon Run is periodically impounded by Wills Creek Lake when extra water is being stored in the reservoir, so this is another source of altered habitat and sediment bedload. Twomile Run also had a fair fish community but habitat was in the good range (QHEI = 65.8). This sub-watershed has been extensively mined but much of the recent mining avoided direct impacts to the headwater streams in Twomile Run. The fish community in Twomile Creek is diverse with 18 species of fish including several typical of low gradient streams such as tout-perch, warmouth sunfish and several other sunfish species (largemouth bass, green sunfish and bluegill sunfish). Although the fish community was not meeting the biological criteria for WWH, it’s possible that Twomile Creek is periodically impounded by the Wills Creek Lake similar to Birds Run, Bacon Run and the unnamed tributary to Wills Creek (RM34.43).

Page 66 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Figure 21 – Fish community performance in the Wills Creek basin, 2014.

Page 67 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Table 21 – Summary of fish community data based on pulsed D.C. electrofishing samples collected in the Wills Creek study area, 2014. Total including non‐native species is cumulative where multiple samples were obtained. Relative number or weight (kg) is normalized to 300‐meter sampling distances for wading or 1000 meters for boat sites. Weights are not recorded and the Modified Index of well‐being is not applicable at headwater locations. . If the narrative evaluation column contains one narrative score, it applies to both the IBI and MIwb. If it contains two narrative scores, the first applies to the MIwb and the second to the IBI.

Total Relative Number/ Relative Narrative Stream mi2 Species less tolerant Weight QHEI MIwb IBI Evaluation RM Predominant species (percent of catch) Wills Creek 75.9B 280.0 20 238/ 208 139.1 47.5 8.7 43 Good golden redhorse (33%), silver redhorse (14%), spotfin shiner (13%) 68.1B 293.0 17 168/ 138 116.6 51.8 8.3ns 37ns M Good golden redhorse (27%), common carp (15%), quillback & channel catfish (11%) 64.1B 406.0 28 219/ 177 137.2 63.0 8.9 39ns Good/M Good silver redhorse (13%), common carp (12%), golden redhorse (10%) 57.4B 472.0 25 342/ 277 147.2 69.0 8.9 38ns Good/M Good spotfin shiner (22%), bluntnose minnow & golden redhorse (11%) 46.6B 659.0 18 330/ 269 155.7 60.0 8.3ns 30* M Good/Fair spotfin shiner (40%), bluntnose minnow (10%), common carp (9%) 37.7B 672.0 19 417/ 350 190.3 68.5 9.0 35* Good/Fair spotfin shiner (27%), bluegill sunfish (13%), common carp (8%) 31.6B 699.0 24 444/ 408 218.8 59.8 9.6 43 Except./Good spotfin shiner (18%), silver redhorse (13%), golden redhorse & gizzard shad (11%) 27.0B 738.0 22 460/ 400 223.1 74.5 8.8 37ns Good/M Good spotfin shiner (29%), bluegill sunfish (17%), gizzard shad (10%) 23.2B 749.0 20 378/ 324 173.4 49.5 8.1ns 33* M Good/Fair bluegill sunfish (32%), spotfin shiner (20%), common carp & gizzard shad (12%) 18.5B 770.0 22 484/ 398 211.0 50.0 8.5ns 36ns M Good bluegill sunfish (30%), common carp (14%), gizzard shad (13%), spotfin shiner (11%) 7.0 B 842.0 37 1311/ 1141 420.1 78.5 11.1 38ns Except./M Good gizzard shad (36%), bluegill sunfish (9%), bluntnose minnow (6%) 5.3B 849.0 42 691/ 600 339.0 75.8 10.9 45 Except./V Good gizzard shad (16%), silver redhorse (9%), channel catfish & spotted bass (8%) 3.1B 851.0 28 556/ 505 262.2 59.3 10.0 42 Except./Good gizzard shad (16%), silver redhorse (15%), golden redhorse (9%) Buffalo Creek 11.0 5.7 15 1518/ 738 ‐ 41.0 ‐ 36* Fair bluntnose minnow (26%), striped shiner (19%), creek chub (9%) 9.2 21.2 20 1634/ 856 30.8 57.5 9.0 44 V Good/Good fantail darter (20%), creek chub (17%), bluntnose minnow (14%) 5.4 35.9 28 1864/ 790 19.5 56.5 9.0 38* V Good/Fair bluntnose minnow (46%), green sunfish (8%), redfin & striped shiner (7%) 0.1 49.9 23 531/ 387 4.1 49.0 8.0ns 42ns M Good Johnny darter (21%), green sunfish (18%), fantail darter (15%), bluegill sunfish (13%) South Fork Buffalo Creek 2.9 5.0 11 855/ 470 ‐ 49.8 ‐ 34* Fair creek chub (27%), striped shiner (25%), silverjaw minnow (11%) 0.5 12.4 18 1918/ 736 ‐ 60.3 ‐ 40ns M Good green sunfish (23%), striped shiner (18%), white sucker (16%) Little Buffalo Creek

Page 68 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Total Relative Number/ Relative Narrative Stream mi2 Species less tolerant Weight QHEI MIwb IBI Evaluation RM Predominant species (percent of catch) 0.1 3.8 14 1063/ 333 ‐ 50.0 ‐ 42ns M Good creek chub (59%), central stoneroller (13%), fantail darter (7%) North Fork Buffalo Creek 0.7 6.7 11 475/ 143 ‐ 29.5 ‐ 30 Fair green sunfish (22%), striped shiner (18%), bluntnose minnow (17%) Buffalo Fork 6.1 33.6 16 151/ 107 25.7 45.5 7.5* 44 Fair/Good golden redhorse (24%), green sunfish (29%), rock bass (16%) 2.2 67.0 25 160/ 129 13.0 48.0 7.7* 44 Fair/Good golden redhorse (21%), bluegill sunfish (10%), Johnny darter & bluntnose minnow (8%) 0.2 71.6 24 334/ 251 4.1 49.0 7.5* 42ns Fair/M Good greenside darter (23%), bluntnose minnow (13%), northern hogsucker (12) Miller Creek 0.2 11.9 15 248/ 152 ‐ 47.0 ‐ 40ns M Good creek chub (25%), greenside darter (17%), bluegill sunfish (15%) Collins Fork 0.2 22.6 19 226/ 173 12.8 58.0 7.7* 46 Fair/V Good bluegill sunfish (23%), northern hogsucker (21%), greenside darter (15%) Rannells Creek 1.1 5.5 14 130/ 62 ‐ 40.0 ‐ 32* Fair creek chub (27%), central stoneroller, green sunfish & white sucker (12%) Yorker Creek 0.3 23.1 24 461/ 293 7.4 63.0 8.4 47 Good /V Good fantail darter (17%), creek chub (12%), bluntnose minnow (8%) Seneca Fork 24.8 17.7 19 416/ 958 ‐ 75.5 ‐ 46 V Good striped shiner (21%), bluntnose minnow, fantail darter & logperch (11%) 7.4 125.0 25 1319/ 667 24.8 51.3 8.9 32* V Good/Fair bluntnose minnow (42%), spotfin shiner (22%), bluegill sunfish (11%) 2.1 150.0 21 178/ 128 25.1 49.0 7.9ns 35* M Good/Fair green sunfish (21%), spotfin shiner (19%), bluegill sunfish (10%) South Fork Seneca Fork 3.3 27.6 24 763/ 383 13.9 57.0 8.3 36* M Good/Fair bluntnose minnow (35%), gizzard shad (10%), spotfin shiner (9%) Skin Creek (North Fork Seneca Fork) 1.6 4.9 13 2118/ 1283 ‐ 83.5 ‐ 48 V Good fantail darter (25%), creek chub (21%), central stoneroller (15%) Glady Run 0.9 8.3 17 1290/ 658 ‐ 56.3 ‐ 46 V Good striped shiner (21%), creek chub (16%), bluntnose minnow (15%), white sucker (14%) Beaver Creek 2.4 17.0 19 266/ 158 ‐ 56.5 ‐ 34* Fair creek chub (21%), spotfin shiner (17%), bluegill sunfish (9%) Opossum Run 0.6 12.4 12 384/ 174 ‐ 44.0 ‐ 22* Poor bluntnose minnow (37%), Johnny darter (23%), fantail darter (15%), creek chub (13%) Chapman Run 5.7 6.3 18 856/ 390 ‐ 73.5 ‐ 40ns M Good creek chub (32%), bluegill sunfish (15%), Johnny darter & bluntnose minnow (11%) 0.9 16.7 15 216/ 184 ‐ 44.5 ‐ 36* Fair

Page 69 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Total Relative Number/ Relative Narrative Stream mi2 Species less tolerant Weight QHEI MIwb IBI Evaluation RM Predominant species (percent of catch) Johnny darter (23%), bluegill sunfish (19%), brook silverside (18%) Leatherwood Creek 23.8 17.8 16 861/ 699 ‐ 66.5 ‐ 48 V Good greenside darter (27%), northern hogsucker (12%), fantail d. & common shiner (10%) 20.7 29.5 27 932/ 604 29.2 52.8 8.8 49 Good/V Good common shiner (25%), bluntnose minnow (14%), golden redhorse (9%) 9.8 68.5 30 973/ 717 28.5 64.0 9.5 51 Except. bluntnose minnow (19%), greenside darter (15%), northern hogsucker (10%) 6.3 82.6 32 435/ 327 24.6 46.0 8.7 47 Good/V Good bluegill sunfish (18%), green sunfish (12%), bluntnose minnow (11%), troutperch (8%) 3.4 90.0 29 454/ 388 18.9 40.5 9.3 46 V Good bluegill sunfish (21%), spotfin shiner (14%), rock bass (10%) Shannon Run 0.1 4.4 15 803/ 375 ‐ 68.0 ‐ 38* Fair creek chub (26%), bluntnose minnow (22%), common shiner (13%) Infirmary Run 0.4 7.2 18 612/ 382 ‐ 44.3 ‐ 42ns M Good bluegill sunfish (25%), fantail darter (16%), green sunfish (11%) Crooked Creek 13.3 11.7 19 924/634 ‐ 60.3 ‐ 46 V Good common shiner (19%), greenside darter (15%), fantail darter (14%), creek chub (13%) 11.2 33.9 21 674/ 374 6.3 49.0 8.0ns 39* M Good/Fair bluntnose minnow (23%), creek chub (16%), Johnny darter (15%) 6.3 55.0 21 426/ 266 7.2 62.5 8.5 42ns Good/M Good bluntnose minnow (21%), greenside & Johnny darter (10%), creek chub (9%) Dare Run (dry in 2014, sampled in 2015) 0.7 1.6 6 412/ 76 ‐ 38.0 ‐ 32 Fair creek chub (78%), Johnny darter (13%) North Crooked Creek 1.4 16.3 16 677/ 378 ‐ 51.5 ‐ 44 Good creek chub (39%), greenside darter (16%), fantail darter (15%), Johnny darter (12%) Fox Creek 1.0 3.8 11 744/ 318 ‐ 53.3 ‐ 34 Fair creek chub (32%), striped shiner (25%), white sucker (14%) 0.7 7.8 18 834/ 560 ‐ 63.5 ‐ 48 V Good bluntnose minnow (21%), fantail darter (17%), Johnny darter (12%), bluegill sf. (10%) Peters Creek 3.0 3.4 17 3518/ 1108 ‐ 57.5 ‐ 42ns M Good bluntnose minnow (51%), creek chub (13%), central stoneroller (8%) 0.3 10.4 21 1220/ 776 ‐ 65.3 ‐ 48 V Good bluntnose minnow (18%), central stoneroller & fantail darter (13%), greenside d. (10%) Bobs Run 0.2 2.6 14 1283/ 485 ‐ 55.0 ‐ 44 Good creek chub (45%), bluntnose minnow (12%), fantail darter (9%) Jackson Run 0.6 1.6 6 292/ 36 ‐ 45.5 ‐ 28 Fair creek chub (82%), fantail darter (8%) Sarchett Run 1.6 7.1 22 1596/ 496 ‐ 59.0 ‐ 40ns M Good bluntnose minnow (41%), creek chub (18%), common shiner (9%)

