DOCSLIB.ORG

March 2010 Tributaries, 2006 - 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Biological and Water Quality Study of the Portage River Basin, Select Lake Erie Tributaries, and Select Maumee River March 2010 Tributaries, 2006 - 2008 Watershed Assessment Units 04100010 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 07, and 04100009 09 Hancock, Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Seneca and Wood Counties OHIO EPA Technical Report EAS/2010-4-4 Ted Strickland, Governor Lee Fisher, Lt. Governor Chris Korleski, Director DSW/EAS 2010-4-4 Portage River Basin, Select Lake Erie Tributaries and Select Maumee River Tributaries March 9, 2010 Biological and Water Quality Survey of the Portage River Basin, Select Maumee River Tributaries, and Select Lake Erie Tributaries 2006 - 2008 Hancock, Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Seneca, and Wood Counties, Ohio March 9, 2010 (Revised December 15, 2011) OEPA Report DSW/EAS 2010-4-4 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 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Northwest District Office 347 North Dunbridge Road Bowling Green, Ohio 43402 Mail to: P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Ted Strickland, Governor Chris Korleski, Director State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Ohio EPA received financial assistance for this work from U.S. EPA and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. DSW/EAS 2010-4-4 Portage River Basin, Select Lake Erie Tributaries and Select Maumee River Tributaries March 9, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................................... IV INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................... 3 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13 POINT SOURCE POLLUTANT LOADINGS ‐ NPDES .............................................................................................................................. 13 CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY .......................................................................................................................................................... 33 RECREATIONAL USE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 79 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES .............................................................................................................................................................. 89 SEDIMENT QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 90 PHYSICAL HABITAT .................................................................................................................................................................... 109 FISH COMMUNITY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 115 Trends .............................................................................................................................................................................. 116 MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES .......................................................................................................................................... 131 Trends .............................................................................................................................................................................. 136 FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY ................................................................................................................................................... 150 LAKE SAMPLING RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 150 SUMMARY WATERSHED ASSESSMENT UNITS ............................................................................................................... 153 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 168 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 172 Ohio EPA received financial assistance for this work from U.S. EPA and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. DSW/EAS 2010-4-4 Portage River Basin, Select Lake Erie Tributaries and Select Maumee River Tributaries March 9, 2010 SUMMARY All rivers and streams in Ohio are used for various purposes such as recreation or to support aquatic life. Ohio EPA evaluates each stream to determine the appropriate use designation and to also determine if the use is meeting the goals of the federal Clean Water Act. Thirty streams in the study area were evaluated for aquatic life and recreational use potential between 2006 and 2008 (see Figure 1 and Table 1 for sampling locations). Twenty-two of the streams listed in the Ohio Water Quality Standards for the study area are assigned the Warmwater Habitat (WWH) aquatic life use designation and four previously undesignated streams are being recommended for the WWH aquatic life use designation (Table 23). Otter Creek is the only stream designated Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH) in the study area. Wolf Creek/William Ditch (tributary to Cedar Creek at RM .01) will retain the Limited Resource Water (LRW) aquatic life use designation, while two tributaries to Rocky Ford Creek are being recommended for WWH though their existing use is LRW. The two tributaries to Rocky Ford Creek are also being recommended for Primary Contact Recreation rather than the existing Secondary Contact Recreation Use. All remaining streams in this study should retain the Primary Contact Recreation use or Secondary Contact Recreation use, along with the Agricultural and Industrial uses (Table 23). Nearly half of the sites within the Portage River basin did not meet the Clean Water Act biological integrity goal, as only 54% were in full attainment, 27% were in partial attainment, and 19% were in non-attainment of the assigned/recommended aquatic life use designation (Table 2). While 60% of the Portage River mainstem was in full attainment, siltation and nutrient/eutrophication from the surrounding agricultural activities combined with point sources, such as Brush Wellman and various wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), contributed to the partial attainment (10%) and non-attainment (30%) noted in the lower reach of the mainstem. Portage River tributaries were negatively influenced by the surrounding agricultural landscape and poor sewage treatment with only 53% of sites in full attainment, 29% in partial attainment and 17% in non-attainment. Specific point source and non-point source pollution related issues which should be addressed to improve water quality throughout the Portage River basin include the following. • Fostoria has increased its discharge of ammonia in recent years, likely due to inadequate denitrification at the WWTP. This, in addition to the CSOs, should be addressed in order to improve water quality within the East Branch Portage River. • Controls to reduce nitrate levels in source water obtained from the East Branch Portage River would be of great benefit to lake water quality and also reduce the cost of drinking water treatment. This would benefit Fostoria and other communities that rely on the East Branch Portage River for their drinking water supply. • Elevated levels of PAHs were found in the sediments of the East Branch Portage River downstream from Fostoria. A request was made to Ohio EPA’s Division of Emergency and Remedial Response (DERR) on January 25, 2010 to conduct a site assessment of the former Fostoria City Dump, aka Portage Park, to determine if there is an impact on the East Branch Portage River. iv DSW/EAS 2010-4-4 Portage River Basin, Select Lake Erie Tributaries and Select Maumee River Tributaries March 9, 2010 • Brush Wellman continues to negatively impact the water quality of the Portage River, accounting for 6 water quality violations in 2008: 4 for acute whole effluent toxicity (2 for C. dubia and 2 for P. promelas) and 2 for copper. The source of these violations should be addressed and possible limits on nitrate should be examined during the NPDES renewal process. In addition, legacy and potential ongoing PCB contamination within the sediments and fish of the Portage River are likely in part attributable to Brush Wellman. PCBs were again detected in a water sample of Hyde Run in 2008, so it is recommended that PCB monitoring be reinstated in the NPDES permit. • Construction activities during the sampling period at the Port Clinton WWTP may be responsible for recent ammonia spikes. Now that construction is completed, follow-up sampling should be conducted to make sure that adequate treatment is occurring. • Proposed ‘cleaning’ of 46 miles of the East Branch Portage River and
Recommended publications
  • Atlas Introduction

