DOCSLIB.ORG

Donegal Creek Restoration Project Written by Mark A. Metzler the Donegal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Donegal Creek Restoration Project Written by Mark A. Metzler the Donegal Donegal Creek Restoration Project Written by Mark A. Metzler The Donegal Donegal Creek is located in bouts of thermal pollution and the northwest corner of Lancaster sedimentation. In its pristine state, County,D Pennsylvania. This limestone one can only conclude the east stream has a 17.2 square mile branch had been a cold water fishery, watershed and flows through some similar to its western twin, but now of Lancaster County’s most fertile would best be described as a warm farmland. Approximately 91% of the water fishery masquerading as a Donegal’s watershed is in agricultural cold water fishery outside the production, while the balance is summer months. comprised of urban landuse and The main stem, as logic should sporadic woodlots. dictate, is a combination of the LANCASTER COUNTY Donegal Creek is commonly two branches. Water temperatures divided and referred to by one of its remain cool enough through the CONSERVATION DISTRICT three distinct sections; those being summer months to support a the main stem (Donegal Creek), the year-round cold water fishery. east branch (Charles Run) and the Sedimentation problems have west branch (Donegal Springs). The been greatly reduced due to recent west branch is by far the best for restoration efforts. The upper half of general water quality. Large springs the main stem maintains the typical located in the headwaters provide a limestone stream appearance, while dependable flow of cold, crystal-clear the lower half begins to take on water producing an optimum cold characteristics more common of water fishery. freestone streams. In contrast, the east branch, The Donegal flows into Chickies although originating from similar Creek near Marietta, Pennsylvania, spring sources, is influenced to a which in turn flows into the mighty greater degree by surrounding Susquehanna River and ultimately 2 agricultural and urban landuse. The the Chesapeake Bay. east branch suffers from chronic 1 2 3 4 For the most part, Donegal Creek Numbered circles is accessible to the general public represent the 8 with ample signage indicating monitoring stations appropriate conduct and restrictions. used to collect Fence stiles near public roads provide data throughout strategic entrance to fenced areas of the Donegal Creek Restoration the stream. In addition, many areas Project. of the stream are easily accessed at 5 the various bridge crossings. Many fisherman, hunters, hikers and bird 6 watchers enjoy what this stream has to offer. To many people, Donegal Creek means trout fishing! The main stem 7 8 includes a 2.4 mile “delayed harvest fly-fishing” stretch, while the rest of the main stem and branches are open to “bait fishing.” Both the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and the Donegal Fish and Conservation Association stock trout during the spring and fall months. In addition to the stocked trout, an angler may encounter wild stream-bred brown trout when fishing the main stem and wild rainbow and brown trout (progeny from egg plant- ings) when fishing the west branch. Past & Present In 1994, Tom Moore of the Donegal not kind to the Donegal. Hurricane Chickies Creek Watershed) ranked Fish and Conservation Association was Agnes of ‘72 rearranged the creek 14th on the priority list for clean-up. becomingI increasingly concerned with to its liking, instigating “down on the Only 13 other watersheds in the the physical condition of his local trout farm” stream encroachment and entire state were considered to be stream. He recalled earlier years when realigning activities. more polluted by non-point source he and his two sons would enjoy The Donegal’s fishery meagerly pollution. angling success, but all that seemed existed through the remaining ‘70s So in 1994, the Donegal Fish to be changing, literally eroding away. and ‘80s. Agricultural landuse took and Conservation Association sought Ken Depoe, another local angler, on a new found intensity. Farmers in the assistance of the Lancaster was also quite aware of the situation; the area increased production and County Conservation District. District in fact had been since 1965 when diversified their operations in an employees Travis Martin and Mark he first organized the Donegal Fish attempt to make ends meet. Dairy Metzler worked with Moore and and Conservation Association for and other livestock operations were managed to install the first of many the specific purpose of improving expanded while appropriate measures fencing projects