Biological and Water Quality Study of the Lower Scioto River and Selected Tributaries, 2011

Biological and Water Quality Study of the Lower Scioto River and Selected Tributaries, 2011. Pickaway, Ross, Pike and Scioto Counties, Ohio

Scioto River at Higby Road, RM 56.17

Division of Surface Water Draft - July 12, 2018

i EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Biological and Water Quality Study of the Lower Scioto River and Selected Tributaries

Pickaway, Ross, Pike and Scioto Counties, Ohio Draft - July 12, 2018 OEPA Report DSW/EAS/2017-02-02

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

Southeast District office 2195 Front Street Logan, Ohio 43138

Central District Office 50 West Town Street Columbus, Ohio 43216

Ecological Assessment Section 4675 Homer Ohio Lane Groveport, Ohio 43125

John R. Kasich, Governor Craig W. Butler, Director State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Table of Contents List of Figures ...... ii List of Tables ...... ii Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 Results ...... 4 Aquatic Life Use ...... 4 Aquatic Life Use Trend Assessment ...... 15 Recreation Use ...... 16 Water Chemistry ...... 19 Stream Physical Habitat ...... 27 Biological Communities ...... 35 Scioto River mainstem ...... 35 Scioto River Tributaries ...... 36 Fish Tissue (Human Health) ...... 52 Lakes Assessment ...... 53 Sediment Quality ...... 53 REFERENCES ...... 56

Appendices

A-1: Notice to users, biosurvey background information, mechanisms for water quality impairment, and methods. A-2 Metals/Nutrients A-3 NPDES A-4 Datasonde A-5 Bacteria A-6 Sediment A-7 Fish species and abundance for each sampling location A-8 Fish scores for the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and the Modified Index of well-being (MIwb) A-9 Macroinvertebrate taxa list for each sampling location A-10 Macroinvertebrate ICI scores and metrics A-11 Lakes Report

i EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

List of Figures

Figure 1. Cumulative aquatic life use attainment for all assessed waters contained within the lower Scioto River basin, 2011-12 ...... 1 Figure 2. Lower Scioto study area (pink) shown within the entire Scioto River basin...... 2 Figure 3. Lower Scioto River study area, showing principal streams and tributaries, population centers, selected pollution sources, and distribution of water resource monitoring stations, 2011-12...... 3 Figure 4. Lower Scioto River study area color-coded to attainment status of existing or recommended aquatic life use designation, showing principal streams and tributaries, population centers, and selected pollution sources, 2011-12...... 5 Figure 5. Sand bedload discharging to an unnamed tributary to Carrs Run from Ohio Basic Minerals mining operation...... 14 Figure 6. Aquatic life use attainment for the lower 100 miles of the Scioto River mainstem, 1979-2011...... 16 Figure 7. Flow hydrograph for the Scioto River at Chillicothe, Ohio, May through October 2011 (USGS 2011). Daily median flow for the period 1920-2017 is indicated with a dashed line. Various markers indicate Scioto River discharge on the dates when monitoring data were collected...... 20 Figure 8. Station average, minimum, and maximum dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH data collected from continuous monitoring units (Datasonde©) in the lower Scioto River, August 16-18, 2011. Note: DO spread and maximum values increased longitudinally and pH values approached and exceeded the maximum criterion; both were indicative of highly stimulated primary productivity...... 21 Figure 9. Longitudinal station average of ammonia-N (NH3-N), nitrate and nitrite-N (NO3+NO2-N) and total phosphorus (TP), from the lower Scioto River, 1979-2011. Dashed line (NH3-N) represents analytical detection limit. Shaded areas a and b represent a range of values for context, bounded by WWH nutrient targets and 95th percentile from reference sites, for the ECBP and WAP ecoregions (Ohio EPA 1999)...... 22 Figure 10. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb, and QHEI, for the lower Scioto River, 1979-2011. Shaded areas indicate applicable WWH biocriteria and area of nonsignificant departure for the ECBP and WAP ecoregions. Dashed lines mark the QHEI EWH and WWH benchmark. Solid arrows identify points of discharge of major public and private NPDES permitees...... 51

List of Tables Table 1. Aquatic life use attainment status for sampling locations in the lower Scioto River watershed, 2011...... 6 Table 2. Summary of E.coli bacteria data collected June-October 2011. Recreation use attainment is based on comparing the geometric mean to the Primary Contact Recreation (PCR) criteria for Class A and B streams (per OAC 3745-1-07 at the time of this survey). All values are expressed in colony forming units (cfu) per 100 ml of water...... 17 Table 3. Exceedances of Ohio Water Quality Standards criteria (OAC Chapter 3745‐1) for chemical/physical parameters measured in the lower Scioto River study area, 2011...... 23 Table 4. Summary statistics for select nutrient water quality parameters sampled in the lower Scioto River watershed study area, 2011. The 90th percentile value from reference sites from the Western Allegheny Plateau ecoregion is shown for comparison (Ohio EPA 1999). Values above the 90th percentile reference condition are shaded in yellow...... 25 Table 5. QHEI matrix of macrohabitat features by station for the lower Scioto River survey area, 2011...... 28 Table 6. Gross measures of biological community performance for the lower 100 miles of the Scioto River mainstem, 1979-2011...... 35 Table 7. Summary of macroinvertebrate descriptive statistics, field observations, and narrative evaluations for the lower Scioto River mainstem, June to October 2011. ICI scores and narrative assessments are color- coded to the following quality categories: Exceptional - Very Good (blue) and Good - Marginally Good (green) Fair (yellow), and Poor-Very Poor (Red)...... 40 ii

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Table 8. A summary of macroinvertebrate descriptive, field observations, and narrative evaluations from lower Scioto River basin tributaries, June to October 2011. ICI scores and narrative assessments are color-coded to the following quality categories: Exceptional - Very Good (blue), Good - Marginally Good (green), Fair (yellow), and Poor - Very Poor (red)...... 42 Table 9. Attributes of fish samples collected from the lower Scioto River study area, 2011...... 47 Table 10. Fish consumption advisory for the lower Scioto River study area, 2017...... 52 Table 11. Chemical parameters measured above screening levels in samples collected by Ohio EPA from sediments in the lower Scioto River and tributaries, 2011. Contaminant levels were determined for parameters using Ohio Sediment Reference Values (SRVs) and consensus-based sediment quality guidelines (MacDonald, et.al., 2000). Color-coding indicates values above the following: SRVs-yellow; Threshold Effect Concentration (TEC)-blue; Probable Effect Concentration (PEC)-orange; all thresholds-red. Sampling locations are by river mile (RM)...... 54

iii

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Executive Summary Rivers and streams in Ohio support a variety of uses such as recreation, water supply, and aquatic life. Ohio EPA evaluates each stream to determine the appropriate beneficial use designations and to also determine if the uses are meeting the goals of the federal Clean Water Act. In 2011, 51 streams in the lower Scioto River study area, located in Pickaway, Ross, Pike and Scioto counties, were evaluated for aquatic life and recreation use potential.