    Atlas Introduction

    INTRODUCTION Atlas Methodology The primary goal of the Ohio Breeding Bird Atlas Project was to document the status and distribution of all birds breeding in Ohio between 1982 and 1987. Additional objectives of this project included providing more accurate information on the distri- bution and nesting occurrences of Ohio’s rare and endangered breeding birds; identifying significant habitats supporting rare or unusual species which could become the focus of preservation efforts; providing baseline data against which future changes in the status and distribution of Ohio’s breeding birds can be measured; providing baseline data for the development of environmental impact statements; involving the birders of Ohio in a cooperative effort of scientific value and heightening their awareness of the state’s summer birdlife. This Atlas represents the work of hundreds of birders throughout Ohio who expended over 30,000 hours between 1982 and 1987 collecting data on the distribution of breeding birds in the state. Over 95% of this data was collected between 1983 and 1987 with 1982 serving as a pilot year for the Atlas Project. In order to fully understand and interpret this data, it is necessary to have some understanding of the goals and mechanics of breeding bird atlas projects. Data Collection: Priority Blocks and Special Areas The basis of any atlas project is a grid system whereby the geographical area to be surveyed is divided into a series of smaller sub–units (usually squares or rectangles called blocks). In Ohio, as in a majority of other states conducting breeding bird atlases, the grid system employed is based on the 7.5 minute topographic map system.
  • CARDINALM Vol. 18, No. 2 Winter 1994-95