on the Donegal’s Donegal Creek. He and a handful for controlling nutrients and over- west branch. of volunteers experienced success grazing were at times lacking. At the same time, this budding though constantly hampered by a Trout fishing in the Donegal was partnership of fisherman and conser- limited budget. more or less limited to a “put and vationists realized it needed more Early endeavors focused on the take” scenario. In 1992, the money if restoration efforts were to main stem and in 1966 the original Pennsylvania Fish and Boat advance downstream. The District “fly-fishing only” area, now labeled Commission released the results started to pursue a large section 319 as “delayed harvest fly-fishing”, was of a survey they had performed on grant from the Commonwealth’s established. Depoe realized the the east branch (Charles Run). In Department of Environmental damage free ranging livestock were short, the survey found Charles Run Protection. causing and had installed single-wire to be severely degraded, lacking in In March of 1996, the partnership’s electric fences along the stream water quality, diversity of aquatic life dream came true when they started corridor where permitted to do so. and habitat. spending their $136,671 section 319 In time however, a few of the key The Commonwealth’s “State Water allocation. In time, the partnership properties changed ownership and Plan” sang a similar tune. Out of 104 would be the recipients of other cash many of the past improvements were highly degraded watersheds, the and labor donations allowing 4 rendered useless. The 1970’s were Donegal (considered part of the further project expansion. Troubleshooting The way in which land is used within a Such is the case when considering stream’s watershed ultimately influences the nutrient load in the average sample streamT health. Wise use of land and of Donegal water. Nitrate readings are water result in healthy aquatic resources, routinely high and have regularly exceeded while abuse results in degradation. The 40 ppm (greater than 10 ppm is consid- Donegal, like other streams of the ered too high for human consumption) Commonwealth, is at the mercy of those over the past four years. Nitrate readings people inhabiting its watershed. seem to peak during periods of drought, As mentioned earlier, 91% of the indicating a contaminated groundwater Donegal’s watershed is in agricultural supply. Excessive algae blooms and thick production. Therefore, it is only reasonable mats of duckweed, as can be seen on the to expect that particular landuse to have east branch (Charles Run), provide visual the greatest influence on water quality; evidence of such nutrient overloading. and indeed that is the case. The Donegal also suffers from thermal By volume, sediment is the largest pollution, though recently planted forest pollutant to Donegal waters. The partner- buffers are beginning to provide some “re-leaf” in the pasture settings. Ken Depoe (left) and Tom Moore (right) of the ship feels strongly that the majority of Donegal Fish and Conservation Association enjoy Donegal’s sedimentation problem had A lack of in-stream structural habitat, a spring morning on the Donegal’s fly stretch. stemmed from streambank erosion and, routine surges of ripping stormwater and to a lesser degree, cropfield erosion. a lack of sufficient groundwater recharge Prior to 1994, approximately 4.5 complete the list of Donegal ailments. miles of Donegal Creek was negatively Some of the ailments are easily and Donegal Dilemas impacted by free ranging livestock (mainly quickly addressed, others are not. The dairy herds). Trampling cattle destroyed partnership feels it has or can continue to • Sedimentation streambank vegetation, leaving banks in successfully combat problems such as • Nutrient overloading (Nitrogen) a raw condition prime for erosion during sedimentation, thermal pollution, structural • Thermal pollution high water flows. Many sections of the habitat loss and to some extent nutrient • Structural habitat loss creek were extremely wide and shallow overloading. Controlling stormwater • Stormwater surges in these pasture-type settings when generated from urban sprawl and its • Lack of groundwater recharge in developing areas compared to less disturbed areas. related reduction in groundwater recharge however will provide future challenges! Too much of a good thing can be bad. Winning Support Landowners willing to cooperate the 23 landowners identified in the into some sort of program criteria; with restoration activities are of original 6.7 mile project area. The unable to escape for who knew how utmostL importance. Without their letter described the