Of the 308 linear stream miles of the lower Scioto River watershed, 273.3 (88.7%) were found to fully support 2011 existing and recommended aquatic life uses (ALU). 8% 3.3% Partial use attainment was indicated for 24.7 miles (8.0%). Wholly impaired waters (non-attainment) were FULL limited to 10 miles (3.3%) (Figure 1). In nearly every PARTIAL instance, pollutant loads derived from both regulated 88.7% NON entities and diffuse sources were safely assimilated. The leading associated cause of ALU impairment was stream desiccation, accounting for 60% of all impaired stream miles and seven of the 14 impaired streams. Figure 1. Cumulative aquatic life use attainment for all assessed waters contained Evaluation of E. coli bacteria results revealed that 5 of within the lower Scioto River basin, the 14 Scioto River mainstem and 27 of 35 tributary 2011-12 sites failed to meet the applicable geometric mean recreational use criterion, indicating non‐attainment of the use at these locations. Potential sources of E. coli contamination at locations not attaining the recreation use criteria were failing home sewage treatment systems (HSTS), livestock pasture land runoff, agricultural runoff, and WWTP discharges.

Water samples from 101 locations were collected to represent a variety of flow conditions in the study area during the 2011 field season. Dissolved oxygen levels below the minimum Water Quality Standards (WQS) criterion were observed at 18 sites, a total of 28 times during the survey period. The great majority of depressed dissolved oxygen values occurred in tributary streams that experienced low minimum flow conditions.

Average nutrient values for all but one of eighteen Scioto River mainstem sites had geometric mean phosphorus and nitrate-nitrite levels below the WAP 90th percentile reference site value. Nevertheless, nutrient concentrations were enough to cause a high degree of primary productivity as evidenced by continuous monitoring data.

The only streams with WQS criteria exceedances that did not fully attain applicable biocriteria were Pee Pee Creek and Middle Fork Morgan Fork. Both streams were affected by very low flows during the summer sampling period; additionally, Middle Fork Morgan Fork may have been influenced by the release of oxygen deficient, eutrophic water from Pike Lake.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Introduction As part of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process, an integrated biosurvey of the lower Scioto River watershed was conducted by the Ohio EPA during the 2011-12 field sampling season. The study area included a 100-mile length of the lower Scioto River (from Circleville to Portsmouth), principal tributaries, and most minor conveyances possessing a drainage area greater than 4.5 square miles.

Information garnered from the 2011 effort was instrumental in a 2017 rulemaking (OAC 3745-1-09) that established water body use designations for 15 unassessed streams and verified uses and attainment status on 40 previously designated stream reaches. Ambient biology, macrohabitat quality, water column chemistry, and bacterial data were gathered from most locations. Diel water quality (hourly measurement of DO, pH, conductivity, and temperature over a period of several days), and sediment chemistry (metals, organics, and particle size) were evaluated at selected stations on the mainstem and larger tributaries. Limited biomonitoring was done on selected, previously unassessed, small waters (four streams) in 2012 and the results from this effort are incorporated into the 2011 assessment.

Draining 6,510 square miles of central and southern Ohio, the Scioto River basin is the state’s third largest watershed (ODNR 2001). The Scioto River mainstem originates in south-central Hardin County flowing in a general south-easterly direction. Adjacent headwater tributaries are gathered from the east in southern Crawford and Marion counties, joining the mainstem near the city of Marion. From this point the Scioto River flows south, draining all or portions of 28 additional counties before joining the Ohio River at Portsmouth. From north to south, major population centers wholly or partially contained within the basin include Marion, Delaware, Marysville, Columbus, Circleville, Chillicothe, Jackson, and Portsmouth (Figure 2).

Predominant land uses in the lower Scioto watershed study area include forest and woody scrub (47%), cultivated crops (26%), pasture/hay production (13%) and developed [urban, suburban and industrial (7.5%)]. Due to soil fertility, the vast majority of agriculture is concentrated in the glaciated till plains of central Ohio and larger river valleys of the Scioto River and its principle tributaries in southern Ohio. The cities of Circleville, Chillicothe, Waverly, Piketon, and Portsmouth are the largest developed areas in the lower Scioto watershed, and much of the development is focused in these urban areas. United States Enrichment Corporation, located in southern Pike County, is a large industrial complex which previously enriched uranium but is presently being decommissioned. The findings of an Ohio EPA investigation of the Figure 2. Lower Scioto study rivers and streams associated with this facility maybe found at: area (pink) shown http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/PortsmouthTSD2006.pdf. within the entire Scioto Summaries of other significant National Pollutant Discharge Elimination River basin. System (NPDES) permitted facilities are contained in Appendix A-3.

The lower Scioto River study area included a 100-mile segment of the mainstem, from Circleville to the its confluence with the Ohio River at Portsmouth. Excluding Deer Creek, Salt Creek, Paint Creek, and Scioto Brush Creek, all of which were assessed as independent study areas prior to this investigation, all tributaries of consequence attendant to this reach were surveyed and assessed in 2011-12. In total, 101 sampling stations were distributed among 51 named and unnamed waterbodies, yielding a cumulative assessment of 308 linear stream miles (Figure 3).