    CARDINALM Vol. 18, No. 2 Winter 1994-95

    Vol. 18, No. 2 CARDINALM Winter 1994-95 •. TheOhio Cardinal is devoted to the study and appreciation of Ohio's birdlife. TheOhio Cardinal is published quarterly. Subcriptions: The subscription rate for four issues is $15.00. Send all subscriptions to-- The Ohio cardinal c/o Edwin C. Pierce 2338 Harrington Road Akron, OH 44319 The Ohio Cardinalexists to provide a permanent and timely record of the abundance and distribution of birds in Ohio; to help document the occurrence of rare species in the state; to provide information on identification of birds; and to provide information on birding areas within Ohio. The Ohio Cardinal invites readers to submit articles on unusual occurrences of birds, bird distribution within the state, birding areas in Ohio, identification tips, and other aspects of ornithology. Bird reports and photographs are welcome from any area in the state. Report forms are not a necessity but will be supplied on request. Unusual species should be documented-documentation forms are also available on request from the Editor, Publisher, and Records Committee Secretary. In order to keep TheOhio Cardinal timely, seasonal reports are due by the following dates: Winter-March 10 Spring-June 10 Summer-August 10 Autumn-December 1o Please send all reportsto: Robert Harlan 7072 Parma Park Blvd. Parma Hts., OH 44130 THE OHIO CARDINAL: Robert Harlan, Editor Edwin C. Pierce, Publisher The Ohio Bird RecordsCommittee: H. Thomas Bartlett, Secretary. 1833 S. Winfield Dr. Tiffin, OH 44883 Members: Jon Dunn (Dayton), Vic Fazio (Tiffin), Ray Hannikman (Cleveland), Ned Keller (Cincinnati), Cal Keppler (Youngstown), Jim McCormac (Columbus), l<evin Metcalf (Cleveland), Bill Murphy (Marietta), Larry Rosche (Kent), & Elliot Tramer (Toledo).
  • Sandusky River (Lower) and Bay Tributaries Watershed

    Sandusky River (Lower) and Bay Tributaries Watershed

    Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Sandusky River (lower) and Bay Tributaries Watershed Division of Surface Water Draft for Public Review April 18, 2014 Cover photo: Wolf Creek at Township Line Rd., Sandusky County, Ohio. Sandusky River and Bay Tributaries Nutrient and Sediment TMDLs April 18, 2014 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. 1468 West Ninth Street, Suite 620 Cleveland, OH 44113 Sandusky River and Bay Tributaries PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT Nutrient and Sediment TMDLs Contents Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... iii Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... vi Abbreviations and Acronyms ..................................................................................................................... vii Units of Measure ........................................................................................................................................ viii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... ix Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... x 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................
  • Where to Go Camping Guide

    Where to Go Camping Guide

    The where to go camping guide has been put together by the Order of the Arrow and the Outdoor Program Committee to give a list of places units can go for various activities. It contains a list of Camps, parks, and other facilities available within a reasonable distance. There are roughly 200 locations listed. Our hope is that you will use this guide as a reference as you research and plan your upcoming camping and hiking trips and other activities for your unit. Updated June 2018 Page 1 How to use this guide: The list is alphabetical, and each one contains at least one means of contact info. Below the contact info section is a website link, followed by if it has hiking trails, and last is the list of things the location has to offer. There will usually be two locations listed per page, with the document being 100 pages in length. Contact us: If you have any additions or corrections, please email [email protected] with "Where to Go Camping Guide" in the title. We would like to know if you are using this and we want to continue to add information that is useful to you! How to plan a campout: The Adventure Plan (TAP) is a National resource to help units plan and execute a great camping experience for youth. It includes the following • Ideas for outings / activities • Budgets / financial worksheets • Travel options / reservations & permits • Examples including timetables, duty rosters, and more • Equipment lists • Health and Safety information • List of historic trails And more! It has 52 steps, but don’t let that deter you from using this tool.
  • 2016-2017 Deer Management Plan Request for Deer Damage Control