partnership and many years. involvement, there simply is no its goal of restoring Donegal Creek. The partnership also makes an project! It also described the pursuit of the attempt at winning the support of Early on, the partnership adopted section 319 grant and requested visiting public. Fifteen sign boards the “golden rule” as its policy for their support. Nineteen of the 23 have been installed throughout the dealing with landowners. “Do unto landowners mailed back the ques- project area which describe the others as you would have them do tionnaire and expressed an interest restoration activities and stress unto you” seemed well received by in participating to some degree. appropriate conduct while on the the landowners involved. The partner- The partnership was delighted property. Fishing regulations, catch ship realized they could not go on with the landowners’ response and release procedure and other private property and force the project and has tried its best to maintain related informational items are and its ideals.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Indiana Species April 2007
    Fishes of Indiana April 2007 The Wildlife Diversity Section (WDS) is responsible for the conservation and management of over 750 species of nongame and endangered wildlife. The list of Indiana's species was compiled by WDS biologists based on accepted taxonomic standards. The list will be periodically reviewed and updated. References used for scientific names are included at the bottom of this list. ORDER FAMILY GENUS SPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS* CLASS CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI Petromyzontiformes Petromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon bdellium Ohio lamprey lampreys Ichthyomyzon castaneus chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor northern brook lamprey SE Ichthyomyzon unicuspis silver lamprey Lampetra aepyptera least brook lamprey Lampetra appendix American brook lamprey Petromyzon marinus sea lamprey X CLASS ACTINOPTERYGII Acipenseriformes Acipenseridae Acipenser fulvescens lake sturgeon SE sturgeons Scaphirhynchus platorynchus shovelnose sturgeon Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula paddlefish paddlefishes Lepisosteiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar gars Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar Lepisosteus platostomus shortnose gar Amiiformes Amiidae Amia calva bowfin bowfins Hiodonotiformes Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides goldeye mooneyes Hiodon tergisus mooneye Anguilliformes Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel freshwater eels Clupeiformes Clupeidae Alosa chrysochloris skipjack herring herrings Alosa pseudoharengus alewife X Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum central stoneroller
    [Show full text]
  • BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION Cooperstown, New York
    BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION Cooperstown, New York 49th ANNUAL REPORT 2016 STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK COLLEGE AT ONEONTA OCCASIONAL PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION No. 1. The diet and feeding habits of the terrestrial stage of the common newt, Notophthalmus viridescens (Raf.). M.C. MacNamara, April 1976 No. 2. The relationship of age, growth and food habits to the relative success of the whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and the cisco (C. artedi) in Otsego Lake, New York. A.J. Newell, April 1976. No. 3. A basic limnology of Otsego Lake (Summary of research 1968-75). W. N. Harman and L. P. Sohacki, June 1976. No. 4. An ecology of the Unionidae of Otsego Lake with special references to the immature stages. G. P. Weir, November 1977. No. 5. A history and description of the Biological Field Station (1966-1977). W. N. Harman, November 1977. No. 6. The distribution and ecology of the aquatic molluscan fauna of the Black River drainage basin in northern New York. D. E Buckley, April 1977. No. 7. The fishes of Otsego Lake. R. C. MacWatters, May 1980. No. 8. The ecology of the aquatic macrophytes of Rat Cove, Otsego Lake, N.Y. F. A Vertucci, W. N. Harman and J. H. Peverly, December 1981. No. 9. Pictorial keys to the aquatic mollusks of the upper Susquehanna. W. N. Harman, April 1982. No. 10. The dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata: Anisoptera and Zygoptera) of Otsego County, New York with illustrated keys to the genera and species. L.S. House III, September 1982. No. 11. Some aspects of predator recognition and anti-predator behavior in the Black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus).
