DOCSLIB.ORG

Nutrient Mass Balance Study for Ohio's Major Rivers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nutrient Mass Balance Study for Ohio's Major Rivers Nutrient Mass Balance Study for Ohio’s Major Rivers Division of Surface Water Modeling and Assessment Section APRIL 16, 2018 State of Ohio Nutrient Mass Balance Study April 2018 Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Background and Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Important Findings ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Future Actions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Past Studies and Associated Work ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6 2 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Overall Loading Calculation............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 2.2 Point Source Loading .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 HSTS Loads ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 2.4 Nonpoint Source Loading .............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 2.5 Pour Point Load Estimation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 3 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 3.1 Statewide Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Watershed Area ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Relationship of Annual Water Yield to Annual Load ................................................................................................................................ 13 Nonpoint Source Nutrient Yield ......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Per Capita Nutrient Yield ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Population Density ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Relative Loadings...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.2 Maumee River ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 3.3 Portage River ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 3.4 Sandusky River ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 3.5 Frontal Lake Erie Tributaries ...................................................................................................................................................................... 39 3.6 Vermilion River .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 42 3.7 Cuyahoga River .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 45 3.8 Great Miami River ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 49 3.9 Scioto River .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53 3.10 Muskingum River ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 4 Summary and Future Work ................................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63 References Cited ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 64 Appendix A - Spring Nutrient Loading for Selected Lake Erie Tributaries .......................................................................................... 67 Maumee River ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 68 Portage River .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 69 Sandusky River .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70 Appendix B – Summary Tables for Mass Balance Calculations ................................................................................................................. 71 Appendix C - Summary of Initiatives to Address Nutrients and Harmful Algal Blooms ................................................................ 81 Page 1 of 82 State of Ohio Nutrient Mass Balance Study April 2018 Executive Summary Background and Purpose Excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) stimulate algal growth affecting water quality. Ohio EPA completed this study to identify the most environmentally beneficial and cost-effective mechanisms for nutrient reduction. For example, if nonpoint source nutrients are found to be the major contributor of downstream total phosphorus load, as is the case in the Maumee River and other northwest Ohio watersheds, then only focusing remediation on point source nutrients would neither be prudent or efficient to protect downstream waters. While it is too early to detect statistically sound trends, the results of this study show no clear decrease in loading yet, especially in nonpoint source dominated watersheds like the Maumee where the loading in 2017 was the highest of the years reported. This study, along with the other data related to current and past nutrient loadings, can and should serve as a tool to focus research, investment, and policy/legislation decisions to curb phosphorus and nitrogen loading in both the Lake Erie watershed and the Ohio River basin. This mass balance study computes annual total nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) loads originating from Ohio watersheds draining to Lake Erie and the Ohio River. The 2016 edition included
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Cuyahoga River Area of Concern
    OHIO SEA GRANT AND STONE LABORATORY The Cuyahoga River Area of Concern Scott D. Hardy, PhD Extension Educator What is an Area of Concern? 614-247-6266 Phone reas of Concern, or AOCs, are places within the Great Lakes region where human 614-292-4364 Fax [email protected] activities have caused serious damage to the environment, to the point that fish populations and other aquatic species are harmed and traditional uses of the land Aand water are negatively affected or impossible. Within the Great Lakes, 43 AOCs have been designated and federal and state agencies, under the supervision of local advisory committees, are working to clean up the polluted sites. Ohio Sea Grant Cuyahoga River AOC College Program Who determines if there 1314 Kinnear Rd. is an Area of Concern? Columbus, OH 43212 614-292-8949 Office A binational agreement between the United States 614-292-4364 Fax and Canada called the Great Lakes Water Quality ohioseagrant.osu.edu Agreement (GLWQA) determines the locations Ohio Sea Grant, based at of AOCs throughout the Great Lakes. According The Ohio State University, to the GLWQA, each of the AOCs must develop is one of 33 state programs in the National Sea Grant a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) that identifies all College Program of the of the environmental problems (called Beneficial National Oceanic and Use Impairments, or BUIs) and their causes. Local Atmospheric Administration environmental protection agencies must then (NOAA), Department of develop restoration strategies and implement them, Commerce. Ohio Sea Grant is supported by the Ohio monitor the effectiveness of the restoration projects Board of Regents, Ohio and ultimately show that the area has been restored.