Page 70 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Total Relative Number/ Relative Narrative Stream mi2 Species less tolerant Weight QHEI MIwb IBI Evaluation RM Predominant species (percent of catch) Salt Fork 32.3 17.8 19 314/ 179 ‐ 65.0 ‐ 44 Good creek chub (27%), common shiner (15%), Johnny & greenside darter (12%) 20.8 45.0 22 328/ 264 60.7 46.5 7.6* 37* Fair bluegill sunfish (40%), gizzard shad (18%), green sunfish (10%), common carp (7%) 0.3 158.3 30 1328/ 722 8.3 60.5 8.6 35* Good/Fair bluntnose minnow (40%), spotfin shiner (17%), sand shiner (14%), bluegill sf. (12%) Brushy Fork 3.4 13.6 23 868/ 432 ‐ 65.0 ‐ 40ns M Good bluntnose minnow (40%), fantail darter (13%), greenside darter (11%) Turkey Run 1.2 2.2 13 744/ 348 ‐ 75.5 ‐ 52 Exceptional creek chub (25%), blacknose dace (23%), fantail darter (21%) Sugartree Fork 11.1 15.4 25 764/ 482 ‐ 77.0 ‐ 46 V Good creek chub (25%), greenside darter (12%), fantail darter (11%) Clear Fork 1.8 13.7 26 2326/ 1108 ‐ 74.5 ‐ 42ns M Good bluntnose minnow (32%), silverjaw minnow (27%), creek chub (14%) Rocky Fork 5.6 12.2 23 509/ 304 ‐ 59.0 ‐ 40ns M Good bluntnose minnow (24%), least brook lamprey (12%), bluegill sunfish (9%) Indian Camp Run 3.9 11.2 23 1884/ 1050 ‐ 74.5 ‐ 44 Good bluntnose minnow (27%), silverjaw minnow (23%), creek chub (10%) Wills Creek Tributary @ RM 34.43 0.5 3.3 13 920/ 298 ‐ 53.0 ‐ 36* Fair bluntnose minnow (38%), creek chub (23%), silverjaw minnow (18%) Birds Run 4.3 14.3 20 857/ 573 ‐ 57.8 ‐ 46 V Good silverjaw minnow & creek chub (16%), bluntnose minnow (11%), least brook l. (8%) 0.2 31.1 23 1099/572 2.2 47.5 6.9* 32* Fair bluntnose minnow (44%), sand shiner (17%), spotfin shiner (15%) Johnson Fork 1.2 8.6 22 2025/1122 ‐ 63.5 ‐ 46 V Good bluntnose minnow (23%), creek chub (15%), Johnny darter & c. stoneroller (11%) Johnson Fork Tributary @ RM 1.04 0.2 0.7 6 440/ 75 ‐ 51.5 ‐ 38* Fair creek chub (68%), Johnny darter (10%), blacknose dace (8%) Twomile Run 0.5 2.6 18 1416/ 400 ‐ 65.8 ‐ 38* Fair bluntnose minnow (51%), creek chub (13%), spotfin shiner (7%) Wills Creek Tributary @ RM 23.49 (Marlatt Run) 0.4 7.1 24 1836/ 758 ‐ 66.8 ‐ 42ns M Good bluntnose minnow (39%), creek chub & spotfin shiner (11%) Bacon Run 1.0 7.9 13 1185/ 428 ‐ 63.3 ‐ 36* Fair blacknose dace (39%), silverjaw minnow (22%), creek chub (20%) 0.1 15.6 11 498/ 106 ‐ 55.0 ‐ 24* Poor creek chub (39%), bluntnose minnow (26%), spotfin shiner (11%)

Page 71 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Total Relative Number/ Relative Narrative Stream mi2 Species less tolerant Weight QHEI MIwb IBI Evaluation RM Predominant species (percent of catch) White Eyes Creek 11.9 4.2 15 1228/ 560 ‐ 61.8 ‐ 50 Exceptional creek chub (28%), common shiner (24%), bluntnose minnow (13%) 10.1 16.2 20 776/ 298 ‐ 44.8 ‐ 42ns M Good common shiner (31%), white sucker (21%), bluntnose minnow (11%) 4.8 35.4 22 604/ 380 12.1 54.0 8.6 45 Good Johnny darter & bluntnose minnow (12%), n. hogsucker (11%), green sunfish (10%) 0.1 43.8 24 448/371 8.8 58.5 8.4 42ns Good/M Good spotfin shiner (25%), bluegill sunfish (17%), bluntnose minnow (11%), Johnny d. (10%) Brush Run 0.4 7.3 13 650/ 228 ‐ 61.0 ‐ 34* Fair creek chub (41%), fantail darter (20%), bluntnose minnow (12%) White Eyes Creek Tributary @ RM 4.50 0.4 2.7 6 135/ 73 ‐ 53.5 ‐ 40ns M Good Johnny darter (30%), blacknose dace, creek chub, & fantail darter (20%) RM: River mile. 9.4B: the B superscript denotes a boat sample site. Wading techniques were employed at all other sites. mi2: Drainage area in square miles. ns: Non‐significant departure from the biocriteria (≤4 IBI units or ≤0.5 MIwb units). *: Significant departure from the biocriteria (>4 IBI units or >0.5 MIwb units). Relative Number less pollution tolerant fish is an IBI metric. MIwb calculations exclude these fish deemed tolerant by Ohio EPA: central mudminnow, white sucker, common carp, goldfish, golden shiner, blacknose dace, creek chub, bluntnose minnow, fathead minnow, green sunfish, yellow bullhead, brown bullhead, and eastern banded killifish.

Fish Trends Wills Creek Fish communities in the Wills Creek mainstem were evaluated in 1984, 1994 and 2014. From 1984 to 1994, the fish community scores were very similar and remained below the WWH biological criteria in the poor to fair range (Figure 22). The 1995 Wills Creek report identified the major causes of impairment in the Wills Creek mainstem as extensive sedimentation of the bottom substrates from mining activity, livestock with free access to the creek and instream habitat modifications (OEPA, 1995). In 1994, only one location was in full attainment of the WWH biocriteria downstream from Wills Creek lake but in 2014, ten out of thirteen locations were meeting WWH for the fish community (Table 2, Figure 22). Average fish scores were poor in 1984, fair in 1994 and marginally good to very good in 2014 (Table 1). Lithophilic (rock loving) spawning fish require clean cobble or gravel to broadcast their eggs. Among the 12 metric components comprising IBI scores, the percentage of lithophils has remained low in all Wills Creek surveys due to persistent sedimentation of the substrates. Omnivorous and tolerant species were the dominant type of fish found in 1994 (38.8 % and 24.3%, respectively) and intolerant fish were virtually absent. Omnivores are generalist feeders and are often found in disturbed environments while tolerant fishes can withstand silt and poor water quality conditions. In 2014, the percentage of omnivorous and tolerant species declined to 27.7% and 15.0% respectively. The number of intolerant fish species remains low in Wills Creek but is highest downstream from Wills Creek Lake. The near absence of species considered intolerant to pollution has also kept this IBI metric score low. Otherwise, measurable shifts have occurred resulting in modest improvement to all other IBI metric values. In 2014, two dozen redhorse and carpsuckers were collected at mainstem sites, doubling the 1984 and 1994 catches. Five or more sunfish species in each 2014 sample was at least one or two more sunfish types

Page 72 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019 than were previously collected at a given site. A dozen channel catfish were common in 2014 samples; whereas, only a few were present at each site in the past. The number of fish species found in the mainstem of Wills Creek continues to increase as water quality improves with 37 species found in 1984, 48 in 1994 and 64 in 2014.

Figure 22 — Longitudinal performance of the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI, upper plot) and of the Modified Index of well‐ being (MIwb, lower plot) in Wills Creek, 1984‐2014.

Page 73 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Tributaries The 2014 survey was the first time the fish community was evaluated in most of the Wills Creek tributaries. Of the 44 tributaries assessed in 2014, thirteen were previously evaluated by Ohio EPA during surveys in the 80s or 90s (Table 22). Most of the IBI and MIwb scores showed an improvement in 2014 compared to previous surveys. Fish community performance in Seneca Fork was fair for the IBI in 1984 and in 2014, but the MIwb improved from fair in 1984 to marginally good in 2014. Poor habitat with sluggish flows, embedded substrates and no riffles is the reason that the fish community remains impaired in Seneca Fork. The streams in the Buffalo Fork subwatershed are impacted by mine drainage with the highest concentration of specific field conductivity in the entire Wills Creek watershed and average values of 1735 umhos/cm (Figure 16, Table 16). Specific conductivity greater than 1000 umhos/cm can impact the effectiveness of the electrofishing gear used by Ohio EPA to collect fish data so more powerful electrofishing gear was used at these locations with high field conductivity. Fish abundance tended to be low despite enhanced collection techniques using a larger electrofishing generator and attention to favorable sample zone features. Both IBI and MIwb scores in Buffalo Fork went from very poor in 1984 to fair or marginally good in 2014. The IBI scores were meeting WWH in 2014 but the MIwb scores were below expectation due to the low number of fish collected. In 1984 common carp were the most abundant fish species found in Buffalo Fork. Common carp are exotic species that are extremely tolerant to pollution. Fish diversity increased from 11 species in 1984 to 33 species in 2014 including two intolerant madtom species (brindled and stonecat) and six sensitive fish species. Buffalo Creek was sampled at RM 0.2 in 1984, 1999 and 2014. Fish scores were poor in both 1984 and 1999 but scores improved to marginally good in 2014. The habitat in 1984 and 1999 was very poor but also improved to fair in 2014. In 2014, Substrates remain heavily embedded and flows are sluggish because Buffalo Creek is a low gradient stream. Chapman Run was previously evaluated by Ohio EPA in 1994 to determine if Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (now called Metallurg Vanadium) in Byesville was having an impact on the biological community (Ohio EPA, 1995). During the 1994 survey, the fish community was evaluated from RM 5.2 to 0.1 and was very poor to fair with no locations meeting the WWH biological criteria. It was determined that the fish community was impacted by poor habitat, raw sewage and high levels of vanadium from the Sheildalloy facility. During the 1994 survey, vanadium and other metals associated with the Shieldalloy facility were found in both sediment and fish tissue samples from Chapman Run. In 2014, Chapman Run was sampled at two locations (RM 5.73 and 0.92). The fish community at RM 5.73 improved from fair in 1994 to marginally good in 2014. The fish community also improved at the downstream location from very poor in 1994 to fair in 2014. Before the 1994 survey, the mouth of Chapman Run had been relocated by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) due to the construction of the I-70 and I-77 interchange. The QHEI only scored 16.5 during the 1994 survey and was completely absent of warmwater habitat attributes. In 2014, the habitat score improved to 44.5 but is still not sufficient to support a WWH fish community. Generally, fair fish communities were present in Leatherwood Creek in 1984. Very good performance and the presence of seven previously unrecorded sub-basin fish species in 2014 were on par with water quality improvements across Ohio. Ten species of centrarchids, including smallmouth bass, rock bass and longear sunfish were found in Leatherwood Creek during the 2014 survey. The presence of longear sunfish in the Wills Creek watershed appears to be a new trend. The fish was absent in 1994 and only 4 were collected in Crooked Creek in 1984. Longear sunfish, smallmouth bass and northern hogsuckers are moderately