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Figure 3. Lower Scioto River study area, showing principal streams and tributaries, population centers, selected pollution sources, and distribution of water resource monitoring stations, 2011-12.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Results Aquatic Life Use Of the 308 linear stream miles of the lower Scioto River watershed, 273.3 (88.7%) were found to fully support existing and recommended aquatic life uses. Partial use attainment was indicated for 24.7 miles (8.0%). Wholly impaired waters (non-attainment) were limited to 10 miles (3.3%) (Figure 1). Taken together, aquatic life use impairment (partial and non-attainment) was limited to streams or segments of only 14 of the 51 waterbodies evaluated in 2011-12. The overwhelming majority of monitoring stations, including the entire length of the Scioto mainstem, were found to support diverse and well-organized assemblages of fish and benthic macroinvertebrates, possessing high taxa richness (including a high proportion of environmentally sensitive species), a high degree of functional and structural organization, and a low incidence of disease or other anomalies commonly associated with degraded water quality. In nearly every instance, pollutant loads derived from both regulated entities and diffuse sources were safely assimilated. ALU attainment status for sampling locations in the lower Scioto River is presented in Table 1; streams are color-coded for ALU status in Figure 4.

The leading associated cause of ALU impairment was stream desiccation, accounting for 60% of all impaired stream miles and seven of the 14 impaired streams. The affected waters were found exclusively within the southern portion of the study area (i.e., Western Allegheny Plateau [WAP] ecoregion), and limited to either small direct Scioto tributaries or upper reaches of some of the larger tributaries. This phenomenon appeared entirely natural, as many small waters within this part of Ohio are subject to very low flow conditions during dry periods.

The lower portions of two streams, Scippo and Kinnikinnick creeks, were impaired for reasons unknown. Together these waterbodies accounted for 4.5 miles (13.0%) of all impaired waters. Based upon available lines of evidence, no compelling argument could be constructed to attribute or otherwise explain the failure of the aquatic communities to meet the prescribed biocriteria. In both cases, diverse macroinvertebrate assemblages were present, but the fish community was deficient.

Possible explanations may include the lingering effects of an undocumented spill(s) or other unknown episode of stress. Alternatively, these results may reflect natural variation, beyond that derived from reference conditions and specified within the biocriteria methodology. Although uncommon, natural variation greater than background has been occasionally encountered by Ohio EPA over the life of the bioassessment program. It is important to note that the extent and magnitude of the biocriteria departure documented on these streams was modest, never falling below a “high-fair” biological narrative and was manifest in only one of the three biometrics employed to determine aquatic life use attainment. As use impairment could not be confidently associated with an entity, activity, land use or local land forms, the cause and source of aquatic life use impairment was best and most accurately described as unknown in this case.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Figure 4. Lower Scioto River study area color-coded to attainment status of existing or recommended aquatic life use designation, showing principal streams and tributaries, population centers, and selected pollution sources, 2011-12.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Table 1. Aquatic life use attainment status for sampling locations in the lower Scioto River watershed, 2011. Stream/River River Mile Location IBI MIwba ICIb QHEI Attainmentc Cause Source Comment Scioto River (02-001) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH+Use (Existing) Circleville, dst. Big Darby Cr., 100.0/100.1(B) 46 10.5 54 84.8 FULL US 22 97.8/97.9(B) Canal Lock and Dam Park 49 10.9 48 84.8 FULL 94.2/95.3(B) Ust. B&E Landfill/dst. DuPont 47 10.8 48 86.5 FULL 89.5(B) Dst. Scippo Creek 46 10.5 46 87.0 FULL Ust. Deer Creek, 86.4/86.0(B) 47 10.6 E 77.5 FULL Kellenburger Rd. 83.0(B) Dst. Deer Creek 44 10.6 52 93.0 FULL Ust. Ross Co. Correctional 77.4(B) 44 10.6 E 81.8 FULL WWTP Scioto River Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH+Use (Existing) Chillicothe, Bridge St., dst. 70.9/70.4(B) Ross Co. Correctional WWTP, 48 10.5 46 83.5 FULL ust Chillicothe WWTP 67.8/66.8(B) Dst. Chillicothe WWTP 49 10.6 E 81.0 FULL 64.5(B) US 35, ust. Paint Creek 48 10.5 48 89.0 FULL Adj. Three Locks Rd., dst. 60.0/60.4(B) 48 10.8 48 91.5 FULL Paint Creek/PH Glatfelter 56.2/56.1(B) Higby Rd. 46 10.5 54 91.0 FULL 50.8/50.9(B) Dst. Salt Creek 46 10.3 50 86.5 FULL 46.0/45.0(B) Dst. Carrs Run, SR 335 42 9.7 50 86.3 FULL 40.0(B) Ust. Waverly WWTP, SR 220 44 10.3 50 70.3 FULL Dst. Waverly WWTP, dst. Pee 37.1/36.7(B) 42 10.3 54 79.5 FULL Pee Cr. 33.0(B) Piketon, dst. US 23 48 9.9 42 71.5 FULL Ust. Beaver Creek, ust. USEC 29.2/28.6(B) 46 10.1 52 75.5 FULL Facility 23.5/23.6(B) Dst. Beaver Creek, dst. USEC 46 82.8 FULL 43 9.7 Facility 20.5/19.3(B) Adj. US 23 43 10.0 48 82.5 FULL 6

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Stream/River River Mile Location IBI MIwba ICIb QHEI Attainmentc Cause Source Comment Lucasville, Canal Dam, SR 14.7/13.8(B) 43 10.4 40 80.8 FULL 348 Scioto River (02-001) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH+Use (Existing)

Rushtown, dst. Scioto Brush 9.1/9.0(B) 50 10.4 52 79.8 FULL Creek

5.4/4.7(B) Rosemont, adj. US 23 39ns 10.2 50 69.0 FULL

Hargus Creek (02-074) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH* Use (Existing) At Fairgrounds, ust Hominy 2.1(H) 50 NA VG 66.5 FULL Creek 0.4(H) Circleville, High St./Island Rd. 46 NA 48 68.5 FULL Hominy Creek (02-075) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH* Use (Existing) 0.2/1.1(H) Circleville, ust. Private lane 40 NA G 56.8 FULL near mouth, ust. RR Crossing Lick Run (02-073) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH* Use (Existing) 0.2(H) Sisk Rd./Westfall Rd. 42 NA G 56.8 FULL Yellowbud Creek (02-071) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH+ Use (Existing) 7.1/7.0(H) Kinderhook Rd./Rector Rd. 40 NA VG 54.0 FULL Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) EWH+ Use (Existing) - /1.8d Rittinger Property (2012 - - E - NA sample) CR 1046, dst. Village of Channel Modification 1.1(W) 57 9.6 38* 79.3 PARTIAL Sedimentation Yellowbud Agriculture Scippo Creek (02-069) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) EWH+ Use (Existing) 14.8(H) Tarlton Pike 52 NA VG 75.5 FULL 11.5/11.4(H) SR 56 48 NA 52 65.5 FULL 5.3(W) Kingston Pike, ust. PPG 56 9.3ns 48 81.5 FULL

