Biological and Water Quality Study of the Upper Scioto River Basin
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
State of Ohio Ecological Assessment Unit Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Biological and Water Quality Study of The Upper Scioto River Basin Delaware, Frankin, Hardin, Marion and Wyandot Counties Burrowing Mayfly (Anthopotamus sp.) Longear Sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) April 2, 1997 P.O. Box 1049, 1800 WaterMark Dr., Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 MAS/1996-12-13 Upper Scioto TSD April 2, 1997 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Upper Scioto River Basin Delaware, Franklin, Hardin, Marion, and Wyandot Counties April 2, 1996 OEPA Technical Report Number MAS/1996-12-13 prepared by State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Waters Ecological Assessment Unit 1685 Westbelt Drive Columbus, Ohio 43228 and Surface Water Section Northwest District Office 347 North Dunbridge Road Bowling Green, Ohio 43402 MAS/1996-12-13 Upper Scioto TSD April 2, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE TO USERS ................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................... vii FORWARD .......................................................... vii INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 SUMMARY .......................................................... 1 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 3 Scioto River Mainstem Status of Aquatic Life Uses ......................................... 3 Status of Non-aquatic Life Uses ..................................... 3 Other Recommendations ........................................... 3 Future Monitoring Concerns ....................................... 3 Cottonwood Ditch Status of Aquatic Life Uses ......................................... 4 Status of Non-aquatic Life Uses ..................................... 4 Other Recommendations ........................................... 4 Future Monitoring Concerns ....................................... 4 Silver Creek Status of Aquatic Life Uses ......................................... 4 Status of Non-aquatic Life Uses ..................................... 4 Other Recommendations ........................................... 4 Future Monitoring Concerns ....................................... 4 Taylor Creek Status of Aquatic Life Uses ......................................... 4 Status of Non-aquatic Life Uses ..................................... 4 Other Recommendations ........................................... 5 Future Monitoring Concerns ....................................... 5 Panther Creek Status of Aquatic Life Uses ......................................... 5 Status of Non-aquatic Life Uses ..................................... 5 Other Recommendations ........................................... 5 Future Monitoring Concerns ....................................... 5 Wildcat Creek Status of Aquatic Life Uses ......................................... 5 Status of Non-aquatic Life Uses ..................................... 6 Other Recommendations ........................................... 6 Future Monitoring Concerns ....................................... 6 STUDY AREA ........................................................ 7 METHODS .......................................................... 15 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................... 19 Pollutant Loadings: 1984-1995 ......................................... 19 ii MAS/1996-12-13 Upper Scioto TSD April 2, 1997 Spills, Overflows and Unauthorized Releases .......................... 37 Fish Kills ....................................................... 37 Surface Water Quality ................................................ 38 Scioto River ..................................................... 38 Cottonwood Ditch ................................................ 45 Taylor Creek .................................................... 45 Silver Creek .................................................... 46 Panther Creek ................................................... 46 Wildcat Creek ................................................... 47 Sediment Chemical Quality ............................................ 50 Physical Habitat .................................................... 54 Biological Assessment: Macroinvertebrate Community ...................... 58 Scioto River ..................................................... 58 Cottonwood Ditch ................................................ 64 Taylor Creek .................................................... 65 Silver Creek .................................................... 66 Panther Creek ................................................... 66 Wildcat Creek ................................................... 67 Biological Assessment: Fish Community ................................. 67 Scioto River ..................................................... 67 Cottonwood Ditch ................................................ 68 Silver Creek .................................................... 73 Taylor Creek .................................................... 74 Panther Creek ................................................... 74 Wildcat Creek ................................................... 74 TREND ASSESSMENT ................................................ 74 Chemical Water Quality Changes: 1983-1995 ............................. 74 Scioto River ..................................................... 74 Cottonwood Ditch ................................................ 75 Taylor Creek .................................................... 77 Changes in Macroinvertebrate Community: 1983 - 1995 ..................... 78 Scioto River ..................................................... 78 Cottonwood Ditch ................................................ 79 Taylor Creek .................................................... 80 Changes in Fish Communities: 1983 - 1995 ............................... 81 Scioto River ..................................................... 82 Cottonwood Ditch ................................................ 82 Silver Creek .................................................... 82 Taylor Creek .................................................... 82 iii MAS/1996-12-13 Upper Scioto TSD April 2, 1997 Addendum: Status of streams in the upper Little Sandusky and Tymochtee Crek subbasins INTRODUCTION ................................................... 85 SUMMARY ....................................................... 85 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 85 McDonald Creek, Little Sandusky River, Tymochtee Creek, Prairie Run, Thompson Ditch, Enoch Creek, Carroll Ditch, and Paw Paw Run ........................... 89 Status of Aquatic Life Uses ......................................... 89 Status of Non-aquatic Life Uses ..................................... 89 Other Recommendations ........................................... 89 Future Monitoring Concerns ....................................... 89 Unnamed tributary to Little Sandusky River, and Blood Run ................. 89 Status of Aquatic Life Uses ......................................... 89 Status of Non-aquatic Life Uses ..................................... 89 Other Recommendations ........................................... 89 Future Monitoring Concerns ....................................... 89 Study Area .......................................................... 91 Surface Water Quality .................................................. 91 Physical Habitat ....................................................... 92 Biological Assessment: Macroinvertebrate Communities ....................... 95 Biological Assessment: Fish Communities .................................. 96 References ........................................................... 99 Appendix Tables ...................................................... 103 iv MAS/1996-12-13 Upper Scioto TSD April 2, 1997 NOTICE TO USERS Ohio EPA incorporated biological criteria into the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS; Ohi o Administrative Code 3745-1) regulations in February 1990 (effective May 1990). These criteria consist of numeric values for the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and Modified Index of Well-Bein g (MIwb), both of which are based on fish assemblage data, and the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI), which is based on macroinvertebrate assemblage data. Cr iteria for each index are specified for each of Ohio's five ecoregions (as described by Omernik 1987), and are further organized by organism group, index, site type, and aquatic life use designation. These criteria, along with the existing chemical and whole effluent toxicity eval uation methods and criteria, figure prominently in the monitoring and assessment of Ohio’s surface water resources. The following documents support the use of biological criteria by out lining the rationale for using biological information, the methods by which the biocriteria were derived and calculated, the field methods by which sampling must be conducted, and the process for evaluating results: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987a. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume I. The role of biological data in water quality asse ssment. Div. Water Qual. Monit. & Assess., Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987b. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume II. Users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Div . Water Qual. Monit. & Assess., Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.