    2016-2017 Deer Management Plan Request for Deer Damage Control

    2016‐2017 Deer Management Plan and Request for Deer Damage Control Permit 12‐9‐2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION PAGE 2 A. METROPARKS OF THE TOLEDO AREA GOVERNING POLICIES B. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK C. WHITE‐TAILED DEER ECOLOGY AND POPULATION TRENDS D. ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF DEER OVERABUNDANCE II. 2016‐17 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN PAGE 7 A. DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE MANAGED B. LEGAL/MANAGEMENT OBLIGATIONS FOR MANAGING C. SPECIFIC REASONS/NEED FOR DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM D. POPULATION ESTIMATES OF THE AREA TO BE MANAGED E. DESIRED LONG‐TERM GOALS F. MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES TO BE USED G. PROGRAM EVALUATION H. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION III. REQUEST FOR 2016 DEER DAMAGE CONTROL PERMIT PAGE 19 A. INTRODUCTION B. NUMBER OF TAGS REQUESTED C. JUSTIFICATION FOR NUMBER OF TAGS REQUESTED D. LOGISTICS OF HOW PROGRAM WILL BE CONDUCTED E. PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF OPERATIONS F. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION III. END OF CULLING REPORT PAGE 20 IV. LITERATURE CITED PAGE 21 V. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PAGE 22 ‐ 1 ‐ I. INTRODUCTION A. METROPARKS OF THE TOLEDO AREA GOVERNING POLICIES The following polices governed the development of the 2016‐2017 deer management plan: POLICY: THE MISSION OF THE METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT The mission of Metroparks of the Toledo Area is to conserve the region’s natural resources by creating, developing, improving, protecting, and promoting clean, safe, and natural parks and open spaces for the benefit, enjoyment, education, and general welfare of the public. Board Policy #: 1 Resolution #: 60‐01 Approved: August 15, 2001 Resolution #: 58‐08 Approved: July 16, 2008 Resolution #: 79‐14 Approved: June 4, 2014 POLICY: STEWARDSHIP OF PARKLANDS Every activity of the Metropolitan Park District of the Toledo Area is subordinate to its duty to faithfully preserve the public parklands for future generations in essentially their natural state.
  • Nutrient Mass Balance Study for Ohio's Major Rivers

    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 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
  • Forestry Certification Services

    Forestry Certification Services

    Index No.: DNR007 Page 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP NUMBER: CSP906415 INDEX NUMBER: DNR007 UNSPSC CATEGORY: 70151500 The state of Ohio, through the Department of Administrative Services, Office of Procurement Services, on behalf of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry (ODNR-DOF) is requesting Proposals for: TITLE: FORESTRY CERTIFICATION SERVICES OBJECTIVE: To secure a contractor to provide Forest Certification services for lands managed by ODNR Division of Forestry. This will involve annual audits by the two certifying bodies which are Forest Stewardship Council and Sustainable Forestry Initiative. RFP ISSUED: March 6, 2015 INQUIRY PERIOD BEGINS: March 6, 2015 INQUIRY PERIOD ENDS: March 20, 2015 at 8:00 AM PROPOSAL DUE DATE: March 27, 2015 by 1:00 PM Proposals received after the due date and time will not be evaluated. Submit Sealed Proposals to: Department of Administrative Services Office of Procurement Services Attn: Bid Desk 4200 Surface Road Columbus, OH 43228-1395 Note: Please review the Proposal Instructions on our Web site. The Offeror must submit this cover page (signed) with its Technical Proposal. Offeror Name and Address: Name/Title: _______________________________________ _______________________________________ Signature: E-Mail Address: By submitting a response to this RFP, and signing above, Offeror acknowledges, understands and Phone Number: ( ) _-__ __, Ext._ ____ agrees to comply with the RFP requirements and confirms all the instructions and links have been read and understood. REV 03/2014 Index
  • Ohio State Park Maps