Page 74 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

intolerant of water pollution. An increasing abundance of these fish in Leatherwood Creek is evidence of improving water quality. The fish community in Infirmary Run which is a tributary to Leatherwood Creek also improved from fair in 1984 to marginally good in 2014. The number of species went from eight in 1984 to eighteen in 2014. Salt Fork and five additional tributaries to Salt Fork were sampled in 1994 and 2014. The fish community in Salt Fork at RM 20.8 was fair in 1994 and remained fair in 2014. Salt Fork was also fair at RM 32.3 but improved to good in 2014. Rocky Fork and Brushy Fork improved from fair in 1994 to marginally good in 2014. Clear Fork declined slightly going from good in 1994 to marginally good in 2014. Sugartree Fork improved slightly going from marginally good in 1994 to very good in 2014. Turkey Run showed the greatest improvement with a marginally good fish community in 1994 to an exceptional fish community in 2014. Average Crooked Creek fish scores improved from fair in 1984 to marginally good in 2014. Species diversity declined with 34 native fish collected in 1984 to 25 in 2014 but the percentage of tolerant and omnivore species declined, and the darter and insectivores increased which improved the overall IBI and MIwb scores. Table 22 – Average IBI and MIwb fish scores from Wills Creek tributaries sampled in 1984, 1994 and 2014. Stream HUC 10 1984 1994 2014 1984 1994 2014 IBI IBI IBI MIwb MIwb MIwb Seneca Fork 05040005 01 31 36 6.4 8.4 Buffalo Creek 05040005 02 25 42 4.8 8.0 Buffalo Fork 05040005 02 16 43 2.7 7.6 Chapman Run 05040005 02 25 38 Leatherwood Creek 05040005 03 37 48 6.6 9.1 Infirmary Run 05040005 03 22 42 Salt Fork 05040005 04 36 39 7.9 7.6 Rocky Fork 05040005 04 34 40 Clear Fork 05040005 04 44 42 Brushy Fork 05040005 04 36 40 Sugartree Fork 05040005 04 42 46 Turkey Run 05040005 04 42 52 Crooked Creek 05040005 05 35 41 7.4 8.3

Page 75 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Macroinvertebrate Community Macroinvertebrate communities were evaluated at 82 stations in the Wills Creek study area (Figure 24, Table 23 and Appendix H). The community performance was evaluated as exceptional at 20 stations, very good at 23, good at 17, marginally good at 17, fair at 3, poor at 1 and very poor at 1 station (Table 23, Figure 24). The station with the highest total mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera) and caddisfly (Trichoptera) taxa richness (EPT)—insect orders generally considered representative of high quality resources—was on the North Fork Seneca Creek at TR 636 (RM 1.66) with 31 taxa. The station with the highest Figure 23 – Macroinvertebrate biocriterion number of total sensitive taxa (ST) was also on the North Fork achievement was 94 percent with Seneca Creek (RM 1.66) with 25 taxa. Twelve uncommonly Orconectes sanbornii collected sensitive taxa and 13 species of freshwater mussels were collected during this study, and their collection locations are listed in Table 24. One of the freshwater mussel species was included in the state list of wildlife that is threatened. Table 23 – Summary of macroinvertebrate data collected in the Wills Creek study area, 2014. Taxa numbers are from natural substrate (qualitative) sampling. If applicable, the second EPT and sensitive taxa values include those from artificial substrates (quantitative sampling). Organism density is reported by natural (Qual. Density) and, if applicable, artificial substrates (HD). Coldwater taxa (CW) were present at 33 locations. Stream mi2 Taxa EPT Sensitive Taxa Qual. Density HD CW ICI Narrative RM Predominant natural substrate organisms (tolerance) Wills Creek 75.9 280.0 40 16/ 19 10/ 12 Moderate 269 ‐ 38 Good heptageniid mayflies (F), midges (F) 68.1 293.0 31 7/ 8 4/ 4 Low 47 ‐ 14 Fair midges (F), isopods (F) 64.1 406.0 41 16/ 21 11/ 14 Moderate 612 ‐ 36 Good heptageniid mayflies (F), baetid mayflies (F, MI) 57.4 472.0 44 18/ 20 14/16 High 933 ‐ 46 Exceptional baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F, MI), heptageniid mayflies (F, MI) 46.6 659.0 53 23/ 24 15/16 High 497 ‐ 46 Exceptional baetid mayflies (F, MI), heptageniid mayflies (F, MI) 37.7 672.0 43 18/ 19 14/ 15 Moderate 1,293 ‐ 44 V Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F, MI), baetid mayflies (F, MI) 31.6 699.0 61 20/ 21 18/ 19 Moderate 454 ‐ 42 V Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F, MI), baetid mayflies (F, MI), heptageniid mayflies (F, MI) 27.0 738.0 46 17 12 High ‐ ‐ ‐ V Good baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F, MI), heptageniid mayflies (F, MI) 23.2 749.0 50 14 10 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ Good midges (F), Polycentropus caddisflies (F) 18.5 770.5 41 10 6 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ M Good midges (F), heptageniid mayflies (F) 7.0 842.0 57 17/ 18 15/ 17 High 9,675 ‐ 34ns M Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F, MI), midges (F) 5.3 849.0 62 19 21/ 21 High 4,938 ‐ 38 Good hydropsychid caddisflies (MI, F), baetid mayflies (F, MI), Neuroclipsis caddisfly (MI) 3.1 851.0 56 18 21 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ V Good heptageniid mayflies (F, MI), amphipoda scuds (F) Buffalo Creek

Page 76 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Stream mi2 Taxa EPT Sensitive Taxa Qual. Density HD CW ICI Narrative RM Predominant natural substrate organisms (tolerance) 11.0 5.7 68 20 14 Moderate ‐ 1 ‐ Exceptional baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F) 9.2 21.2 62 22/ 23 17/ 19 High 619 ‐ 48 Exceptional hydropsychid caddisflies (F), baetid mayflies (F, MI), heptageniid mayflies (F, MI) 5.4 35.9 54 18 16 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ V Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F), baetid mayflies (F, MI) 0.1 49.9 48 13/ 19 11/ 14 Moderate 400 ‐ 44 V Good heptageniid mayflies (F, MI), midges (F, MI) South Fork Buffalo Creek 2.9 5.0 74 17 15 Moderate ‐ 2 ‐ V Good baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies(F), stoneflies(F, MI) 0.5 12.4 45 14 9 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ Good baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid mayflies (F) Little Buffalo Creek 0.1 3.8 35 10 7 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ M Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F), baetid mayflies (F, MI) North Fork Buffalo Creek 0.7 6.7 36 14 5 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ Good stoneflies (I, F), baetid mayflies (F, MI) Buffalo Fork 6.1 33.6 30 8/ 8 4/ 5 Low 307 ‐ 32ns M Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F), elmid beetles (F), midges (F) 2.2 67.0 41 11 6 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ M Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F) 0.2 71.6 41 14/ 16 10/ 13 Moderate 285 ‐ 34ns M Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F), Corydalus cornutus fishfly (MI) Miller Creek 0.2 11.9 40 10 3 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ M Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F) Collins Fork 0.2 22.6 44 14/ 15 9/ 10 Moderate ‐ 1 34ns M Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F) Rannells Creek 1.1 5.5 47 8 3 High ‐ 2 ‐ Fair black flies (F) Yoker Creek 0.3 23.1 55 20/ 23 12/ 14 Moderate 472 ‐ 48 Exceptional baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F) Seneca Fork 24.8 17.7 58 23 16 High ‐ 1 ‐ Exceptional baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F), Isonychia mayflies (MI) 7.4 127.0 51 19/ 20 13/ 14 Moderate 580 ‐ 50 Exceptional hydropsychid caddisflies (F, MI), baetid mayflies (F, MI), midges (F, MI) 2.1 150.0 44 16/ 19 11/ 13 Moderate 503 ‐ 44 V Good heptageniid mayflies (F, MI), baetid mayflies (F, MI) South Fork Seneca Fork 3.3 27.6 55 23/ 24 21/ 24 Moderate 357 2 50 Exceptional baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F) Skin Creek (North Fork Seneca Fork) 1.6 4.9 65 31 25 High ‐ 3 ‐ Exceptional baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (MI, F), stoneflies (MI)

Page 77 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Stream mi2 Taxa EPT Sensitive Taxa Qual. Density HD CW ICI Narrative RM Predominant natural substrate organisms (tolerance) Glady Run 0.9 8.3 58 20 13 High ‐ 1 ‐ V Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F, MI), baetid mayflies (F, MI) Beaver Creek 2.4 17.0 46 13 8 Moderate ‐ 1 ‐ Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F), baetid mayflies (F), elmid beetles (F) Opossum Run 0.6 12.4 61 11 7 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ M Good flatworms (F), Caenis mayflies (F), midges (F) Chapman Run 5.7 6.3 53 15 9 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ Good heptageniid mayflies (F, MI), baetid mayflies (F, MI) 0.9 16.7 35 12 7 Moderate ‐ 1 ‐ M Good heptageniid mayflies (F), hydropsychid caddisflies (F) Leatherwood Creek 23.8 17.8 43 14 8 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F) 20.7 29.5 44 14/ 17 8/ 9 Moderate 371 ‐ 38 Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F) 9.8 68.5 48 18 19 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ V Good baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F) 6.3 82.6 45 17 9 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ Good heptageniid mayflies (F, MI), baetid mayflies (F, MI), baetid mayflies (F, MI) 3.4 90.0 31 12 6 Moderate ‐ 1 ‐ M Good heptageniid mayflies (F, MI), leptophlebiid mayflies (F), hydropsychid caddisflies (F) Shannon Run 0.1 4.4 32 11 5 Low ‐ 1 ‐ M Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F, MI) Infirmary Run 0.4 7.2 54 13 6 Moderate ‐ 2 ‐ Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F), Heptageniid mayflies (F) Crooked Creek 13.3 11.7 52 14 10 Moderate ‐ 1 ‐ Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F), baetid mayflies (F), 11.2 33.9 59 14/ 15 9/ 11 Moderate 790 ‐ 48 Exceptional baetid mayflies (F, MI), midges (F, MI) 6.3 55.0 36 15/ 17 10/ 13 Moderate 268 ‐ 36 Good heptageniid mayflies (F), baetid mayflies (F, MI) Dare Run 0.7 1.6 31 1 0 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ V Poor midges (T, VT), beetles (F) North Crooked Creek 1.4 16.3 52 19 12 Moderate ‐ 1 ‐ V Good baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F), heptageniid mayflies (F) Fox Creek 1.0 3.8 57 15 9 Moderate ‐ 1 ‐ Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F), midges (F, MI), baetid mayflies (F, MI) 0.7 7.8 55 17 9 Moderate ‐ 2 ‐ V Good baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F) Peters Creek 3.0 3.4 33 11 5 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ M Good