    [Show full text]
  • Warmwater Streams and Their Headwaters (Accessible)
    Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan Warmwater Streams and Their Headwaters Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025 Today’s Priorities, Tomorrow’s Wildlife Contents What are Warmwater Streams and Their Headwaters? ........................................................................... 3 Plan Contributors .................................................................................................................................... 4 What Uses Warmwater Streams and Their Headwaters? ......................................................................... 4 Why Are Warmwater Streams & Their Headwaters Important? ............................................................... 6 What is the Health of Warmwater Streams & Their Headwaters? ............................................................ 6 Goals ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Call Out Box ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Call Out Box: Pipes in Streams ................................................................................................................. 7 What Are the Warmwater Streams & Their Headwaters Focal Species? ................................................... 7 Orangethroat Darter (Etheostoma spectabile) – .................................................................................. 7 Goals ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Criteria Used in IUCN Assessment Overestimate Area of Occupancy for Freshwater Taxa
    Spatial Criteria Used in IUCN Assessment Overestimate Area of Occupancy for Freshwater Taxa By Jun Cheng A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Toronto © Copyright Jun Cheng 2013 Spatial Criteria Used in IUCN Assessment Overestimate Area of Occupancy for Freshwater Taxa Jun Cheng Masters of Science Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Toronto 2013 Abstract Area of Occupancy (AO) is a frequently used indicator to assess and inform designation of conservation status to wildlife species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The applicability of the current grid-based AO measurement on freshwater organisms has been questioned due to the restricted dimensionality of freshwater habitats. I investigated the extent to which AO influenced conservation status for freshwater taxa at a national level in Canada. I then used distribution data of 20 imperiled freshwater fish species of southwestern Ontario to (1) demonstrate biases produced by grid-based AO and (2) develop a biologically relevant AO index. My results showed grid-based AOs were sensitive to spatial scale, grid cell positioning, and number of records, and were subject to inconsistent decision making. Use of the biologically relevant AO changed conservation status for four freshwater fish species and may have important implications on the subsequent conservation practices. ii Acknowledgments I would like to thank many people who have supported and helped me with the production of this Master’s thesis. First is to my supervisor, Dr. Donald Jackson, who was the person that inspired me to study aquatic ecology and conservation biology in the first place, despite my background in environmental toxicology.
    [Show full text]
  • Redside Dace Precision Biomonitoring Inc
    Case Study: Redside Dace Precision Biomonitoring Inc. precisionbiomonitoring.com [email protected] Detecting redside dace on-site using our point-of-need environmental DNA (eDNA) detection platform Background How can Precision Biomonitoring help? The redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus) is a species of Precision Biomonitoring has developed a sensitive assay for minnow-like fish that is found in small streams in a few the detection of redside dace DNA from water samples. isolated watersheds in Ontario. Its appearance is Using our point-of-need eDNA tool, we can provide real- characterized by a half-body length lateral red stripe below time confirmation of the presence of DNA from this species a full length yellow streak (Fig 1). Approximately 80% of the within two hours including water sampling. Our point-of- Canadian populations are located in the ‘golden horseshoe need platform will expedite efforts to delimit redside dace region’ of southwestern Ontario (Fig 2; MNRF). The species distributions, as the species can be detected quickly, is in serious decline with extirpations recorded in historic accurately and in real-time by taking only water samples. locations. As such, the species is listed as Endangered Our triple-lockTM molecular assays, designed for qPCR, have (Species At Risk Act, SARA). The redside dace is especially many advantages: a) high specificity to discriminate vulnerable to changes in habitat. Its current distribution is at between redside dace and other, closely-related and co- risk of further diminishment due to the continuing occurring species and b) extreme sensitivity to detect fewer urbanization and development in the ‘golden horseshoe’.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ohio Journal of Science — Index 1951-1970