    Ohio State Park Maps

    Portage County Amateur Radio Service, Inc. (PCARS) 75 Ohio State Park Names and Ohio State Park Exchange Identifiers Ohio State Park Park ID Ohio State Park Park ID Adams Lake ADA Lake Loramie LOR Alum Creek ALU Lake Milton LML A.W.Marion AWM Lake White LWT Barkcamp BAR Little Miami LMI Beaver Creek BEA Madison Lake MLK Blue Rock BLU Malabar Farm MAL Buck Creek BCK Marblehead Lighthouse MHD Buckeye Lake BKL Mary Jane Thurston MJT Burr Oak BUR Maumee Bay MBY Caesar Creek CAE Middle Bass Island MBI Catawba Island CAT Mohican MOH Cowan Lake COW Mosquito Lake MST Deer Creek DEE Mt. Gilead MTG Delaware DEL Muskingum River MUS Dillon DIL Nelson Kennedy Ledges NKL East Fork EFK North Bass Island NBI East Harbor EHB Oak Point OPT Findley FIN Paint Creek PTC Forked Run FOR Pike Lake PLK Geneva GEN Portage Lakes POR Grand Lake St. Marys GLM Punderson PUN Great Seal GSL Pymatuning PYM Guilford Lake GLK Quail Hollow QHL Harrison Lake HLK Rocky Fork RFK Headlands Beach HEA Salt Fork SFK Hocking Hills HOC Scioto Trail STR Hueston Woods HUE Shawnee SHA Independence Dam IDM South Bass Island SBI Indian Lake ILK Stonelick STO Jackson Lake JAC Strouds Run SRN Jefferson Lake JEF Sycamore SYC Jesse Owens JEO Tar Hollow TAR John Bryan JOB Tinker’s Creek TCK Kelleys Island KEL Van Buren VAN Kiser Lake KLK West Branch WBR Lake Alma LAL Wingfoot Lake WLK Lake Hope LHO Wolf Run WRN Lake Logan LOG OSPOTA Park IDs - Jan 2019 Ohio State Parks On The Air LOCATION MAP LEGEND Adams Lake State Park SR 32 SR 23 Park Office Park location: SR 41 Adams Lake Picnic Area 14633 State Route 41 State Park Picnic Shelter West Union, Ohio 45693 WEST UNION Restroom SR 247 PORTSMOUTH SR 125 Boat Launch GPS Coordinates: o Hiking Trail 38 44’ 28.83” N US 52 Shawnee State Park 83o 31’ 12.48” W Park Boundary OHIO RIVER State Nature Preserve Waterfowl Hunting Area KENTUCKY Park Road 2 (Lake Drive) Administrative office: Shawnee State Park 4404 State Route 125 West Portsmouth, Ohio 45663-9003 (740) 858-6652 - Shawnee Park Office Spillway ADAMS LAKE Lick Run Rd.
  • Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex

    Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex

    Hydrogeomorphic Evaluation of Ecosystem Restoration and Management Options for Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex Prepared For: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Bloomington, MN Greenbrier Wetland Services Report 16-02 Mickey E. Heitmeyer Cary M. Aloia Josh D. Eash Mary S. Gerlach September 2016 HYDROGEOMORPHIC EVALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR OTTAWA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX Prepared For: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Refuges and Wildlife Bloomington, MN 55437 and Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge 14000 West State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 By: Mickey E. Heitmeyer Greenbrier Wetland Services Advance, MO 63730 Cary M. Aloia Wetland Dynamics Monte Vista, CO 81144 and Josh D. Eash Mary S. Gerlach U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 Water Resources Branch Bloomington, MN 55437 Greenbrier Wetland Services Report No. 16-02 September 2016 Mickey E. Heitmeyer, PhD Greenbrier Wetland Services Route 2, Box 2735 Advance, MO 63730 www.GreenbrierWetland.com Publication No. 16-02 Suggested citation: Heitmeyer, M. E., C. M. Aloia, J. D. Eash, and M. S. Gerlach. Hydrogeomorphic evaluation of ecosystem restoration and management options for Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Prepared for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. Report No. 16-02. Blue Heron Conservation Design and Print- ing LLC, Bloomfield, MO. Photo credits: USFWS, https://www.flickr.com/photos/136805129@ N03/; Cary Aloia, GardnersGallery.com; Karen Kyle This publication printed on recycled paper by 2 Contents EXECUTIVE
  • 2016 Ohio Urban Forestry Statistics