4.4(W) Dst. PPG 49ns 9.2ns 58 72.8 FULL

1.6(W) River Rd. 49ns 8.5* E 73.0 PARTIAL Unknown Unknown 7

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Stream/River River Mile Location IBI MIwba ICIb QHEI Attainmentc Cause Source Comment Congo Creek (02-070) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) EWH+/WWH Use (Existing/Recommended)

2.2(W) SR 361 48ns NA 63.8 FULL MGns

Blackwater Creek (02-196) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH* Use (Existing) 0.7(H) Orr Rd. 34* NA F* 58.0 NON Direct Habitat Alteration Channel Modification Kinnikinnick Creek (02-068) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) EWH+ Use (Existing) 7.5(H) Kingston-Hallsville Pike 58 NA VG 57.5 FULL Sulfur Springs Rd, RR 2.9(W) 8.9 ns 58 75.8 PARTIAL Unknown Unknown Crossing 43*

Dresbach Creek (02-491) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) Unlisted/WWH Use (Recommended) 0.7(H),d Kreisel Rd. (2012 sample) 48 NA VG 60.0 FULL

South Fork Kinnikinnick Creek (02-068-488) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) Unlisted/WWH Use (Recommended) 0.8(H) SR 180 48 NA G 67.0 FULL Dry Run (at RM 74.6) (02-066) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH*/CWH Use (Existing/Recommended) Coldwater Taxa 1.0/1.4(H) Bridge St. 34* NA 46 65.0 FULL Macrobenthos 11 Fish 1 Lick Run (02-065) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 0.6(H) Schrader Lane 44 NA 44 57.5 FULL Indian Creek (02-063) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 1.2(B) Massieville Rd., CR 600 49 9.0 50 71.3 FULL North Branch Indian Creek (02-064) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 0.1(H) Adj. Trego Rd. 54 NA G 73.5 FULL . Dry Run (at RM 59.8) (02-062) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) Natural Conditions Natural Sources 5.4(H) Miller Rd. 28* NA G 62.3 PARTIAL (Low Flow) Stony Creek (02-061) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) Natural Conditions Natural Sources 0.2/0.6(H) Three Locks Rd. 30* NA G 70.8 PARTIAL (Flow or Habitat) 8

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Stream/River River Mile Location IBI MIwba ICIb QHEI Attainmentc Cause Source Comment Walnut Creek (02-056) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) EWH+/WWH Use (Existing/Recommended) 14.6(H) Rout Rd., ust. Piney Run 44* NA E 63.3 FULL Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) EWH+ Use (Existing) 11.3(W) Mt. Nebo Rd. 54 9.7 56 71.5 FULL 5.2(W) Schoolery Station Rd. 56 9.9 44 67.5 FULL 1.3(W) Old SR 35 50 10.0 52 67.5 FULL Piny Run (02-060) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH*/CWH Use (Existing/Recommended) Coldwater Taxa 0.3(W) Piney Creek Rd./CR 220 42 NA VG 56.5 FULL Macrobenthos 7 Fish 1 Little Walnut Creek (02-058) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH*/ EWH Use (Existing/Recommended) 0.2(H) Cottril Rd./Mitten Lane 58 NA E 71.3 FULL Hickson Run (02-054) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH*/CWH Use (Existing/Recommended) Coldwater Taxa 0.3(H), d Watson Rd. (2012 sample) 52 NA VG 68.5 FULL Macrobenthos 4 Fish 2 Carrs Run (02-050) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 1.5(H) North River Rd. 52 NA F* 64.5 PARTIAL Sedimentation (sand) Sand/Gravel Mining Moore Run (02-049) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 2.0(H, 2012) Higby Rd. (2012 sample) 52 NA VG 51.8 FULL Meadow Run (02-046) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 0.3(H) River Rd. 44 NA E 73.8 FULL Pee Pee Creek (02-035) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) Natural Conditions 11.5(H) Nipgen Rd. 22* NA VG 49.0 PARTIAL Natural Sources (Low Flow) Natural Conditions 7.6(W) CR 37 40ns 7.0* E 63.8 PARTIAL Natural Sources (Low Flow) 1.1(W) US 23, dst. White Lake 44 8.2ns MGns 66.5 FULL Haw Fork (02-042) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 0.4(H) Adj. Turkey Run Rd. 48 NA VG 47.0 FULL Crooked Creek (02-036) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 11.0/11.3(H) Blaine Hwy./SR 167 52 NA G 70.8 FULL

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Stream/River River Mile Location IBI MIwba ICIb QHEI Attainmentc Cause Source Comment Farm Lane off Alma-Omega 8.0(H) 48 NA 42 61.5 FULL Rd. 2.4(W) SR 220 50 9.8 38 71.0 FULL Near Lake White spillway @ 0.1/0.8(W) 8.3ns MGns 58.0 FULL mouth 42ns Left Fork Crooked Creek (02-037) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) Natural Conditions 2.6(H) CR 47/Denver Rd. 38* NA VG 68.8 PARTIAL Natural Sources (Low Flow) No Name Creek (02-031) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 0.8(H) SR 32 48 NA E 68.0 FULL Big Beaver Creek (02-022) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH+ Use (Existing) 19.8(H) Gravel Washer Rd. 44 NA MGns 61.5 FULL 16.0(W) Red Hollow Rd./CR 76 50 9.7 VG 70.8 FULL Shyville Rd., ust. Little 5.5/5.6(W) 9.0 48 80.5 FULL Beaver Cr. 43ns 3.1(W) Grove Rd./CR 117 45 9.4 VG 73.0 FULL