    [Show full text]
  • Cuyahoga County Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Update 2019
    Cuyahoga County Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Update 2019 December 12, 2019 CUYAHOGA COUNTY URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT \\ 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 03 Why Tree Canopy is Important 03 Project Background 03 Key Terms 04 Land Cover Methodology 05 Tree Canopy Metrics Methodology 06 Countywide Findings 09 Local Communities 14 Cleveland Neighborhoods 18 Subwatersheds 22 Land Use 25 Rights-of-Way 28 Conclusions 29 Additional Information PREPARED BY CUYAHOGA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Daniel Meaney, GISP - Information & Research Manager Shawn Leininger, AICP - Executive Director 2079 East 9th Street Susan Infeld - Special Initiatives Manager Suite 5-300 Kevin Leeson - Planner Cleveland, OH 44115 Robin Watkins - GIS Specialist Ryland West - Planning Intern 216.443.3700 www.CountyPlanning.us www.facebook.com/CountyPlanning www.twitter.com/CountyPlanning 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS CUYAHOGA COUNTY URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT \\ 2019 Why Tree Canopy is Important Tree canopy is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above. Tree canopy provides many benefits to society including moderating climate, reducing building energy use and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), improving air and water quality, mitigating rainfall runoff and flooding, enhancing human health and social well-being and lowering noise impacts (Nowak and Dwyer, 2007). It provides wildlife habitat, enhances property values, and has aesthetic impacts to an environment. Establishing a tree canopy goal is crucial for communities seeking to improve their natural environment and green infrastructure. A tree canopy assessment is the first step in this goal setting process, showing the amount of tree canopy currently present as well as the amount that could theoretically be established.
    [Show full text]
  • Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio Under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002
    State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002 March 25, 2002 prepared by Division of Surface Water Division of Surface Water, 122 South Front St., PO Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 644-2001 Introduction Federal Water Quality Standard (WQS) program regulations require that States adopt and use an antidegradation policy. The policy has two distinct purposes. First, an antidegradation policy must provide a systematic and reasoned decision making process to evaluate the need to lower water quality. Regulated activities should not lower water quality unless the need to do so is demonstrated based on technical, social and economic criteria. The second purpose of an antidegradation policy is to ensure that the State’s highest quality streams, rivers and lakes are preserved. This document deals with the latter aspect of the antidegradation policy. Section 6111.12(A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code specifically requires that the Ohio EPA establish provisions “ensuring that waters of exceptional recreational and ecological value are maintained as high quality resources for future generations.” Table 1 explains the proposed classification system to accomplish this directive. The shaded categories denote the special higher resource quality categories. The proposed rule contains 157 stream segments classified as either State Resource Waters (SRW) or Superior High Quality Waters (SHQW). The approximate mileage in each classification is shown in Table 1. The total mileage in both classifications represents less than four percent of Ohio’s streams. Refer to “Methods and Documentation Used to Propose State Resource Water and Superior High Quality Water Classifications for Ohio’s Water Quality Standards” (Ohio EPA, 2002) for further information about the process used to develop the list of streams.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Lake Erie Lighthouses
    U.S. Lake Erie Lighthouses Gretchen S. Curtis Lakeside, Ohio July 2011 U.S. Lighthouse Organizations • Original Light House Service 1789 – 1851 • Quasi-military Light House Board 1851 – 1910 • Light House Service under the Department of Commerce 1910 – 1939 • Final incorporation of the service into the U.S. Coast Guard in 1939. In the beginning… Lighthouse Architects & Contractors • Starting in the 1790s, contractors bid on LH construction projects advertised in local newspapers. • Bids reviewed by regional Superintendent of Lighthouses, a political appointee, who informed U.S. Treasury Dept of his selection. • Superintendent approved final contract and supervised contractor during building process. Creation of Lighthouse Board • Effective in 1852, U.S. Lighthouse Board assumed all duties related to navigational aids. • U.S. divided into 12 LH districts with inspector (naval officer) assigned to each district. • New LH construction supervised by district inspector with primary focus on quality over cost, resulting in greater LH longevity. • Soon, an engineer (army officer) was assigned to each district to oversee construction & maintenance of lights. Lighthouse Bd Responsibilities • Location of new / replacement lighthouses • Appointment of district inspectors, engineers and specific LH keepers • Oversight of light-vessels of Light-House Service • Establishment of detailed rules of operation for light-vessels and light-houses and creation of rules manual. “The Light-Houses of the United States” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Dec 1873 – May 1874 … “The Light-house Board carries on and provides for an infinite number of details, many of them petty, but none unimportant.” “The Light-Houses of the United States” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Dec 1873 – May 1874 “There is a printed book of 152 pages specially devoted to instructions and directions to light-keepers.