Page 78 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Stream mi2 Taxa EPT Sensitive Taxa Qual. Density HD CW ICI Narrative RM Predominant natural substrate organisms (tolerance) midges (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F), stoneflies (MI) 0.3 10.4 58 16 13 Moderate ‐ 3 ‐ V Good baetid mayflies (F, MI), stoneflies (F, MI) Bobs Run 0.2 2.6 49 18 17 Moderate ‐ 3 ‐ V Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F), heptageniid mayflies (F, MI), baetid mayflies (F, MI) Jackson Run 0.6 1.6 63 11 5 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ M Good baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F), stoneflies (MI) Sarchett Run 1.6 7.1 53 20 16 High ‐ 3 ‐ V Good baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F) Salt Fork 32.3 17.8 58 21 13 High ‐ ‐ ‐ Exceptional hydropsychid caddisflies (F), baetid mayflies (F, MI) 20.8 45.0 40 15/ 19 7/ 10 Moderate 304 ‐ 50 Exceptional baetid mayflies (F, MI), heptageniid mayflies (F, MI) 0.3 158.3 50 17 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ V good baetid mayflies (F, MI), blackflies (F) Brushy Fork 3.4 13.6 79 28 18 High ‐ 1 ‐ Exceptional baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F), heptageniid mayflies (F) Turkey Run 1.2 2.2 53 24 23 High ‐ 5 ‐ Exceptional stoneflies (F, MI), Leptophlebiid mayflies (MI), Philopotamid caddisflies (MI) Sugartree Fork 11.1 15.4 75 27 24 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ Exceptional hydropsychid caddisflies (F, MI), baetid mayflies (F, MI), heptageniid mayflies (F, MI) Clear Fork 1.8 13.7 59 22 19 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ Exceptional baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F), midges (F, MI) Rocky Fork 5.6 12.2 57 21 17 Moderate ‐ 2 ‐ Exceptional hydropsychid caddisflies (F, MI), baetid mayflies (F, MI), midges (F, MI) Indian Camp Run 3.9 11.2 43 17 14 High ‐ 2 ‐ V Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F), baetid mayflies (F, MI), heptageniid mayflies (F, MI) Wills Creek Tributary @ RM 34.43 2.4 1.1 46 17 17 Moderate ‐ 9 V Good philopotamid caddisflies (MI), leptophlebiid mayflies (F) 0.2 3.3 41 10 7 Low‐Moderate ‐ 1 ‐ M Good heptageniid mayflies (MI), leptophlebiid mayflies (F), blackflies (F), midges (F) Birds Run 4.3 14.3 44 18 15 Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ V Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F, MI), baetid mayflies (F, MI), heptageniid mayflies (F, MI) 0.2 31.1 42 21/ 23 14/ 19 High 711 ‐ 46 Exceptional blackflies (F), baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F) Johnson Fork 1.20 8.6 53 18 14 High ‐ 2 ‐ V Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F), baetid mayflies (F, MI), Isonychia mayflies (MI) Johnson Fork Tributary @ RM 1.04

Page 79 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Stream mi2 Taxa EPT Sensitive Taxa Qual. Density HD CW ICI Narrative RM Predominant natural substrate organisms (tolerance) 0.2 0.7 54 19 21 Moderate ‐ 13 ‐ V Good philopotamid caddisflies (MI), tipulid craneflies (MI), midges Twomile Run 0.5 2.6 47 16 11 Moderate ‐ 1 ‐ V Good baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F) Wills Creek Tributary @ RM 23.49 (Marlatt Run) 0.4 7.1 67 25 19 High ‐ 5 ‐ Exceptional baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F), heptageniid mayflies (F) Bacon Run 0.1 14.9 15 3 0 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ Poor blackflies (F), baetid mayflies (F) Center Creek 0.1 6.8 29 7 5 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ Fair midges (F), baetid mayflies (F), blackflies (F) White Eyes Creek 11.9 4.2 54 18 17 Moderate ‐ 6 ‐ Exceptional baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F), stoneflies (MI, F) 10.1 16.2 37 12 7 Low ‐ ‐ ‐ M Good baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F) 4.8 35.4 49 19/ 22 11/ 15 Moderate ‐ ‐ 42 V Good hydropsychid caddisflies (F), baetid mayflies (F, MI) 0.1 43.8 38 13/ 16 9/ 10 Low ‐ ‐ 36 Good midges (F) Brush Run 0.4 7.3 43 12 10 Moderate ‐ 1 ‐ Good baetid mayflies (F, MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (f) White Eyes Creek Tributary @ RM 4.50 0.4 2.7 36 11 6 Moderate ‐ 2 ‐ M Good baetid mayflies (MI), hydropsychid caddisflies (F) RM: River mile. mi2: Drainage area in square miles EPT: Mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) taxa richness based on natural substrate qualitative sampling. Sensitive Taxa: are those Ohio EPA considers as MI (moderately intolerant) or I (intolerant). HD: Hester‐Dendy artificial substrates are used for quantitative sampling where density is expressed in organisms per square foot. Tolerance categories: VT=very tolerant; T=tolerant; MT=moderately tolerant; F=facultative; MI=moderately intolerant; I=intolerant NS: Nonsignificant departure from biocriteria

Page 80 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Table 24 – Locations and types of uncommon sensitive macroinvertebrate taxa and of all freshwater mussels in Wills Creek study area, 2014. Mayflies Acentrella turbida Skin Creek RM 1.6 Anafroptilum minor gr. Buffalo Creek RMs 0.1 & 9.2; Yoker Creek RM 0.3; Seneca Fork RM 2.1; Clear Fork RM 1.8; Indian Camp Run RM 3.9; Birds Run RM 0.2; Marlatt Run RM 0.4 Habrophleboides sp. Fox Creek RM 0.7; Peters Creek RM 0.3; Bobs Run RM 0.2; Turkey Run RM 1.2; White Eyes Creek RM 11.9 Plauditus punctiventris Clear Fork RM 1.8 Sparbarus lacustris Clear Fork RM 1.8 Stoneflies Clioperla clio Wills Creek Trib. @ RM 34.43 RM 2.4; Johnson Fork Trib. @ RM 1.04 RM 0.2 Diploperla robusta Johnson Fork Trib. @ RM 1.04 RM 0.2 Sweltsa sp. S Fork Seneca Fork RM 3.3 Caddisflies Dolophilodes distinctus Wills Creek Trib. @ RM 34.43 RM 2.4; Johnson Fork Trib. @ RM 1.04 RM 0.2 Goera sp. Wills Creek Trib. @ RM 34.43 RM 2.4 Oligostomis pardalis Wills Creek Trib. @ RM 34.43 RM 2.4; Johnson Fork Trib. @ RM 1.04 RM 0.2; White Eyes Trib. @ RM 4.50 RM 0.4 Rhyocophila carolina Johnson Fork Trib. @ RM 1.04 RM 0.2 Freshwater Mussels Lasmigona complanata Wills Creek RMs 23.2 & 5.3; Buffalo Creek RM 9.2; S Fork Seneca Fork RM 3.3; (White Heelsplitter) Leatherwood Creek RM 9.8; Brushy Fork RM 3.4; Sugartree Fork RM 11.1 Obliquaria reflexa Wills Creek Rms 7.0 & 3.1 (Threehorned Wartyback) State‐listed Threatened species Amblema plicata plicata Wills Creek RMs 7.0 & 3.1; S Fork Seneca Fork RM 3.3 (Three Ridge) Leptodea fragilis Wills Creek RMs 7.0 & 5.3 (Fragile Papershell) Pyganodon grandis Wills Creek RM 7.0; Seneca Fork RM 6.5; Twomile Run RM 0.5 (Giant Floater) Potamilus alatus Wills Creek Rms 5.3 & 3.1 (Pink Heelsplitter) Fusconaia flava Wills Creek RM 3.1; Buffalo Creek RM 5.4; S Fork Seneca Fork RM 3.3; Leatherwood (Wabash Pigtoe) Creek RM 9.8; Sugartree Fork RM 11.1 Quadrula pustulosa pustulosa Wills Creek RM 3.1; Leatherwood Creek RM 9.8 (Pimpleback) Quadrula quadrula Wills Creek RM 3.1 (Mapleleaf) Lampsilis radiate luteola Buffalo Creek RM 5.4; S Fk Seneca Fork RM 3.3; Leatherwood Creek RM 9.8; Crooked (Fat Mucket) Creek RM 6.3; Peters Creek RM 0.3; Sugartree Fork RM 11.1; Birds Run RM 4.3; White Eyes Creek RM 10.1 Strophitus undulatus undulates Sugartree Fork RM 11.1 (Creeper) Tritogonia verrusca Seneca Fork RM 6.5 (Pistolgrip) Anodontoides ferussacianus S Fork Buffalo Ck 0.5 (Cylindrical Papershell)

Page 81 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Figure 24 – Macroinvertebrate community performance in the Wills Creek basin, 2014.

Page 82 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Wills Creek The Wills Creek mainstem was sampled at 13 stations in 2014 (Figure 25). Twelve of the 13 sites on the Wills Creek mainstem were achieving the WWH macroinvertebrate biocriterion. Only one site on Wills Creek at RM 68.13 was not meeting the WWH macroinvertebrate biocriterion. The site is impounded by a lowhead dam which is used by the city of Cambridge for drink water. As a result, the habitat was poor with mostly deep pools that lacked riffles, resulting in only seven EPT and an ICI score of 14 (fair). Two of the 13 sites (RMs 57.36 and 46.57) were evaluated as exceptional and four sites (RMs 37.74, 31.59, 27.04 and 3.05) were evaluated as very good. The Cambridge WWTP (RM 62.07) and the Byesville WWTP (RM 69.44) have outfalls to Wills Creek but do not appear to be negatively affecting downstream attainment for macroinvertebrates. Nine different species of freshwater mussels were found on the Wills Creek mainstem, including the state threatened Threehorned Wartyback (Obliquaria reflex) at RMs 3.05 and 7.04 (Table 24).

Tributaries Macroinvertebrate communities at 68 sites in 45 tributaries to Wills Creek were assessed during the 2014 sampling index period. Sixty-four of the 68 sites sampled fully met applicable macroinvertebrate biocriteria with ICI and narrative scores ranging from marginally good to exceptional (Table 23). Seneca Fork sub-basin – HUC-10 (05040005 01) Seneca Fork, Opossum Run, Beaver Creek, Glady Run, South Fork Seneca Fork, North Fork Seneca Fork All eight sites on the six streams in the Seneca Fork sub-basin were meeting the WWH macroinvertebrate biocriterion. Macroinvertebrate evaluations ranged from marginally good to exceptional. The sites on Seneca Fork, South Fork Seneca Fork and North Fork Seneca Fork had very good to exceptional scores. North Fork Seneca Fork at RM 1.66 had the highest number of EPT and sensitive taxa for the survey, 31 and 25, respectively. North Fork Seneca Fork (RM 1.66) also had three coldwater (CW) taxa (Leuctra sp., Ceratopsyche slossonae, and Dicranota sp.) and was the only site in the survey where the uncommonly collected sensitive mayfly, Acentrella turbida, was collected. South Fork Seneca Fork (RM 3.30) was the only site in the survey where the sensitive coldwater stonefly, Sweltsa, was collected (Table 24). Buffalo Fork sub-basin – HUC-10 (05040005 02) Buffalo Fork, Yoker Creek, Collins Creek, Miller Creek, Rannels Creek, Buffalo Creek, North Fork Buffalo Creek, South Fork Buffalo Creek, Little Buffalo Creek, Chapman Run Sixteen sites on ten streams in the Buffalo Fork sub-basin were evaluated for macroinvertebrates. Fifteen of the 16 sites were achieving the WWH macroinvertebrate biocriterion with scores ranging from marginally good to exceptional. Rannells Creek was the only site not meeting WWH expectations and was evaluated as fair with only eight EPT (one mayfly, one stonefly, and six caddisflies) and three ST. The predominant organisms on the natural substrates were black flies. The land around Rannels Creek had recently been surface mined for coal. Chemistry results showed high conductivity and high total dissolved solids for this site. The extremely low number of mayflies is most likely due to the toxicity of alkaline surface mining effluent, which results in exposure to or ingestion of trace heavy metal compounds (Clements et al., 1992, 1994, 2004) and from interference with osmoregulation (gill function and respiration) from the high TDS (i.e. ions) (Kennedy et al., 2003). The four sites sampled on Buffalo Creek (RMs 11.0, 9.20, 5.40 and 0.08) were evaluated as very good to exceptional, whereas the three sites sampled on Buffalo Fork (RMs 6.12, 2.20 and 0.23) were evaluated as marginally good. These two streams come together to form Wills Creek. Buffalo Fork had more historical coal mining and much higher conductivity and TDS than Buffalo Creek. The sites on Buffalo Creek had 11-

Page 83 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

13 different mayfly taxa versus the sites on Buffalo Fork, which had higher conductivity and TDS and only had 2-5 different mayfly taxa.