Pecks Creek (02-027) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 1.5(H) Germany Rd./CR 66 46 NA E 71.5 FULL Little Beaver Creek (02-023) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH+ Use (Existing) 0.1/0.6(H) Wakefield Mound Rd. 52 NA VG 80.3 FULL

Sunfish Creek (02-800) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 23.3(H) Ust. Byington, Adj. SR 124 54 NA G 57.5 FULL 19.9(W) Ust. Grassy Fork Rd. 50 9.1 E 67.5 FULL 16.2(W) Red Bridge Rd. 55 9.1 48 83.5 FULL 8.1(W) SR 772 53 9.8 42 82.3 FULL 4.8/5.3(B) CR 21/Sunfish Creek Rd. 44 10.1 44 64.5 FULL - /0.5 SR 104 - - 36 - NA Kincaid Creek (02-815) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH*/CWH Use (Existing/Recommended) 10

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Stream/River River Mile Location IBI MIwba ICIb QHEI Attainmentc Cause Source Comment Adj. Lapperell Rd., at State Coldwater Taxa 0.8(H) 52 NA G 66.5 FULL Macrobenthos 9 Fish Hatchery Fish 3 Grassy Fork (02-814) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH*/CWH Use (Existing/Recommended) Coldwater Taxa 1.0(H) Grassy Fork Rd. 48 NA E 73.5 FULL Macrobenthos 7 Fish 2 Morgan Fork (02-809) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 1.7(W) CR 3/Morgan Fork Rd. 48 8.6 E 75.0 FULL Left Fork Morgan Fork (02-810) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH*/CWH Use (Existing/Recommended) Coldwater Taxa 1.2(H) Firetower Rd. 52 NA 40 69.5 FULL Macrobenthos 8 Fish 2 Right Fork Morgan Fork (02-811) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 0.7(H) Dst. Middle Fork 56 NA G 68.0 FULL Middle Fork Morgan Fork (02-817) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) Unlisted/WWH Use (Recommended) Adj. Pike Lake Rd., dst. Pike Impoundment 1.5/1.4(H) 34* NA G 78.0 PARTIAL Flow Alteration Lake (Downstream Effects) Leeth Creek (02-808) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH*/CWH Use (Existing/Recommended) Coldwater Taxa 1.5(H) Leeth Creek Rd. 46 NA 46 68.0 FULL Macrobenthos 4 Fish 2 Chenoweth Fork (02-802) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) Adj. Chenoweth Fork Rd., 8.1(H) 52 NA VG 62.5 FULL dst. Long Run Chenoweth Fork Rd., dst. 1.7(W) 46 8.5 48 68.3 FULL Spoon River Carter Run (02-804) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 0.4(H) Ust. SR 32. near mouth 42 NA E 65.3 FULL Camp Creek (02-015) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) CR 25/Camp-Bear Cr. 5.2(H) 50 NA E 74.5 FULL Rd./Coldicot Rd.

1.8/1.7(W) Hungery Hollow Rd., at ford 49 9.1 69.5 FULL MGns Left Fork Camp Creek (02-017) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH*/CWH+ Use (Existing/Recommended) 11

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Stream/River River Mile Location IBI MIwba ICIb QHEI Attainmentc Cause Source Comment Adj. Left Fork Rd., Dst. Rock Coldwater Taxa 1.4(H) 38* NA 42 58.5 FULL Macrobenthos 8 Run Fish 2 Big Run (02-001-026) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH+ Use (Existing) 2.0(H) Wakefield Mound Rd. 46 NA VG 72.0 FULL Bear Creek (02-014) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 2.4(H) Adj. Bear Cr-Rarden Rd. 42 NA G 57.0 FULL Miller Run (02-009) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 0.9(H) Fairground Rd./CR 55) 50 NA G 47.0 FULL Cockrell Run (02-010) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) 2.6(H) Beloat Rd. (Miller Run Trib.) 46 NA E 60.5 FULL Candy Run (02-008) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) Lintz Hollow Rd., ust. HSTS 2.6(H) 52 NA F* 73.3 PARTIAL Organic Enrichment Lucasville WWTP (Home Septics) POTW 0.9(H) US 23, dst. Lucasville WWTP 56 NA F* 71.0 PARTIAL Organic Enrichment (Lucasville WWTP) Pond Creek (02-002) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) Natural Conditions 8.4(H) CR 49/Cave Lick Rd. 38* NA E 65.0 PARTIAL Natural Sources (Low Flow) 4.8(H) Primrose Lane/Alley Rd. 42 NA E 61.5 FULL Dry Run (02-003) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH* Use (Existing) Natural Conditions 1.3(H) Ust. SR 104/Adj. CR 57 32* - - 39.3 (NON) Natural Sources (Low Flow)

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Table 1 continued. H - Headwaters: sites draining areas <20 miles2. W - Wadable streams: sites draining areas > 20 miles2. B - Boat sites (large waters). a - MIwb not applicable for waters draining <20 miles2. b - ICI narrative equivalent derived from qualitative assessment (E-exceptional, VG-very good, G-good, MG-marginally good, F-fair, LF-low fair, P-Poor). c - Attainment status derived from an index value for one organism group is parenthetically expressed. Partial and NON-attainment of biocriteria are highlighted in Yellow and Red, respectively. d - Stations so identified were sampled in 2012 as part of a small follow-up effort. ns - Non-significant departure from the biocriteria (<4 IBI and ICI units or <0.5 MIwb units). * - Significant departure from the biocriteria (>4 IBI and ICI units or >0.5 MIwb units). Poor to very poor results are underlined. e - Where two criteria are listed for the MIwb and ICI, the second is restricted to mine affected waters. MWH IBI criteria for non-mine affected modified waters (drainage improvement, impoundment, etc.) and mine affected water are the same. Ecoregional Biocriteria (OAC 3745-1-07, Table 7-15) Eastern Corn Belt Plain (ECBP) Ecoregion Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) Ecoregion Index-Site Type WWH EWH Index-Site Type WWH EWH IBI-Headwater 40 50 IBI-Headwater 44 50 IBI-Wading 40 50 IBI-Wading 44 50 MIwb-Wading 8.3 9.4 MIwb-Wading 8.4 9.4 IBI-Boat 42 48 IBI-Boat 40 48 MIwb-Boat 8.5 9.6 MIwb-Boat 8.6 9.6 ICI 36 46 ICI 36 46