    2016 Ohio Urban Forestry Statistics

    Chief Boyles, Robert Assistant Chief Lane, David Deputy Chief Assistant Chief State Forests & Fire Management Balser, Daniel Guess, Greg Urban Forestry Cooperative Forest Northern District Forest Southern District Forest Coordinator Management Coordinator Manager Manager Stevenson, Tyler Randall, Cotton Maxfield, Douglas Jester, Nathan Forest Manager Forest Manager Financial Analyst Northern District Service Forestry Coordinator Supervisor Sanders, Chad Cawood, Courtney Windle, Teri John Kehn Forest Manager Forest Manager Southern District Service Schmenk, Donald Kelly, Brian Forestry Coordinator Rist, Stephen Forest Manager Forest Manager Law, Justin Egbert, Charles Forest Health Administrator Forest Manager Macy, Tom Glass, David Forest Manager Forest Manager Morgan, Matt Kelley, Ben Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry 2045 Morse Road, H-1 Urban Forestry Program ..................................................................................................... 2 Northwest Ohio Field Windbreak Program ...................................................................... 4 Service Forestry Program ................................................................................................... 6 Fire Program ...................................................................................................................... 7 Cooperative Forest Health Program ................................................................................. 10 State Forest Management ................................................................................................
  • Ohio Flora: Additions, Noteworthy Finds, and Deletions

    Ohio Flora: Additions, Noteworthy Finds, and Deletions

    Horticulture Publications Horticulture 1-20-2020 Ohio flora: Additions, noteworthy finds, and deletions Brian P. Riley Ohio Army National Guard Michael A. Vincent Miami University - Oxford Mark P. Widrlechner Iowa State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/hort_pubs Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, and the Horticulture Commons The complete bibliographic information for this item can be found at https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ hort_pubs/38. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ howtocite.html. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Horticulture at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Horticulture Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ohio flora: Additions, noteworthy finds, and deletions Abstract Additions to the species list for the flora of Ohio are presented, based upon reports vouchered by herbarium specimens. Included are seven new genera and 49 new species and subspecies, representing 10 families. Of these, the following genera are first eporr ts for the state: Calibrachoa, Callicarpa, Cyclospermum, Dittrichia, Hippophae, Photinia, and Sideritis. None of the discoveries included in this work represents a new family for Ohio. Also included are noteworthy finds and discussions of taxa deleted from the flora and from county records, along with our rationale for each change. Disciplines Ecology and Evolutionary Biology | Horticulture Comments This article is published as Riley, B.P., M.A. Vincent, and M.P.

  • Western Lake Erie Basin Water Resources Protection Plan Ohio, Indiana and Michigan

    Western Lake Erie Basin Water Resources Protection Plan Ohio, Indiana and Michigan “The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment.” August 2005 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Executive Summary Lake Erie is part of the Great Lakes System which contains 20 percent of all the freshwater in the world. Tourism associated with Lake Erie provides more than $7.4 billion annually in direct sales. Lake Erie seaports generate approximately $1 billion in revenue annually. Lake Erie sport fishing has been estimated to generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Numerous Federal and State reports have identified Lake Erie as impaired due to excessive loadings of sediment and nutrients. Long-term water quality monitoring has identified the Maumee River as being the largest single contributor of nonpoint source pollution to the Lake. The Lake Erie Protection Plan establishes a goal to reduce sediment loading into the lake by 67 percent. The Lake Erie LAMP (Lake Wide Area Management Plan) similarly identified nutrient loading and land use practices as adversely affecting the future state of the lake. Each year dredging of Toledo Harbor requires removal of approximately 850,000 cubic yards of sediment at an average annual cost of $2.2 million. Reports and modeling done in the basin by U.S. Geological Survey, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Heidelberg College, and NRCS have identified the erosion control practices of conservation tillage and conservation buffers as effective in reducing both soil erosion and sediment transport from the watershed.