    THE OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE — INDEX 1951-1970 JANE L. FORSYTH AND CHRISTINE M. GORTA Department of Geology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 INTRODUCTION It is almost 20 years since the first General Index to The Ohio Journal of Science, which covered the issues from the beginning (1900) through 1950, was published (Miller, E. M., 1953, published by The Ohio State University and The Ohio Academy of Science). It is time, therefore, for another general index, dealing with issues appearing since 1950. This is that index. Unlike the first index, there is no separate listing of full references by author; rather, this is simply a combining of all the entries from all the yearly indexes from 1951 through 1972. Basically these original entries remain unchanged here, though mistakes found in a few were corrected, and some have been slightly reworded in order to fit better into this multiple listing. Entries relating to book reviews occur only for the years of 1963 through 1970, because book reviews were not included in the earlier indexes. It should also be noted that, though a few of these books represent merely a reprinting of older, out-of-date books, these books are not so identified in the entries in this index. Preparation of this index has been mostly handled by Miss Christine M. Gorta, under the direction of Dr. Jane L. Forsyth, Editor of The Ohio Journal of Science from 1964 to 1973, but others have also contributed to this work—mainly Misses Lauran Boyles and Laura Witkowski—contributers whose efforts are gratefully acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings Template
    Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Research Document 2019/033 Central and Arctic Region Information in support of a Recovery Potential Assessment of Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) in Canada Dominique E. Lebrun, Lynn D. Bouvier, Monica Choy, David W. Andrews, and D. Andrew R. Drake Fisheries and Oceans Canada Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, ON, L7S 1A1 September 2020 Foreword This series documents the scientific basis for the evaluation of aquatic resources and ecosystems in Canada. As such, it addresses the issues of the day in the time frames required and the documents it contains are not intended as definitive statements on the subjects addressed but rather as progress reports on ongoing investigations. Published by: Fisheries and Oceans Canada Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 200 Kent Street Ottawa ON K1A 0E6 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/ [email protected] © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2020 ISSN 1919-5044 Correct citation for this publication: Lebrun, D.E., Bouvier, L.D., Choy, M., Andrews, D.W., and Drake, D. Andrew R. 2020. Information in support of a Recovery Potential Assessment of Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) in Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2019/033. v + 49 p. Aussi disponible en français : Lebrun, D.E., Bouvier, L.D., Choy, M., Andrews, D.W., and Drake, D. Andrew R. 2020. Information à l’appui d’une évaluation du potentiel de rétablissement du méné long (Clinostomus elongatus) au Canada. Secr. can. de consult. sci. du MPO. Doc. de rech.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Fishes IDENTIFICATION GUIDE
    Pennsylvania Fishes IDENTIFICATION GUIDE WATERSHEDS SPECIES STATUS E O G P S D Editor’s Note: During 2018, Carps and Minnows (Family Cyprinidae) Pennsylvania Angler & Boater Central Stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum) N N N N N N magazine will feature select Goldfish (Carassius auratus) I I I I I common fishes of Pennsylvania Northern Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus eos) EN N N in each issue, providing scientific Southern Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus erythrogaster) TH N N names and the status of fishes in Mountain Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus oreas) I Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) N N N X or introduced into Pennsylvania’s Rosyside Dace (Clinostomus funduloides) N N N major watersheds. Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) I I I I I I The table to the left denotes any Satinfin Shiner (Cyprinella analostana) N N N known occurrence. Spotfin Shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera) N N N N N Steelcolor Shiner (Cyprinella whipplei) N Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) I I I I I Streamline Chub (Erimystax dissimilis) N Gravel Chub (Erimystax x-punctatus) EN N Species Status Tonguetied Minnow (Exoglossum laurae) N N Cutlip Minnow (Exoglossum maxillingua) N N N EN = Endangered Brassy Minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni) X TH = Threatened Eastern Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus regius) N N N Bigeye Chub (Hybopsis amblops) N N C = Candidate Bigmouth Shiner (Hybopsis dorsalis) TH N EX = Believed extirpated Ide (Leuciscus idus) I I Striped Shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus) N N DL = Delisted (removed from the Common Shiner (Luxilus cornutus) N N N N N N endangered, threatened or candidate
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Flow Recommendations for the Upper Ohio River Basin in Western Pennsylvania