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Impairment attributed directly to an NPDES permitted entity was limited to the lower mile of Candy Run, a small direct Scioto River tributary that receives treated effluent from the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) WWTP (AKA Lucasville WWTP). This facility is a minor plant treating sanitary waste from both the prison population and the greater Lucasville area. In addition to subpar biology, water column monitoring revealed phosphorus and all nitrogenous parameters highly elevated downstream from the facility. Furthermore, when compared against results from other lower Scioto tributaries, average and peak concentration of these parameters were among the highest observed throughout the study area. A review of entity generated self-monitoring data corroborated ambient biological and chemical field observations, as numerous and frequent permit violations for BOD, total ammonia, solids and fecal coliform bacteria were cited. A total of ten notice of violation (NOV) letters were sent to the facility from 2011 to 2016 for effluent limit violations. Due to these numerous violations, Directors Final Findings and Orders were issued on February 15, 2017. The facility hired Kramer Engineers in 2017 to conduct a study of the entire sewer system to determine the main source of excessive inflow and infiltration.

Impairment of Carrs Run in Pike County was the result of heavy sedimentation and sand bedload from an NPDES permitted sand and gravel mine. The facility, Ohio Basic Minerals, discharges to an unnamed tributary to Carrs Run and has two NPDES permitted outfalls from settling ponds, in addition to an industrial storm water permit. From 2009 to 2016, a total of four NOV letters were sent to the facility. The violations issued included failure to submit Permit to Install (PTI) and NPDES applications to Ohio EPA prior to commencing operations, failure to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), exceedance of permit effluent limits for total suspended solids (TSS), and failure to report flows from Outfall 002 when discharging. Additionally, in 2011, Ohio EPA field personnel documented sediment bedload from the facility during both a compliance inspection of the facility and the biological survey (Figure 5). In response to the violations, the facility submitted the required applications and updated and implemented a SWPPP. A resolution of violation (ROV) letter was issued to the facility on June 20, 2016; no compliance inspections have been conducted since. Continued Figure 6. Sand bedload discharging to an unnamed tributary to Figure 5. Sand bedload discharging to an unnamed tributary to monitoring and additional biological Carrs Run from Ohio Basic Minerals mining operation. Carrs Run from Ohio Basic Minerals mining operation.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018 sampling on Carrs Run should be conducted to ensure the SWPPP is controlling and preventing discharges to Carrs Run.

The remaining impairments were associated with habitat alteration, hydromodification, sedimentation, and localized effects of home septic system(s) and were identified on portions of five small streams: Yellowbud Creek at RM 1.1, Blackwater Creek at RM 0.7, Candy Run at RM 2.6, Carrs Run at RM 1.5, and Middle Fork Morgan Fork at RM 1.5.

Aquatic Life Use Trend Assessment The lower Scioto River mainstem has been regularly surveyed and assessed by Ohio EPA since 1979. Ambient biological monitoring since that time has documented steady and regular improvement through each reporting cycle, culminating in full warmwater habitat (WWH) aquatic life use attainment in 2011; many sites in 2011 supported exceptional or near exceptional fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Presently, the Scioto River stands as Ohio’s richest and most intact large river system.

As indicated by the resident aquatic biology, the environmental conditions of the lower Scioto River have significantly improved since the original 1979 survey. At that time, just over 6.1% of the mainstem miles met the prescribed biocriteria. Leading causes of aquatic life use impairment were associated with the various WWTPs (Figure 6). Low dissolved oxygen and elevated ammonia-N were regularly observed, stemming from both limited nitrification and high oxygen demand resulting from poorly treated effluents. The degree of recovery documented in a 1997 survey, the last survey before the 2011 assessment, was profound, as nearly the entire length of the lower Scioto River was fully supportive of WWH communities.

Significant improvement in the environmental conditions documented to date followed the implementation of the U.S. EPA National Municipal Policy and the supporting Construction Grants program contained within the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (AKA Clean Water Act), as amended in 1977 and again in 1981. This initiative required most major WWTPs to meet advanced treatment standards by 1988 to comply with water quality-based effluent limits. Federal grants and loans administered by the states were made available to eligible entities to facilitate significant upgrades and improvements to municipal wastewater infrastructure. The practical in-stream results of advanced waste treatment upon the affected segments of the lower Scioto River included significant reductions in the loadings of both putrescible or oxygen demanding wastes and ammonia-N, from all major WWTPs. The relative ambient water quality improvements facilitated the recovery of aquatic communities.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Lower Scioto River Mainstem 1979-2011 6.1% 10%

26.4% 39.2% 100%

94.8% 90% 34.4%

1979 1981-85 1997 2011

Aquatic Life Use Attainment

FULL PARTIAL NON

Figure 7. Aquatic life use attainment for the lower 100 miles of the Scioto River mainstem, 1979-2011.

Recreation Use

Water quality criteria for determining attainment of recreation uses are established in the Ohio WQS (Table 7-13 in OAC 3745-1-07) based upon the presence or absence of bacteria indicators (Escherichia coli) in the water column. New revisions to the recreation use rules in Ohio became effective on January 4, 2016. However, as sampling to assess the recreation use for the lower Scioto River watershed was designed and carried out when the previous rules were in effect, the assessment of data and determination of recreation use attainment status provided in this section were based on the prior rule. Summarized bacteria results are listed in Table 2, and the complete dataset is reported in Appendix Table A-5.

Evaluation of E. coli results revealed that nine of fourteen locations on the Scioto River mainstem attained the applicable geometric mean criterion for the season, and thus were in full attainment of the Primary Contact Recreation (PCR) use. The other five sites exceeded the geometric value of 126 cfu (colony forming units)/100 ml. The problems on the mainstem were more prevalent at the upper sites, and most likely due to a more concentrated area of dischargers in the Circleville area and agriculture, as well as the influences from several tributaries in that area that did not meet recreation use expectations. The other site on the mainstem that did not meet was at SR 35, east of Chillicothe and downstream from Paint Creek. It had a geometric average of 139 cfu/100 ml.