Page 84 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Wills Creek 60

50 EWH 40 WWH 30 ICI

20

1984 ICI 10 1994 ICI Byesville Cambridge 2014 ICI WWTP WWTP 0 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 River Mile

40 Cambridge 35 Byesville WWTP WWTP 1984 EPT 1994 EPT 30 2014 EPT 25

20 EWH Expectations 15 WWH Expectations

Qualitative Qualitative EPT 10

5

0 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 River Mile

40 Byesville Cambridge 35 WWTP WWTP 1984 ST 1994 ST 30 2014 ST

25

20 EWH Expectations

15 WWH Expectations 10

5 Qualitative Sensitive Taxa Sensitive Qualitative

0 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 River Mile

Figure 25 – Longitudinal trend of the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI), number of EPT taxa in the qualitative sample, and the number of sensitive taxa in the qualitative sample in Wills Creek, 1984‐2014.

Page 85 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Leatherwood Creek sub-basin – HUC-10 (05040005 03) Leatherwood Creek, Infirmary Run, Shannon Run All of the seven sites on three streams in the Leatherwood Creek sub-basin were meeting the WWH macroinvertebrate biocriterion. Macroinvertebrate evaluations were marginally good to good with one site on Leatherwood Creek (RM 9.80) being evaluated as very good with 18 EPT. Salt Fork sub-basin – HUC-10 (05040005 04) Salt Fork, Sugartree Fork, Rocky Fork, Clear Fork, Turkey Run, Brushy Run Six streams at eight sites were evaluated in the Salt Fork sub-basin and all were meeting the WWH macroinvertebrate biocriterion. Seven of the eight sites were evaluated as exceptional. Salt Fork (RMs 32.30 and 20.80), Sugartree Fork, Rocky Fork, Clear Fork, Turkey Run and Brush Fork were evaluated as exceptional and Salt Fork at RM 0.32 was evaluated as very good. Six of the eight sites had over 20 EPT. Turkey Run (RM 1.19) also had five CW taxa (Habrophleboides sp., Leuctra sp., Ceratopsyche slossonae, Dicranota sp., and Zavrelimyia sp.). Clear Fork at RM 1.83 was the only site in the survey where the uncommonly collected sensitive mayflies, Sparbarus lacustris and Plauditus punctiventris, were collected. Crooked Creek sub-basin – HUC-10 (05040005 05) Crooked Creek, Jackson Run, Peters Creek, Bobs Run, North Crooked Creek, Fox Creek, Dare Run, Trib. To Wills Creek, Birds Run, Johnson Fork, Trib to Johnson Fork, Indian Camp Run, Sarchett Run Crooked Creek sub-basin macroinvertebrate communities were evaluated at 19 sites among 13 streams. Only the very poor Dare Run (RM 0.70: EPT=3, ST=0) assemblage failed to achieve the WWH biocriterion. Dare Run was impacted by channelization and unrestricted cattle access causing excessive sedimentation and siltation. Marginally good to exceptional communities were present at the other 18 sites. The Tributary to Wills Creek @ RM 34.43 (RM 2.35) had nine CW taxa, including the uncommonly collected sensitive Clioperla clio, Dlophilodes distinctus, Goera sp., and Oligostomis pardalis. The Tributary to Johnson Fork (RM 0.4) had 13 CW taxa, including the uncommonly-collected sensitive Clioperla clio, Diploperla robusta, Dolophilodes distinctus, Oligostomis pardalis, and Rhyocophila carolina (Table 24). White Eyes Creek sub-basin – HUC-10 (05040005 06) White Eyes Creek, Marlatt Run, Trib to White Eyes Creek, Brush Run, Bacon Run, Center Creek, Twomile Run Ten White Eyes Creek sub-basin macroinvertebrate assemblages were evaluated among six streams. Poor Bacon Run (RM 0.01: EPT=3, ST=0) and fair Center Creek (a.k.a. Bone Run, RM 0.01: EPT=7, ST=5) communities did not achieve the WWH biocriterion due to coal strip mine induced sedimentation and siltation. The other eight sub-basin sites were evaluated as marginally good to exceptional. White Eyes Creek (RM 11.90) and Marlatt Run (RM 0.40) were both exceptional with six and five CW taxa, respectively.

Macroinvertebrate Trends Wills Creek Macroinvertebrate communities in the Wills Creek mainstem were evaluated in 1984, 1994 and 2014. The Wills Creek mainstem had similar, and at one site higher, ICI scores in 2014 compared to the same sites sampled in 1994 (Figure 25). All sites in 1994 and 2014 had higher ICI scores than 1984 except for Wills Creek at RM 68.13. Wills Creek at RM 68.13 was sampled in all three years and was the only site to not show improvement with fair ICI scores throughout the years (1984 ICI=14, 1994 ICI=16, 2014 ICI=14). The sites sampled on the mainstem in 2014 did show a major improvement in the number of EPT and ST from the 1984 and 1994 surveys. For example, Wills Creek at RM 46.57 had six qualitative EPT in 1984, eight qualitative EPT in 1994, and 23 qualitative EPT in 2014 (Figure 25).

Page 86 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Tributaries The 2014 survey was the first time the majority of the Wills Creek tributaries were systematically sampled. Eleven streams (six in 1994 and five in 1984) were surveyed again in 2014 and showed a drastic increase in the number of EPT and ST from the earlier surveys. For example, in 1984, Seneca Fork (RM 2.07) had four qualitative EPT and two ST, whereas in 2014 the same site (Seneca Fork RM 2.07) had 23 qualitative EPT and 16 ST. In 1994, Bushy Fork (RM 3.35) had 12 qualitative EPT and five ST but in 2014, Brushy Fork (RM 3.35) had 28 EPT and 18 ST.

Recreation Use Water quality criteria for determining attainment of recreation uses 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. New revisions to the recreation use rules in Ohio became effective on January 4, 2016. However, as sampling to assess the recreation use for the Wills Creek study area was designed and carried out when the previous rules were in effect, the assessment of data and determination of recreation use attainment status provided in this section were based on the prior rules. E. coli bacteria are microscopic organisms that are present in large numbers in the feces and intestinal tracts of humans and other warm-blooded animals. E. coli typically comprises approximately 97 percent of the organisms found in the fecal coliform bacteria of human feces (Dufour, 1977), 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 practicable. These microorganisms can enter waterbodies via a direct discharge of human and animal wastes, or they may enter waterbodies along with runoff from soils where these wastes have been deposited. E. coli bacteria can also become entrained within stream sediments and may remain viable for some time. Therefore, sediment re-suspension during storm events can also result in elevated numbers of E. coli bacteria in the water column. Pathogenic (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. All streams of the Wills Creek study area evaluated in this survey are designated with the Primary Contact Recreation (PCR) use in OAC Rules 3745-1-24. Water bodies designated for PCR recreation use “are waters that, during the recreation season, are suitable for one or more full-body contact recreation activities such as, but not limited to, wading, swimming, boating, water skiing, canoeing, kayaking and SCUBA diving” [OAC 3745-1-07 (B)(3)(b)]. Three classes of PCR use reflect differences in the potential frequency and intensity of associated activities. Streams designated PCR Class A typically have identified public access points and support, or potentially support, primary contact recreation. Streams designated PCR Class B support, or potentially support, occasional primary contact recreation activities. Streams designated PCR Class C support, or potentially support, infrequent primary contact recreation activities, such as, but not limited to, wading. Recreation use attainment status is predicated by geometric mean numbers of E. coli

Page 87 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

colony forming units per 100 mL of water (cfu/100mL) based on two or more samples collected during the recreation season. The PCR Class A, B or C criteria limit the geometric mean number of E. coli cfu/100ml to 126, 161 or 206, respectively. All streams assessed for recreation use during this survey are designated PCR Class A or B waters. Summarized bacteria results are listed in Table 25. All bacteria results are reported in Appendix K. Forty locations in the Wills Creek study area were sampled for E. coli five to 12 times, from May 13 – August 27, 2014. Evaluation of E. coli results revealed that four of the 40 locations attained the applicable geometric mean criterion and thus were in full attainment of the primary contact recreation use. Thirty-six of the 40 locations (90 percent) sampled failed to attain the applicable geometric mean criterion or exceeded more than ten percent the allowable single sample maximum value, indicating impairment of the recreation use on a watershed-wide scale. The majority of sampling locations in the Wills Creek watershed are in areas without centralized sewage treatment. Non-attainment is likely due to unsanitary conditions from poorly treated sewage treatment as a result of failing home sewage treatment systems (HSTS). Another likely source of non-attainment is pasture and cropland runoff, with agricultural activities possibly including land application of manure and biosolids as well as livestock production. Grazing and row crops are evident in the floodplains of the larger drainages in the Wills Creek watershed as illustrated by the land use map in the study area description and observations during the survey. Runoff from livestock manure application and livestock grazing areas could be improved by the installation of buffers between the activity and the stream. Attainment of the recreation use standards for areas impacted by failing HSTS could be achieved through individual system improvements to reduce the discharge of bacteria. Two sampling locations on Wills Creek had extremely elevated maximum values. Wills Creek in Cambridge at Campbell Avenue (RM 64.10) and Wills Creek north of Byesville at Township Road 347 (RM 68.13) had maximum values of 40,000 cfu and 11,000 cfu, respectively. However, both elevated samples were collected on May 22, 2014 when stream flows were elevated above the median flow and could be attributed to re-suspension during storm events. Table 25 — Attainment status of recreation use criteria for Wills Creek study area streams, May‐August, 2014. % > Single RM Class n Geomean Sample Max. Maximum Status Source(s) Wills Creek Trail Run‐Wills Creek 05040005 02 07 75.90 A 8 582 63% 7,300 NON Ag 68.13 A 8 534 38% 11,000 NON Ag, WWTP, HSTS Sarchett Run‐Wills Creek 05040005 05 04 64.10 A 12 489 50% 40,000 NON Urban, HSTS, 57.36 A 7 435 42% 6,800 NON Urban Wills Creek Mainstem 05040005 90 01 46.57 A 8 446 50% 4,600 NON High Flows 37.74 A 8 332 25% 5,400 NON Ag, HSTS 31.59 A 12 249 42% 1,800 NON Ag, HSTS 27.04 A 8 370 50% 1,700 NON Ag, HSTS 23.16 A 7 103 14% 340 NON unknown 18.54 A 8 187 25% 440 NON Ag, HSTS 7.04 A 12 29 0% 180 Full 5.25 A 8 56 0% 90 Full 3.05 A 8 54 0% 200 Full Buffalo Creek

Page 88 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

% > Single RM Class n Geomean Sample Max. Maximum Status Source(s) North Fork Buffalo Creek‐Buffalo Creek 05040005 02 04 0.08 B 12 772 58% 9,700 NON Ag, HSTS South Fork Buffalo Creek South Fork Buffalo Creek‐Buffalo Creek 05040005 02 03 0.45 B 8 780 75% 4,300 NON Ag, HSTS Buffalo Fork Headwaters Collins Fork 05040005 02 02 6.12 B 12 623 42% 4,000 NON Ag, HSTS Crane Run‐Buffalo Fork 05040005 02 05 0.23 B 12 423 25% 4,500 NON Ag, HSTS Yoker Creek Yoker Creek 05040005 02 01 0.34 B 12 636 33% 12,000 NON Ag, HSTS Seneca Fork Headwaters Seneca Fork 05040005 01 01 24.80 A 8 1,413 88% 2,800 NON Ag Opossum Run‐Seneca Fork 05040005 01 05 2.07 A 12 299 33% 4,200 NON Ag, HSTS South Fork Seneca Fork Glady Run‐Seneca Fork 0504000501 03) 3.30 B 7 1,657 100% 3,100 NON Ag, HSTS Beaver Creek Beaver Creek 05040005 01 02 2.40 B 7 1,045 71% 5,000 NON Ag, HSTS Chapman Run Chapman Run 05040005 02 06 0.92 B 11 469 36% 3,100 NON Urban Leatherwood Creek Headwaters Leatherwood Creek 05040005 03 01 23.75 B 8 420 25% 790 NON Ag, HSTS Hawkins Run‐Leatherwood Creek 05040005 03 02 9.80 B 11 357 27% 1,200 NON Ag, HSTS Crooked Creek Headwaters Crooked Creek 05040005 05 02 13.25 B 7 673 43% 7,400 NON Ag, HSTS Peters Creek‐Crook Creek 05040005 05 03 6.28 B 12 477 50% 5,200 NON Unknown North Crooked Creek North Crooked Creek 05040005 05 01 1.41 B 7 589 43% 2,600 NON Ag, WWTP Salt Fork Headwaters Salt Fork 05040005 04 02 20.80 B 12 519 50% 6,200 NON Unknown Beeham Run‐Salt Fork 05040005 04 06 0.32 B 12 67 8% 700 NON HSTS Brushy Fork Brushy Fork 05040005 04 01 3.35 B 8 764 50% 3,700 NON Ag