    [Show full text]
  • Cuyahoga River RAP State of the River Report
    CUYAHOGA RIVER REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT & PROCEEDINGSPROCEEDINGS OFOF THETHE OCTOCTOBEROBER 25,25, 20012001 SYMPOSIUMSYMPOSIUM JANUARY 2002 Sponsored by: The Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Prepared by Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan Coordinating Committee Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan 1299 Superior Ave, Cleveland Ohio 44114 (216) 241-2414 FAX (216) 621-3024 This report was funded by grants from the George Gund Foundation, the Cleveland Foundation, the GAR Foundation, the Ohio EPEPAA andand thethe USUS ForestForest ServiceService DivisionDivision ofof StateState andand PrivatePrivate ForestryForestry NortheasternNortheastern Area,Area, andand technicaltechnical supportsupport from the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. Additional reproduction of this report was funded with support from the US Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office CUYAHOGA RIVER REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE OCTOBER 25, 2001 SYMPOSIUM JANUARY 2002 Prepared by Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan Coordinating Committee Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan 1299 Superior Ave, Cleveland Ohio 44114 (216) 241-2414 FAX (216) 621-3024 This report was funded by grants from the George Gund Foundation, the Cleveland Foundation, the GAR Foundation, the Ohio EPA and the US Forest Service Division of State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, and technical support from the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Acknowledgements Preparation of this document
    [Show full text]
  • Maumee AOC Habitat Restoration
    Maumee AOC Habitat Restoration The Maumee River habitat restoration project at Penn 7 will improve habitat for fish and wildlife by creating coastal wetlands and forested upland along the Maumee River. Project Location and 30% Design Concept Map • Northern Shoreline of the Maumee River in Toledo, Ohio Project Highlights Create 8.5 acres of emergent coastal wetland and 6.7 acres of submerged coastal wetland Improve roughly 59 acres of habitat including adjacent upland areas Control invasive plant species and plant native vegetation Install water control and fish habitat connectivity structures Funding is provided by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - Great Lakes Commission (GLC) Regional Partnership The City of Toledo is implementing this project with assistance from their consultant, Hull and Associates Environmental Benefits Economic Benefits Community Benefits New fish and wildlife habitat Regional benefits to Downtown nature space Improved hydrologic eco-tourism, birding Improved water quality and connectivity and fishing ecosystem health Background of the Area of Concern (AOC) Located in Northwest Ohio, the Maumee AOC is comprised of 787 square miles that includes approximately the lower 23 miles of the Maumee River downstream to Maumee Bay, as well as other waterways within Lucas, Ottawa and Wood counties that drain to Lake Erie, such as Swan Creek, Ottawa River (Ten Mile Creek), Grassy Creek, Duck Creek, Otter Creek, Cedar Creek, Crane Creek, Turtle Creek, Packer Creek, and the Toussaint River. In 1987 the Maumee AOC River was designated as an AOC under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration of the Cuyahoga River in Ohio, 1968-Present
    Restoration of the Cuyahoga River in Ohio, 1968-present Jeff Zeitler Abstract The Cuyahoga River of northeastern Ohio has long been notorious for its low water quality, especially for having caught fire at least three times between 1936 and 1969. The Upper Cuyahoga River has long been in better condition than the lower river. It is plagued by low dissolved oxygen as a result of its many drinking water reservoirs and its naturally low gradient, however its problems are dwarfed by those of the Lower Cuyahoga River. The lower Cuyahoga River has historically been heavily polluted by fecal matter and other discharge from sewage treatment plants, as well as by chemicals discharged by steel and coke refineries. The navigation channel at the mouth of the river robs the extreme lower portion of the river of oxygen. All these factors combined make the habitat value of the river very low. Restoration efforts began in the early1970’s and the Cuyahoga River today is in better condition, though much room