    Ecosystem Flow Recommendations for the Upper Ohio River Basin in Western Pennsylvania Report to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection French Creek © The Nature Conservancy Submitted by The Nature Conservancy March 2013 Ecosystem Flow Recommendations for the Upper Ohio River Basin in Western Pennsylvania March 2013 Report prepared by The Nature Conservancy Michele DePhilip Tara Moberg The Nature Conservancy 2101 N. Front St Building #1, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Phone: (717) 232‐6001 E‐mail: Michele DePhilip, [email protected] Suggested citation: DePhilip, M. and T. Moberg. 2013. Ecosystem flow recommendations for the Upper Ohio River basin in western Pennsylvania. The Nature Conservancy. Harrisburg, PA. i Acknowledgments We thank Sue Weaver and Hoss Liaghat of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection who served as project managers. We thank all who generously contributed their time, invaluable expertise and resources through each of our technical workshops, in‐person meetings, phone calls and other means of consultation. We especially thank Mark Hartle, Bob Ventorini, Rick Lorson, Doug Fischer and Nevin Welte (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission); Beth Meyer, Mary Walsh, Charles Bier, Ephraim Zimmerman and Eric Chapman (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program); Rick Spear, Tony Shaw, Rita Coleman, Julie Baldizar Dana Drake, Dan Counahan and Brian Dillemuth (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection); Sam Dinkins and John Spaeth (Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission); Lou Reynolds, Frank Borsuk and Kelly Krock (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3); Rose Reilly, Ashley Petraglia, Mark Wozniak and Werner Loehlein (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District); Lora Zimmerman and Bob Anderson (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2010 Draft
    For Interested Party Review – December 2010 Draft 3745-1-01 Purpose and applicability. [Comment: For dates of non-regulatory government publications, publications of recognized organizations and associations, federal rules and federal statutory provisions referenced in this rule, see rule 3745-1-03 of the Administrative Code.] (A) Purpose and objective. It is the purpose of these water quality standards, Chapter 3745-1 of the Administrative Code, to: (1) Establish minimum water quality requirements for all surface waters of the state, thereby protecting public health and welfare; (2) Enable the present and planned uses of Ohio's water for public water supplies, industrial and agricultural needs, propagation of fish, aquatic life and wildlife, and recreational purposes; (3) Enhance, improve and maintain water quality as provided under the laws of the state of Ohio, section 6111.041 of the Revised Code, the federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. section 1251 et seq., and rules adopted thereunder; and (4) Further the overall objective of the Clean Water Act "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." (B) Goals. Consistent with national goals set forth in the Clean Water Act, all surface waters in Ohio shall provide for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide for recreation in and on the water unless the director determines the goal is not attainable for a specific water body. If the director determines that a water body cannot reasonably attain these goals using the available tests and criteria allowed under the Clean Water Act, then one of the following steps shall be taken: (1) The director shall evaluate the water body's designated beneficial uses and, where uses are not attainable, propose to change the designated uses to the best designations that can be attained; or (2) The director shall grant temporary variances from compliance with one or more water quality criteria applicable by this chapter pursuant to rule 3745-33-07 of the Administrative Code.
    [Show full text]
  • CLASS Actinopterygii
    Kentucky's Species of Greatest Conservation Need and their statuses. Common name Scientific name Federal Heritage GRank SRank Actinopterygii (9 species). Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger N S G5 S3 Blacktail Shiner Cyprinella venusta N S G5 S3 Burbot Lota lota N S G5 N Paddlefish Polyodon spathula N N G4 S4 Pallid Shiner Hybopsis amnis N X G4 N Redside Dace Clinostomus elongatus N N G4 S3 Sicklefin Chub Macrhybopsis meeki N H G3 N Spring Cavefish Forbesichthys agassizii N N G4 S4 Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida N H G3 N Literature cited Download all 9 new 2013 Fish Statewide Maps (10 MB) CLASS Actinopterygii Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger Federal Heritage GRank SRank GRank SRank Status Status (Simplified) (Simplified) N S G5 S3 G5 S3 G-Trend Unknown G-Trend Throughout its range, the black buffalo appears to be less common than the other Comment species of buffalo (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Some authorities regard this species to be inadequately diagnosed and its taxonomic status uncertain (Burr and Warren 1986, Robison and Buchanan 1988). This has led to uncertainty regarding its distributional status in several states and speculation about misidentifications. The species is generally treated as vulnerable to imperiled in most of the upper Mississippi River basin and Ohio River drainage. It is considered secure in only a few states in the middle and lower Mississippi River basin, although records in the Gulf Slope drainages in Texas and New Mexico are thought to potentially be based on misidentifications or introductions (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Natureserve 2008, Shute 1980). S-Trend Unknown S-Trend Burr and Warren (1986) regarded this species as sporadic and rare in rivers and Comment reservoirs in western Kentucky, and sporadic in the main channels of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.
    [Show full text]