Page 89 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

% > Single RM Class n Geomean Sample Max. Maximum Status Source(s) Sugartree Fork Salt Fork Lake‐Sugartree Fork 05040005 04 05) 11.05 B 8 578 50% 1,200 NON Ag, HSTS Clear Fork Clear Fork 05040005 04 03 3.0 B 8 692 63% 1,500 NON Ag, HSTS Rocky Fork Rocky Fork 05040005 04 04 5.56 B 8 528 50% 950 NON Ag, HSTS Indian Camp Run Indian Camp Run 05040005 05 05 3.90 B 8 497 50% 1,700 NON Ag, HSTS Birds Run Headwaters Birds Run 05040005 05 06 4.30 B 8 475 25% 830 NON Ag, HSTS Johnson Fork‐Birds Run 05040005 05 07 0.17 B 12 319 33% 980 NON Ag, HSTS Wills Creek Tributary @ RM 23.49 (Marlatt Run) Twomile Run‐Wills Creek 05040005 06 02) 0.40 B 7 451 43% 950 NON Ag, HSTS Bacon Run Bacon Run 05040005 06 01 0.01 B 7 765 57% 3,800 NON Ag, HSTS White Eyes Creek White Eyes Creek 050400005 06 03 4.78 B 12 919 75% 2,900 NON Ag, HSTS All values are expressed as E. coli colony forming units per 100 ml of water (cfu/100 ml). Bold values exceed the pertinent criterion. Probable Sources: AG = Agriculture; HSTS = Home Sewage Treatment System; WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plant; Urban = Urban runoff PCR Criteria Geomean Maximum Class A <126 Class B <161 ≤523

Water Supply Use The public water supply (PWS) beneficial use in the WQS (OAC 3745-1-33) currently applies within 500 yards of drinking water intakes and for all publicly owned lakes. Ohio EPA has developed an assessment methodology for this beneficial use which focuses on source water contaminants not effectively removed through conventional treatment methods. Source water quality is assessed though comparison of water quality data to numeric chemical water quality criteria for three core indicators: nitrate; pesticides (atrazine); and cyanotoxins. The Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Ohio IR) describes this methodology and is available at epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/OhioIntegratedReport.aspx. The Ohio IR is updated on a two-year cycle, and the current report at the time of this report was the 2018 Ohio IR. Impaired source waters may contribute to increased human health risk or treatment costs. When stream water is pumped to a reservoir, the stream and reservoir are evaluated separately. These assessments are designed to determine if the quality of source water meets the standards and criteria of the Clean Water Act. Monitoring of the safety and quality of treated finished drinking water is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and evaluated separately from this assessment. For those cases when the treatment

Page 90 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

plant processes do not specifically remove a source water contaminant, the finished water quality data may be considered representative of the raw source water directly feeding into the treatment plant. A community public water system is a system that regularly supplies drinking water from its own sources to at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents of the area or regularly serves 25 or more people throughout the entire year. There are two public water systems (Fox Lake and Cambridge) directly served by surface water sources within the Wills Creek study area. To assess the PWS beneficial use for each indictor, samples were collected at representative sites and analyzed for nitrate, atrazine and cyanotoxins (microcystins, saxitoxins and cylindrospermopsin). Table 26 provides a summary of exceedances for the PWS use while Appendix F contains water quality analytical results. Additionally, all surface water PWSs must conduct routine microcystins monitoring and cyanobacteria screening as specified in OAC 3745-90-03. All cyanotoxin (microcystins, saxitoxins and cylindrospermopsin) results are available on Ohio EPA’s website at wwwapp.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/hab/HAB_Sampling_Results.xlsx. Table 26 — Nitrate+nitrite‐N (mg/L) and atrazine (µg/L) concentrations in proximity to public water supply intakes in the Wills Creek watershed, 2014. Other descriptions are presented below. Nitrate+nitrite‐N Atrazine WQC = 10 mg/L 1 WQC = 3.0 µg/L 2 Location Average Maximum Average Annual Average Annual Average Maximum (Station ID) (n) (n>WQC) (n) (2014) 3 (2015) 3 New Concord PWS (North Crooked Creek ‐ HUC 0504005 05 01) Fox Creek near intake 0.36 0.85 0.2 No Data BDL <0.2 (302571) (5) (0) (5) Fox Lake L‐1 0.05 0.05 0.2 8.0 mg/L. 2 Atrazine WQC evaluated as annual average based on quarterly averages. Watch List conditions include maximum reported value > 12.0 µg/L. 3 Quarterly averages assume zero for quarters without data.

Village of New Concord The Village of New Concord operates a community public water system that serves an approximate population of 2,550 people with about 700 metered connections. The total pumping capacity is approximately 750,000 gallons per day, but current average production is 240,000 gallons per day. North Crooked Creek serves as the surface water source for New Concord. A 10 million-gallon lower reservoir is located next to the plant and is fed by natural springs and North Crooked Creek. The village also has a 60 million-gallon upper reservoir that can be used as needed. A raw water line connects North Crooked Creek with the lower reservoir. The valve is usually left open but can be closed if contamination is suspected in North Crooked Creek. When drought conditions decrease the water level in the lower reservoir and North Crooked Creek, water from the upper reservoir is pumped into the lower reservoir. The main treatment processes include clarification, filtration, phosphate addition, disinfection and fluoridation.

Page 91 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Ohio EPA collected water quality samples from Fox Creek just upstream from the intake on North Crooked Creek and from the upper reservoir (L-1 site) during 2014 and 2015. To assess the PWS beneficial use, samples were analyzed for nitrate, atrazine and cyanotoxins (microcystins, saxitoxin and cylindrospermopsin). The PWS assessment unit is HUC 05040005 05 01 - North Crooked Creek. The results for each impairment are summarized as follows:  Nitrate Indicator: All results were below the water quality criterion for nitrate (10.0 mg/L). o Fox Creek: Nitrate results ranged from below detection limit (BDL) to 0.85 mg/L. o Fox Lake (Upper): Nitrates ranged from BDL to 0.05 mg/L.  Pesticides Indicator: All results were below the maximum reported value >12 µg/L. All annual averages for atrazine were below the water quality criteria.  Algae, Cyanotoxins Indicator: There were five exceedances of the water quality criterion for microcystins (1.0 ug/L), one in May 2015 and four in December 2018. There were no exceedances of the water quality criterion for saxitoxins (0.2 ug/L) or cylindrospermopsin (1.0 µg/L). o Fox Lake (Upper): Microcystins ranged from BDL to 2.4 ug/L. All results for other cyanotoxins (saxitoxins and cylindrospermopsin) were BDL. o PWS routine monitoring at raw water sampling point occurred June 2016 through December 2019. . Microcystins ranged from BDL to 4.0 ug/L. . All results for saxitoxins and cylindrospermopsin were BDL. . Cyanobacteria screening detected saxitoxin-producing genes in October 2017, and all results for cylindrospermopsin-producing genes were BDL. In the 2018 Ohio IR, the drinking water use support for North Crooked Creek (05040005 05 01) is listed as full support for nitrates and pesticides and watch list for algae based on data from this study and from New Concord PWS. Since the 2018 Ohio IR assessment, several exceedances of the water quality criterion for microcystin occurred, and based on these data, the assessment unit would be considered impaired for the PDWS beneficial use algae, cyanotoxins indicator. City of Cambridge The City of Cambridge operates a community public water system serving a direct population of 10,635 through about 6,500 connections. The City also sells water to Western Guernsey Services and Guernsey County Water Department, for a combined service population of 23,800. Cambridge obtains its water from Wills Creek and then pumps to the 25-acre Cambridge Reservoir. Treatment processes include powdered activated carbon and potassium permanganate addition, coagulation with alum, flocculation, settling, lime pH adjustment, filtration, disinfection and fluoridation. The system’s treatment capacity is million gallons per day, but current average production is about 3.4 million gallons per day. Ohio EPA collected water quality samples from Wills Creek near the intake and from Cambridge Reservoir (L-1 site) during 2014 and 2015. To assess the PWS beneficial use, samples were analyzed for nitrate, atrazine and cyanotoxins (microcystins, saxitoxin and cylindrospermopsin). The PWS assessment unit is HUC 05040005 02 07 – Trail Run Wills Creek. The results for each impairment are summarized as follows:  Nitrate Indicator: All results were below the water quality criterion for nitrate (10.0 mg/L). o Wills Creek: Nitrate results ranged from 0.04 mg/L to 0.69 mg/L. o Cambridge Reservoir: Nitrates ranged from BDL to 0.05 mg/L.  Pesticides Indicator: All results were below the maximum reported value >12 µg/L. All annual averages for atrazine were below the water quality criteria.

Page 92 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

 Algae, Cyanotoxins Indicator: There were no exceedances of the water quality criterion for microcystins (1.0 µg/L), saxitoxins (0.2 µg/L) or cylindrospermopsin (1.0 µg/L). o Cambridge Reservoir: All results for other cyanotoxins (microcystins, saxitoxins, and cylindrospermopsin) were BDL. o PWS routine monitoring at raw water sampling point occurred June 2016 through December 2019. . All results for microcystins were BDL. . All results for saxitoxins were BDL. . Cyanobacteria screening detected saxitoxin-producing genes in June 2016, and all results for cylindrospermopsin-producing genes were BDL. In the 2018 Ohio IR, the drinking water use support for Trail Run Wills Creek (05040005 02 07) is listed as full support for all PDWS beneficial use indicators (nitrates, pesticides, and algae) based on the data from this study and Cambridge PWS.