for improvement remains. Introduction The Cuyahoga River is a U-shaped 100-mile (160 km) long low-gradient river located in Northeastern Ohio, beginning near the Lake Erie plain, heading south, then making a sharp turn to the north, passing through the major cities of Akron and Cleveland. The river moves slowly through a 813 square mile (2081 square km) watershed which is largely split between agricultural land use, urban uses, and second-growth forest. Akron is the fifth-largest city in Ohio, with 217,000 inhabitants and Cleveland is the largest city in Ohio, with a city population of 505,000 and a metropolitan area population of 2.9 million (City of Akron 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Land
    United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Land & Water Conservation Fund --- Detailed Listing of Grants Grouped by County --- Today's Date: 11/20/2008 Page: 1 Ohio - 39 Grant ID & Type Grant Element Title Grant Sponsor Amount Status Date Exp. Date Cong. Element Approved District ADAMS 242 - XXX D ELLISON MEMORIAL PARK VILLAGE OF PEEBLES $74,000.00 C 3/7/1973 12/31/1975 2 ADAMS County Total: $74,000.00 County Count: 1 ALLEN 580 - XXX A STRAYER WOODS ACQUISITION JOHNNY APPLESEED METRO PARK DIST. $111,500.00 C 12/6/1977 12/31/1979 4 819 - XXX D OTTAWA RIVER DEVELOPMENT CITY OF LIMA $45,045.00 C 3/21/1980 12/31/1984 4 913 - XXX D VILLAGE PARK VILLAGE OF SPENCERVILLE $11,265.00 C 7/28/1981 12/31/1986 4 ALLEN County Total: $167,810.00 County Count: 3 ASHLAND 93 - XXX D MOHICAN STATE PARK SWIMMING POOL DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES $102,831.30 C 4/23/1971 6/30/1972 16 463 - XXX D MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE CITY OF ASHLAND $144,615.70 C 4/7/1976 12/31/1978 16 573 - XXX A BROOKSIDE PARK EXPANSION CITY OF ASHLAND $45,325.00 C 11/10/1977 12/31/1979 16 742 - XXX D LEWIS MEMORIAL TENNIS COURTS VILLAGE OF JEROMESVILLE $4,715.00 C 5/2/1979 12/31/1983 16 807 - XXX D BROOKSIDE PARK CITY OF ASHLAND $200,300.00 C 7/14/1980 12/31/1985 16 953 - XXX D BROOKSIDE PARK III CITY OF ASHLAND $269,669.98 C 6/14/1983 12/31/1988 16 1159 - XXX D BROOKSIDE WEST CITY OF ASHLAND $154,500.00 C 7/11/1990 12/31/1995 16 ASHLAND County Total: $921,956.98 County Count: 7 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Land & Water Conservation Fund --- Detailed Listing of Grants Grouped by County --- Today's Date: 11/20/2008 Page: 2 Ohio - 39 Grant ID & Type Grant Element Title Grant Sponsor Amount Status Date Exp.
    [Show full text]
  • View of the District’S History, but of Wastewater Treatment’S Evolution in Greater Cleveland Since the City’S Incorporation in 1836
    Our History and Heritage 1972–2016 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District: Our History and Heritage 1972-2016 © 2017 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic or mechanical) without prior permission in writing from the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. All images courtesy of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District archives except where otherwise noted. Printed in the United States by Angstrom Graphics A publication of Communications & Community Relations Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District 3900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland OH 44115 www.neorsd.org 2007 edition: 2017 edition: Writer and Editor Editor Kim C. Jones Michael Uva Contributors Additional Contributors Lita Laven Donna Friedman Mary Maciejowski Frank Greenland Bob Mantell Seth Hothem Terry Meister Wolfram von Kiparski Kenneth Pew Jillian Knittle Andrea Remias Ron Maichle James Weber Mark Matteson Ray Weeden John Rhoades Michael Uva Layout and Design Michael Uva Additional Design Yolanda Kelly Editorial Assistance Norm Friedman Technical Assistance Humberto Sanchez FRONT COVER: Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant BACK COVER: Planting plan for one of the Sewer District’s Green Infrastructure projects Contents I: PROVIDING CLEAN WATER II: THE PLANTS 5 The History of Providing Clean Water in 33 The Plants: Westerly, Southerly, and Easterly Northeast Ohio 34 Plans and studies preceding the plants 6 Where there is water, there is life; a great industrial 37 Easterly
    [Show full text]
  • Unusually Large Loads in 2007 from the Maumee and Sandusky Rivers, Tributaries to Lake Erie