Of the remaining thirty-five tributary sites that were sampled for bacteria, twenty-seven did not meet the seasonal geometric average criterion of 161 cfu/100 ml for Primary Contact Recreation Class B streams. The highest geometric averages occurred at Hargus Creek (High Street), Lick Run at Schrader Lane, Dry Run at Miller Road and Miller Run at CR 55. Geometric values at these sites exceeded 1,000 cfu/100 ml. at all the sites. These exceedances are believed to be a result of livestock, agriculture, discharging septic tanks, and general unsewered areas. Other elevated values on the tributaries ranged from to 778 colonies/100 ml at Blackwater Creek, 493 cfu/100 ml at Scippo Creek, and 443 cfu/100 ml at Congo Creek. The tributaries meeting the required criterion for the PCR designation (North Branch Indian Creek, Stoney

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Creek, Pee Pee Creek, Boswell Run, No Name Creek, Middle Fork Morgan Fork, Morgan Fork and Bear Creek), were no more or less isolated from agricultural influences or concentrated areas of population than other watershed sites.

Table 2. Summary of E. coli bacteria data collected June-October 2011. Recreation use attainment is based on comparing the geometric mean to the Primary Contact Recreation (PCR) criteria for Class A and B streams (per OAC 3745-1-07 at the time of this survey). All values are expressed in colony forming units (cfu) per 100 ml of water. PCR River No. of Geometric Maximum Possible Source(s) Location Rec. Use1 Attainment Mile Samples Mean2 Value of Bacteria3 Status Scioto River 100.0 A 8 363 1100 no Agriculture 96.5 A 5 279 690 no Agriculture, WWTP 94.6 A 5 253 670 no Agriculture, WWTP 89.5 A 5 321 2200 no Agriculture, WWTP 86.4 A 15 92 890 yes - 78.8 A 10 53 880 yes - 70.4 A 10 79 720 yes - 64.2 A 10 139 930 no undetermined 56.0 A 10 67 840 yes - 46.0 A 10 100 1600 yes - 40.0 A 9 31 120 yes - 33.0 A 9 47 100 yes - 30.1 A 9 36 110 yes - 15.0 A 8 38 100 yes - Hargus Creek 0.4 B 8 1149 8500 no Urban, HSTS, ILLD Lick Run 0.2 B 5 425 720 no Ag, livestock, HSTS Yellowbud Creek 1.1 B 9 283 770 no Ag, HSTS, unsewered areas Scippo Creek 1.6 B 9 493 3100 no Ag, livestock, HSTS, WWTP Congo Creek 2.2 B 5 443 590 no Ag, livestock, HSTS Blackwater Creek 0.7 B 12 778 2000 no Ag, livestock, HSTS Kinnikinnick Creek 2.95 B 8 230 470 no Ag, livestock South Fork Kinnikinnick Creek 0.8 B 8 300 730 no Ag, livestock Dry Run 0.6 B 8 381 980 no Unsewered area Lick Run 0.64 B 8 1494 5400 no Ag, HSTS 17

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

PCR River No. of Geometric Maximum Possible Source(s) Location Rec. Use1 Attainment Mile Samples Mean2 Value of Bacteria3 Status Indian Creek 1.2 B 8 181 860 no Unsewered area North Branch Indian Creek 0.1 B 7 116 1100 yes - Dry Run 5.36 B 4 1724 9500 no Agriculture, pooled area Stony Creek 0.23 B 8 127 260 yes - Walnut Creek 11.3 B 8 230 490 no undetermined 1.3 B 8 192 620 no undetermined Carrs Run 1.52 B 8 232 530 no undetermined Meadow Run 0.26 B 8 262 690 no undetermined Pee Pee Creek 7.65 B 8 70 950 yes - Crooked Creek 2.37 B 8 199 26,000 no undetermined Left Fork Crooked Creek 2.65 B 8 235 530 no undetermined Boswell Run 0.56 B 4 48 130 yes - No Name Creek 0.8 B 8 153 730 yes - Big Beaver Creek 16.01 B 8 367 3000 no undetermined 3.15 B 8 165 380 no undetermined Sunfish Creek 23.3 B 8 173 470 no undetermined 16.2 B 8 175 570 no undetermined 4.85 B 8 356 2900 no undetermined Morgan Fork 1.7 B 8 103 570 yes - Middle Fork Morgan Fork 1.5 B 9 54 470 yes - Chenoweth Fork 1.7 B 7 184 350 no undetermined Camp Creek 5.2 B 8 244 32,000 no undetermined Bear Creek 2.4 B 8 139 750 yes - Miller Run 18

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

PCR River No. of Geometric Maximum Possible Source(s) Location Rec. Use1 Attainment Mile Samples Mean2 Value of Bacteria3 Status 0.93 B 8 1045 7300 no undetermined Pond Creek 4.8 B 8 313 2400 no undetermined 1 – At the time of this survey, recreation uses included three primary contact recreation classes (A, B, or C); bathing waters (BW); or secondary contact recreation (SCR). 2 – Per assessment procedures in place at the time of this survey, attainment status was determined based on the seasonal geometric mean. The status was not determined at locations where fewer than two samples were collected during the recreation season. 3 - Possible Sources: AG-Agriculture CAFO-Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation HSTS-Home Sewage Treatment Systems ILLD-Illicit Discharges WWTP-Wastewater Treatment Plants CSOs-Combined Sewer Overflows SSOs-Sanitary Sewer Overflows

Water Chemistry

The USGS gage data from the Scioto River at Chillicothe, Ohio, was used to show flow conditions of the Scioto River during the 2011 survey (Figure 7). Flow during the summer field season was consistently above the historic median value. Stream flow in the Lower Scioto River is controlled by five Army Corps of Engineer projects; these flood control structures regulate the watersheds above Delaware, Alum Creek, Hoover, Deer Creek (Madison Co.) and Paint Creek Reservoirs. Flow measurements on the mainstem of the Scioto River portrayed wet weather conditions in the whole Scioto River basin during 2011; however, field notes indicate localized drought conditions existed during that same period at numerous tributary sites in the lower Scioto River basin.