Human Health Use (Fish Tissue) Ohio’s Fish Consumption Advisory Program (FCA) was reorganized in 1993 as a cooperative effort amongst the Departments of Health, Natural Resources and the Ohio EPA. This multi-agency approach has produced a broad, consistent fish tissue contaminant database from all of the State’s waters. Concurrently, the Great Lakes Governors Association, US EPA and Ohio’s FCA have improved data evaluation and risk communication. The Ohio FCA website provides further information: epa.ohio.gov/dsw/fishadvisory/index.aspx. Fish tissue in 52 samples was analyzed for the presence of metals, including arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury and selenium, and for organic compounds or breakdown products, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), heptachlor, mirex, hexachlorobenzene, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, endosulfan and chlordanes. These contaminants bioaccumulate in fish and could threaten human health if excessively consumed. These analytes, specific FCA guidance and contaminant thresholds are discussed in: State of Ohio Cooperative Fish Tissue Monitoring Program Sport Fish Tissue Consumption Advisory Program (OEPA, 2010). The ubiquitous presence of mercury has resulted in a statewide recommendation to monitor fish consumption based on location and species-specific risk. Broadly, it is recommended to eat most fish no more than 52 times annually (once a week). While yellow perch, crappie and sunfish may be consumed more often, the mercury contamination in other species could exceed the amount most people would normally metabolize and eliminate. In places where the amount of species-specific mercury contamination is excessive, advisories are issued to limit consumption accordingly. Thus, a monthly advisory suggests certain fish from a particular stream should be eaten less frequently than the weekly recommendation would advocate. Wills Creek saugeye were determined to have mercury body burdens that warrant a monthly advisory (Table 27). Conversely, channel catfish from Wills Creek Lake had comparatively less mercury concentration in fillets. Those catfish may be consumed twice weekly. One largemouth bass sample (0.19 mg/kg) downstream from the Wills Creek Dam exceeded the weekly unrestricted arsenic consumption risk trigger (0.15 mg/kg, Table 28). This single sample was insufficient to influence consumption advisories. Otherwise, arsenic was not detected (MDL=0.05 mg/kg) or only present in low concentrations. Low concentrations of selenium were routinely detected in Wills Creek fish tissue (Table 29). Cadmium was present in six consecutive Wills Creek common carp samples upstream from CR

Page 93 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

106 (RM 75.9: 0.005, RM 68.1: 0.004, RM 64.1: 0.004, RM 46.6: 0.005, RM 31.6: 0.007 and RM 23.2: 0.007 mg/kg). Cadmium was not detected (MDL=0.004 mg/kg) in other samples. Likewise, lead was not detected (MDL=0.04 mg/kg) in any 2014 Wills Creek fish tissue. PCBs and pesticides were detected in two Wills Creek basin fish tissue samples analyzed in 2014. A saugeye sample obtained downstream from the Wills Creek Dam returned a total concentration of PCBs (0.71 mg/kg) and hexachlorobenzene (0.01 mg/kg) just above the method detection limits (MDL=0.50 and MDL=0.01 mg/kg, respectively). A common carp sample acquired upstream from Birds Run contained 0.01 mg/kg of DDE, a degradation of DDT at the MDL concentration. PCBs have been illegal to manufacture in the U.S. since 1979 and worldwide since 2001. Hexachlorobenzene and DDT were banned in the U.S. in 1966 and 1972, respectively. The persistence of these carcinogens in the environment challenges our ability to associate any contemporary source. Fortunately, these low value detections were unusual in the overall assessment. No other organic compounds were detected 2014 Wills Creek fish. In addition to consumption advisories, fish tissue data supports assessment of the non-drinking water human health use. “Section E: Evaluating Beneficial Use: Human Health (Fish Contaminants)” of the 2018 Ohio EPA Integrated Report explains the rationale used to characterize this attainment status (epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/tmdl/2018intreport/SectionE.pdf). Achievement requires the weighted average concentration of geometric means based on two or more samples from trophic levels three and four within an assessment unit to be less than the mercury or PCB Ohio River basin thresholds (1.0 and 0.054 mg/kg, respectively). All 2014 Wills Creek fish tissue samples had mercury concentrations that were less than the human health criterion. Despite the single PCB detection, results of the assessment calculation for all watershed units (HUC-12s) were less than the criterion. Thus, Wills Creek Lake and six HUCs (Trail Run-Wills Creek: 5040005 02 07, Sarchet Run-Wills Creek: 5040005 05 04, Wolf Run-Wills Creek: 5040005 05 08, Twomile Run-Wills Creek: 5040005 0602, Wills Creek Dam-Wills Creek: 5040005 06 04, Mouth Wills Creek: 5040005 06 05) were determined to attain the fish tissue based human health use. Wills Creek fish tissue was previously evaluated in 1994 and 2004. Mercury concentrations were similar in prior assessments (x¯=0.11 mg/kg in 1994, x¯=0.13 mg/kg in 2004, x¯=0.15 mg/kg in 2014) Other parameters were not assessed, were not detected, or were unremarkable.

Table 27 — Mercury concentrations (mg/kg) in fish tissue samples (n) collected from Wills Creek and Wills Creek Lake, 2014. Bold values exceed the biweekly unrestricted consumption risk trigger (0.110), bold italicized values exceed the biweekly consumption risk trigger (0.220). Yellow and red highlighted mean values support respective consumption advisories. Species Common Bluegill Black White Channel Flathead Largemouth RM Location carp sunfish crappie crappie catfish catfish bass Saugeye Wills Creek 75.90 Twp. Rd. 2360 0.19 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.10/ 0.24 0.22 ‐ 0.20 68.13 Co. Rd. 347 0.21 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.05 0.07 0.11 ‐ 64.10 Co. Rd. 513 0.13 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.15/ 0.16 0.10 ‐ 0.39 46.57 Twp. Rd. 365 0.19 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.14/ 0.28 0.14 ‐ 0.18 31.59 St. Rt. 658 0.14 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.16/ 0.18 0.17 0.24 0.24/ 0.25 23.16 Co. Rd. 106 0.15 ‐ 0.19 ‐ 0.11/ 0.19 ‐ 0.24 0.23 7.04 Co. Rd. 497 0.17 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.08/ 0.12 0.27 0.17 0.19

Page 94 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Mean values 0.17 (7) ‐ 0.12 (2) ‐ 0.15 (13) 0.16 (6) 0.19 (4) 0.24 (7) Total mean value 0.17 (41) Wills Creek Lake 10.90 St. Rt. 83 0.16/ 0.18 ‐ 0.09 0.08/ 0.10 0.07/ ‐ 0.16/ 0.19/ ‐ 0.08/ 0.08 0.24 Mean values 0.17 (2) ‐ ‐ 0.09 (2) 0.08 (3) ‐ 0.20 (3) ‐ Total mean value 0.13 (11) Table 28 — Arsenic concentrations (mg/kg) in fish tissue samples collected from Wills Creek and Wills Creek Lake, 2014. A less than symbol indicates results below MDL (0.05). Bold values exceed the weekly unrestricted consumption risk trigger (0.15). No values exceed the weekly consumption risk trigger (0.656). Species Common Bluegill Black White Channel Flathead Largemouth RM Location carp sunfish crappie crappie catfish catfish bass Saugeye Wills Creek 75.90 Twp. Rd. 2360 0.06 ‐ ‐ ‐

Table 29 — Selenium concentrations (mg/kg) in fish tissue samples collected from Wills Creek and Wills Creek Lake, 2014. No values approached the weekly unrestricted consumption risk trigger (2.5) or the weekly consumption risk trigger (10.938). Species Common Bluegill Black White Channel Flathead Largemouth RM Location carp sunfish crappie crappie catfish catfish bass Saugeye Wills Creek 75.9 Twp. Rd. 2360 0.60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.28/ 0.25 0.24 ‐ 0.43 0 68.1 Co. Rd. 347 0.60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.33 0.20 0.43 ‐ 3 64.1 Co. Rd. 513 0.60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.22/ 0.29 0.19 ‐ 0.43 0 46.5 Twp. Rd. 365 0.66 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.18/ 0.25 0.19 ‐ 0.38 7 31.5 St. Rt. 658 0.54 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.19/ 0.22 0.20 0.34 0.39/ 0.38 9 23.1 Co. Rd. 106 0.60 ‐ 0.39 ‐ 0.25/ 0.25 ‐ 0.28 0.37 6 7.04 Co. Rd. 497 0.40 0.57 0.35 0.42 0.20/ 0.20 0.27 0.40 0.43 Wills Creek Lake 10.9 St. Rt. 83 0.52/ ‐ 0.49 0.36/ 0.51 0.34/ 0.45/ ‐ 0.42/ 0.47/ ‐ 0 0.59 0.39 0.49

Page 95 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Recommendations The beneficial use designations for the Wills Creek watershed are listed in the Ohio Water Quality Standards (OAC-3745-1-24 Muskingum river drainage basin) which became effective on May 22, 2017. Biological and habitat data collected from the Wills Creek survey in 2014 was used to evaluate and establish aquatic life uses for streams in the Wills Creek watershed. The streams in the Wills Creek study area currently listed in the Ohio Water Quality Standards are assigned one or more of the following aquatic life use designations: Warmwater Habitat (WWH), Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH), Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH) and Coldwater Habitat (CWH). Status of Aquatic Life Uses The aquatic life use status of Wills Creek and several tributaries was previously verified by EPA in 1984, 1987, 1994 and 1999. Warmwater habitat was confirmed as the appropriate designation for Wills Creek, Buffalo Fork and tributaries, Chapman Run, Leatherwood Creek, Crooked Creek and Salt Fork and tributaries (OEPA, 1995). All the other Wills Creek tributaries were originally designated for aquatic life uses in the 1978 Ohio WQS. The techniques used then did not include standardized approaches to the collection of instream biological data or numerical biological criteria. The 2014 study used biological and habitat data to evaluate and establish aquatic life uses for 46 streams in the Wills Creek Study Area (Table 30). Significant findings include the following:  The 2014 survey confirms the existing WWH aquatic life for Wills Creek mainstem should be retained. The biological community continues to improve with improving habitat and reduced sediment bedload greatly improving habitat scores. Dams on the mainstem hinder a complete recovery preventing fish recruitment and migration and creating artificial lake like conditions.  The 2014 survey confirms that the existing WWH aquatic life use for Salt Fork and tributaries, Buffalo Fork and tributaries, Chapman Run, Leatherwood Creek and Crooked Creek should be retained.  Thirteen Wills Creek tributaries assigned the WWH aquatic life use in 1978 were confirmed WWH during the 2014 survey including Seneca Fork and tributaries, Sarchett Run, Indian Camp Run, Birds Run and tributaries, Twomile Run, Bacon Run and tributaries and Infirmary Run.  Skin Creek (North Fork Seneca Fork) was also assigned the WWH aquatic life use in 1978 but the 2014 survey confirmed EWH due to exceptional habitat (QHEI=82) and biological communities that included coldwater fish and macroinvertebrate taxa as well as 31 EPT taxa and 25 sensitive macroinvertebrate taxa.  Turkey Run was previously confirmed as WWH in 1994. During the 2014 survey, the tributary to Salt Fork exhibited an abundance of coldwater and exceptional biological communities which confirmed an assignment of the dual aquatic life use of EWH and coldwater habitat (CWH).  Ten Wills Creek basin streams designated limited warmwater habitat (LWH) in 1978 were confirmed WWH during the 2014 survey including White Eyes Creek, Brush Run, Peters Creek, Bobs Run, North Branch Crooked Creek, Shannon Creek, Buffalo Creek, South Fork Buffalo Creek and Little Buffalo Creek and Fox Creek (from RM 0.9 to the mouth).  Four Wills Creek basin streams designated LWH in 1978 were assigned modified warmwater habitat (MWH) as a result of the 2014 survey. These streams include Fox Creek (from RM 0.9 to the headwaters), Jackson Run and North Fork of Buffalo Creek due to mine drainage and Dare Run due to channel modification.  Four streams in the Wills Creek Basin assessed in 2014 were not previously listed in the Ohio Water Quality Standards which include Marlatt Run (Wills Creek tributary at RM 23.49), unnamed

Page 96 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

tributary to Wills Creek at RM 34.43, unnamed tributary to White Eyes Creek at RM 4.5 and unnamed tributary to Johnson Fork at RM 1.04. All four stream were recommended WWH based on the 2014 survey and included in the 2017 Ohio WQS rulemaking. Status of Non‐Aquatic Life Uses All the streams in the 2014 survey are designated Primary Contact Recreation (PCR), Agricultural Water Supply (AWS) and Industrial Water Supply (IWS). The Cambridge drinking water supply has an intake on Wills Creek at RM 66.7 and should retain the Public Water Supply (PWS) use designation. Additional streams designated for PWS include North Branch Crooked Creek at RM 4.46 for the City of New Concord, unnamed tributary to Fox Creek at RM 5.56 for the City of New Concord and Leatherwood Creek at RM 26.36 for Quaker City. Other Recommendations  Areas with abandoned or unreclaimed mines should be further evaluated to determine if reclamation projects would improve water quality or habitat by reducing mine drainage and sediment. Follow up monitoring should be conducted in these areas so that projects could target the most significant contribution of mine drainage or sediment  Dams on the mainstem of Wills Creek impede fish migration and affect the habitat. Future studies should be conducted to determine if dams on the mainstem of Wills Creek should be altered or removed. Additional mitigative efforts could also include reintroduction of native fish species upstream from Wills Creek lake to reestablish native fish populations.  Impacts from hydraulic fracturing should be monitored especially water withdrawals from smaller waterways during seasonally low flow periods. An increase in pipeline construction has increased sedimentation and spills into waterways in eastern Ohio. These should be monitored in the Wills Creek watershed to determine if they are causing an impact.