    point sources of pollution, the control of erosion and sediment transport to Lake Erie doi:10.2489/jswc.65.6.450 became important because much of the non- point phosphorus was bound to sediment (IJC 1978). In this context, more detailed and accurate knowledge of tributary loads Unusually large loads in 2007 from the of sediment, phosphorus, and other nutrients became a matter of concern. Maumee and Sandusky Rivers, tributaries The National Center for Water Quality Research (NCWQR) at Heidelberg to Lake Erie University began monitoring sediment and nutrients in the major US tributaries to Lake R.P. Richards, D.B. Baker, J.P. Crumrine, and A.M. Stearns Erie in 1975, with some records extend- ing back as far as the late 1960s. The past Abstract: During water year 2007 (October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007), the thirty years have seen improvements in some Maumee River and Sandusky River in northern Ohio transported the largest, or nearly aspects of water quality in these tributar- Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. the largest, loads of several water quality constituents that have been observed in 33 years of ies (reductions in suspended solids [SS] and Journal of Soil and Water Conservation monitoring. Discharge, total phosphorus, dissolved reactive phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitro- particulate phosphorus [PP] [Richards et gen, and chloride all recorded 33-year maximum loads, while the loads for nitrate ranked al. 2008, 2009]), as well as some worsening 5th (Sandusky) and 8th (Maumee) out of 33. Loads of particulate phosphorus ranked 2nd trends (increasing dissolved reactive phos- (Sandusky) and 4th (Maumee), and those for suspended solids ranked 10th (Sandusky) and phorus [DRP] [Richards 2006]).
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis—An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native Aquatic Animal Species
    Gap Analysis Program Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis—An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native Aquatic Animal Species By S. Alex. Covert, Stephanie P. Kula, and Laura A. Simonson Open-File Report 2006–1385 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2007 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested citation: Covert, S.A., Kula, S.P., and Simonson, L.A., 2007, Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis: An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native Aquatic Animal Species: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006–1385, 509 p. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Contents Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing Regulations 2021-2022
    FISHING REGULATIONS OHIO 2021-2022 Effective MARCH 1, 2021 to FEBRUARY 28, 2022 OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE wildohio.gov OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE The Division of Wildlife’s mission is to conserve and improve fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for sustainable use and appreciation by all. VISIT US ON THE WEB WILDOHIO.GOV FOR GENERAL INFORMATION 1-800-WILDLIFE (1-800-945-3543) LAKE ERIE FISHING FORECAST 1-888-HOOKFISH (1-888-466-5347) OF TO REPORT WILDLIFE VIOLATIONS DIVISION WILDLIFE CALL OR TEXT DISTRICT OFFICES 1-800-POACHER WILDLIFE DISTRICT ONE (1-800-762-2437) 1500 Dublin Road **AVAILABLE 24 HOURS** Columbus, OH 43215 1-800-WILDLIFE FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA WILDLIFE DISTRICT TWO 952 Lima Avenue Like us on Facebook Findlay, OH 45840 facebook.com/ohiodivisionofwildlife 1-800-WILDLIFE Like us on Facebook WILDLIFE DISTRICT THREE facebook.com/yourwildohioangler 912 Portage Lakes Drive Akron, OH 44319 Follow us on Twitter 1-800-WILDLIFE twitter.com/OhioDivWildlife WILDLIFE DISTRICT FOUR 360 E. State Street Athens, OH 45701 1-800-WILDLIFE WILDLIFE DISTRICT FIVE 1076 Old Springfield Pike Xenia, OH 45385 1-800-WILDLIFE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY The Ohio Division of Wildlife offers equal opportunity regardless of race, color, national origin, age, disability or sex (in education programs). If you believe GOVERNOR, STATE OF OHIO you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility, you should contact: MIKE DEWINE The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Diversity & Civil Rights Programs-External Programs, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT 4040 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 130, Arlington, VA 22203 OF NATURAL RESOURCES Ohio Department of Natural Resources, EEO Office MARY C.
    [Show full text]