Page 97 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Table 30 – Existing waterbody use designations for the Wills Creek study area (effective May 22, 2017). Designations based on the 1978 and 1985 Ohio Water Quality Standards are indicated with asterisks (*) while designations based on the results of a previous bio biological field assessment performed by Ohio EPA are symbolized using a (+) sign. Verification of current designations based on 2014 study are symbolized as (*/+) while a (▲) denotes a new recommended use based on the findings of this study. Streams not assessed in this study appear in bold blue font.

Use Designations Aquatic Life Habitat Water Supply Recreation 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 OAC 3745-1-24 Muskingum River drainage basin (Wills Creek enters at RM 99.34) Wills Creek - at RM 66.7 + o + + + PWS intake - Cambridge all other segments + + + + Big Run * * * * Brelsford Run * * * * White Eyes Creek ▲ */+ */+ */+ Unnamed tributary (White eyes creek at RM 4.50) ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Brush Run ▲ */+ */+ */+ Bacon Run */+ */+ */+ */+ Bone Run * * * * Center Creek */+ */+ */+ */+ Marlatt Run (Wills Creek RM 23.49) ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Twomile Run */+ */+ */+ */+ Birds Run */+ */+ */+ */+ Johnson Fork */+ */+ */+ */+ Unknown Tributary (Johnson Fork RM 1.04) ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Postboy Creek * * * * Unnamed Tributary (Wills Creek RM 34.43) ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Indian Camp Run */+ */+ */+ */+ Dry Run * * * * Wolf Run * * * * Brush Run * * * * Salt Fork + + + + Sugartree Fork + + + + Rocky Fork + + + + Yellow Water Creek + + + + Clear Fork + + + + Turkey Run ▲ ▲ + + + Beeham Run + + + +

Page 98 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Use Designations Aquatic Life Habitat Water Supply Recreation 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 OAC 3745-1-24 Muskingum River drainage basin (Wills Creek enters at RM 99.34) Brushy Fork + + + + Christian Creek + + + + Coon Run + + + + Sarchett Run */+ */+ */+ */+ Crooked Creek + + + */+ Jackson Run ▲ */+ */+ */+ WAP ecoregion – mine affected Peters Creek ▲ */+ */+ */+ Bobs Run ▲ */+ */+ */+ North Crooked Creek – at RM 4.46 ▲ o */+ */+ */+ PWS intake – New Concord -all other segments ▲ */+ */+ */+ Fox Creek – Headwaters to US Route 22 (RM 0.9) ▲ */+ */+ */+ WAP ecoregion – mine affected - US Route 22 (RM0.9) to the mouth ▲ */+ */+ */+ Unnamed Tributary (Fox Creek RM 5.56) o PWS intake – New Concord Dare Run ▲ */+ */+ */+ WAP ecoregion – channel modification Leatherwood Creek - at RM22.36 + o + + */+ PWS intake – Quaker City (Formerly) -all other segments + + + */+ Mud Run * * * * Hawkins Run * * * * Infirmary Run */+ */+ */+ */+ Shannon Run ▲ */+ */+ */+ Chapman Run + + + + Trail Run * * * * Seneca Fork */+ */+ */+ */+ Soggy Run * * * * Opossum Run */+ */+ */+ */+ Crooked Creek * * * * Mud Run * * * * Depue Run * * * * Beaver Creek */+ */+ */+ */+ Yoker Creek * * * * Glady Run */+ */+ */+ */+ South Fork */+ */+ */+ */+ North Fork (Skin Creek) ▲ */+ */+ */+

Page 99 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Use Designations Aquatic Life Habitat Water Supply Recreation 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 OAC 3745-1-24 Muskingum River drainage basin (Wills Creek enters at RM 99.34) Mud Run * * * * Bishop Run * * * * Paynes Fork * * * * Rock Creek * * * * Buffalo Fork + */+ */+ */+ Crane Run + * * * Yoker Creek + */+ */+ */+ Mannon Run + * * * Flat Run + * * * McKee Run + * * * Bee Run + * * * Sims Run + * * * Cumberland Tributary + + + + Small drainageway maintenance Collins Fork + */+ */+ */+ Miller Creek + */+ */+ */+ Mays Fork + * * * Rannells Creek + */+ */+ */+ Buffalo Creek ▲ */+ */+ */+ North Fork Buffalo Creek ▲ */+ */+ */+ WAP ecoregion – mine affected South Fork Buffalo Creek ▲ */+ */+ */+ Little Buffalo Creek ▲ */+ */+ */+

Page 100 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Acknowledgements The following Ohio EPA staff provided technical expertise for this project: Report Preparation and Analysis Brian Alsdorf, Laura Hughes, Kelly Capuzzi and Randy Spencer Reviewers Marianne Piekutowski, Jeff Bohne, Rachel Taulbee and Sarah Becker Stream Sampling Brian Alsdorf, Charles Boucher, Kelly Capuzzi, Laura Hughes, Joann Montgomery, Andrew Phillips, Randy Spencer, Claire Westervelt Sorrell and Paul Gledhill Lakes Sampling Jeff Bohne, Kelly Capuzzi, Jeff Lewis, Randy Spencer Seasonal Interns Nora Sullivan, Aaron Coons, Kevin Smith, Alece Powery, Kylienne Clark, Eve Hochhauser, Augustus Martin, Will Siegel, Cory Stratton, Cody Harting and Dale Mattox

The Ohio EPA appreciates the cooperation of the property owners who allowed Ohio EPA personnel access to the project area.

Page 101 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

References Appleby, Joseph. 1951. “A Historical Geography of Cambridge, Ohio.” The Ohio Journal of Science. 51(2): 57- 61. Cambridge-Guernsey County Community Improvement Corporation. Utica Shale Play. http://www.cgccic.org/?q=uticashale Clements, W. H., D. S. Cherry & J. H. Van Hassel, 1992. Assessment of the impact of heavy metals on benthic communities at the Clinch River (Virginia): evaluation of an index of community sensitivity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:1686–169. Clements, W. H., 1994. Benthic invertebrate community responses to heavy metals in the upper Arkansas River Basin, Colorado. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 30–44. Clements, W. H., 2004. Small-scale experiments support causal relationships between metal contamination and macroinvertebrate community response. Ecological Applications 14: 954–967. Crowell, Douglas L. 1995. History of the Coal‐Mining Industry in Ohio. Bulletin 72. Columbus, OH. Ohio Division of Geological Survey. Dufour, A.P. 1977. “Escherichia coli: The fecal coliform.” American Society for Testing and Materials (Spec. Publ.) 635:45-58. Great Lakes Environmental Assessment and Mapping Project. “Hypoxia”. http://greatlakesmapping.org/great_lake_stressors/6/hypoxia Illinois State Water Supply. 1989. “Using Copper Sulfate to Control Algae in Water Supply Impoundments.” Miscellaneous Publication 111, A Division of the Department of Energy and Natural Resources http://www.damsafety.org/resources/?p=bc150253‐a2ed‐4a2d‐ad3e‐1b0f5fc1a2ee Kennedy, A. J., D. S. Cherry & R. J. Currie, 2003. Field and laboratory assessment of a coal processing effluent in the Leading Creek watershed, Meigs County, Ohio. Archives Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 44: 324–331. MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll and T.A. Berger. 2000. “Development and Evaluation of Consensus-based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems.” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31. Nature Conservancy, The. 2018. “Improving Steep-Slope Pipeline Construction to Reduce Impacts to Natural Resources.” Conservation Gateway: The Nature Conservancy Novak, Rachael, Kennen, J.G., Abele, R.W., Baschon, C.F., Carlisle, D.M., Dlugolecki, Laura, Flotermersch, J.E., Ford, Peter, Fowler, Jamie, Galer, Rose, Gordon, L.P., Hansen, S.N., Herbold, Bruce, Johnson, T.E., Johnston, J.M., Konrad, C.P., Leamond, Beth, and Seelbach, P.W, 2015, Draft: EPA-USGS Technical Report: Protecting Aquatic Life from Effects of Hydrologic Alteration: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5160, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA Report 822-P-15- 002, XX p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5160/ and http://www2.epa.gov/wqc/aquatic life‐ ambient‐water quality‐criteria

ODNR. 2001. Gazetteer of Ohio Streams (2nd Edition). Water Inventory Report 29. Columbus, OH: Ohio Division of Water.

Page 102 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

ODNR. 2018. Class II brine injection wells of Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey and Division of Oil and Gas Management. OEPA. 2013. Surface Water Field Sampling Manual for water column chemistry, bacteria and flows. Columbus, OH. http://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/documents/SW_SamplingManual.pdf OEPA. 2012. Biological and Habitat Studies: 17 River and Stream Projects in Ohio. Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin EAS/2012-2-3. Columbus, OH. http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/319_SWIF_TSD_2011.pdf Ohio EPA. 2012. Ohio 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Ohio Division of Surface Water. Columbus, OH. epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/OhioIntegratedReport.aspx OEPA. 2012. “Section E: Evaluating Beneficial Use: Human Health (Fish Contaminants)” Ohio 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Ohio Division of Surface Water. Columbus, OH. epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/tmdl/2012IntReport/IR12SectionEfinal.pdf

OEPA. 2012. Sediment Sampling Guide and Methodologies (3rd Edition). Columbus, OH. http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/guidance/sedman2012.pdf OEPA. 2010. Guidance on Evaluating Sediment Contaminant Results. Columbus, OH. http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/guidance/sediment_evaluation_jan10.pdf OEPA. 2010. State of Ohio: Cooperative Fish Tissue Monitoring Program: Sport Fish Tissue Consumption Advisory Program. Columbus, OH. epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/fishadvisory/FishAdvisoryProcedure.pdf. OEPA. 2008. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance Document (Revised from 2003) DERR-00-RR-031. Columbus, OH. epa.ohio.gov/portals/30/rules/RR‐031.pdf Ohio EPA. 2003. Ohio Specific Sediment Reference Values. EPA DERR Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance. Division of Emergency and Remedial Response, Columbus, Ohio. OEPA. 1999. Association Between Nutrients, Habitat, and the Aquatic Biota in Ohio Rivers and Streams, (with Appendices). Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin MAS/1999-1-1. Columbus, OH. http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/assoc_load.pdf OEPA. 1995. Biological and Water Quality Study of Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries. Guernsey, Coshocton and Muskingum Counties, Ohio. Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin MAS/1995-6-5. Columbus, OH. http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/ottawa91.pdf OEPA. 1995. Biological, Sediment and Water Quality Study of Chapman Run and Associated Wetlands, Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, Guernsey County, Ohio. Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin MAS/1995-8-10. Columbus, OH. http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/chapmn94.pdf http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/7/pubs/reports/bulletin47.pdf

Page 103 of 104

AMS/2014‐WILLS‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Wills Creek and Selected Tributaries July 2019

Søndegarrd, M., J.P. Jenson and E. Jeppesen. 2003. “Role of sediment and internal loading of phosphorus in shallow lakes.” Hydrobiologia 506-509: 135-145. Tobin, Robert L. and John D. Young. 1975. “Limnology of Selected Lakes in Ohio.” Water‐Resources Investigation 77-105. U.S. Geological Survey.

Page 104 of 104