Water samples were collected to represent a variety of flow conditions in the study area during the 2011 field season. Dates for chemical water quality and fish sampling along with diel monitoring events are noted in Figure 6. Surface water samples were analyzed for metals, nutrients, semi‐volatile organic compounds, herbicides, bacteria, and suspended and dissolved solids (Appendices A-2 through A-6). Temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (D.O.), and D.O. saturation were recorded in the field in conjunction with surface water samples. Parameters in exceedance of the Ohio WQS criteria are reported in Table 3, and geometric mean nutrient values are reported in Table 4. Most of the exceedances were related to D.O., however pH and iron exceedances were also recorded. Iron exceedances are not generally associated with non-attainments unless by indirect association. Bacteriological results are reported in the Recreation Use section.

Dissolved oxygen levels below the minimum WQS criterion were observed at 18 sites, a total of 28 times during the survey period. Dissolved oxygen levels exceeded the criteria just twice on the mainstem, likely reflective of elevated primary productivity driven by nutrients. Conversely, depressed dissolved oxygen values in tributary streams predominantly resulted from low flow conditions. Enrichment from agricultural nutrients may have also contributed to low D.O. in Yellowbud Creek; nevertheless, the biocriteria fully attained.

Individual low pH values, recorded in Sunfish Creek, Left Fork Morgan Fork, Leeth Creek and Camp Creek, occurred under low flow conditions and were likely associated with the predominance of shale and

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018 sandstone bedrock in the area. Both sedimentary rock formations can produce acidic conditions in the ground water that contributes a relatively high proportion of flow to these small streams.

Average nutrient values during the nutrient index period (June 1 – October 15) for the mainstem and for a number of tributary streams are contained in Table 4. All but one of eighteen Scioto River mainstem sites had geometric mean phosphorus and nitrate-nitrite levels below the WAP 90th percentile reference site value. Nevertheless, nutrient concentrations were enough to cause a high degree of primary productivity as evidenced by continuous monitoring data. From August 16-18, 2011, data reflected an increasing separation in the degree of diurnal D.O. fluctuation from upstream to downstream along with pH values that approached, and eventually exceeded the maximum criterion (Figure 8).

Scioto River USGS Gauge 03231500 Ross County Chillicothe, Ohio 50000

10000

Discharge (CFS) 1000 Chem. Fish Diel Median Flow Discharge 200 May June July August September October

Figure 8. Flow hydrograph for the Scioto River at Chillicothe, Ohio, May through October 2011 (USGS 2011). Daily median flow for the period 1920-2017 is indicated with a dashed line. Various markers indicate Scioto River discharge on the dates when monitoring data were collected.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

ECBP-WWH WAP-WWH

Chillicothe WWTP Waverly WWTP USEC GDP 20 Mean Min. & Max. PH Glaltfelter Piketon WWTP (via Paint Creek) 2011 Ross Co. Corr. August 16-18 Inst. WWTP 15 Circleville WWTP DuPont

10 DO (mg/l)

5 WWH Mean and Min.Criteria

Deer Creek Walnut Creek Big Beaver Creek Scippo Creek Salt Creek PeePee Creek Sunfish Creek 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 River Mile

ECBP-WWH WAP-WWH 9.5 Chillicothe WWTP Waverly WWTP USEC GDP 2011 Ross Co. Corr. PH Glaltfelter Piketon WWTP August 16-18 Inst. WWTP (via Paint Creek) 9 WWH Max. Criterion (9.0)

Circleville WWTP 8.5 DuPont

pH (SU) 8 Big Beaver Creek

Sunfish Creek Deer Creek 7.5 PeePee Creek Scippo Creek Salt Creek Walnut Creek Geometric Mean Min. & Max. 7 100 80 60 40 20 0 River Mile

Figure 9. Station average, minimum, and maximum dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH data collected from continuous monitoring units (Datasonde©) in the lower Scioto River, August 16-18, 2011. Note: DO spread and maximum values increased longitudinally and pH values approached and exceeded the maximum criterion; both were indicative of highly stimulated primary productivity.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

ECBP-WWH WAP-WWH

Smurfit Corp. (non-acti ve by 2011) Chillicothe WWTP Circleville WWTP Lucasville WWTP Ross Co. Corr. (via Candy Run) 1 DuPont Inst. WWTP PH Gl altfel ter Waverly WWTP (via Paint Creek) Piketon WWTP

-N (mg/l) USEC GDP 3

NH 0.1

Smurfit Corp. (non-acti ve by 2011) Chillicothe WWTP Circleville WWTP Lucasville WWTP 10 Ross Co. Corr. DuPont PH Gl altfel ter (via Candy Run) Inst. WWTP (via Paint Creek) Waverly WWTP Piketon WWTP a

-N (mg/l) USEC GDP 2

Target and 95th Reference Value b +NO 3 NO

1 3 Smurfit Corp. (non-acti ve) Chillicothe WWTP 1979 Circleville WWTP 1985 2.5 PH Gl altfel ter DuPont Ross Co. Corr. 1997 (via Paint Creek) 2011 2 Inst. WWTP Target and 95th a Reference Value 1.5 Waverly WWTP Piketon WWTP

TP (mg/l) 1 USEC GDP

0.5 b

0 100 80 60 40 20 0 River Mile

Figure 10. Longitudinal station average of ammonia-N (NH3-N), nitrate and nitrite-N (NO3+NO2-N) and total phosphorus (TP), from the lower Scioto River, 1979-2011. Dashed line (NH3-N) represents analytical detection limit. Shaded areas a and b represent a range of values for context, bounded by WWH nutrient targets and 95th percentile from reference sites, for the ECBP and WAP ecoregions (Ohio EPA 1999).

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Table 3. Exceedances of Ohio Water Quality Standards criteria (OAC Chapter 3745‐1) for chemical/physical parameters measured in the lower Scioto River study area, 2011.

Stream/RM (Use Designation)a Location Parameter Scioto River (WWH) 70.4 Dst. Bridge Street DO (4.91)f 56.0 Higby Rd. DO (4.8)f 34.0 US 23, at Piketon Iron (5700)e Hargus Creek (WWH) 0.4 High St., Circleville Iron (5860)e Yellowbud Creek 7.08 (WWH) Rector Rd. DO (3.66, 3.58, 2.67)g 1.1 (EWH) CR 1046 Iron (6000, 6700)e Scippo Creek (EWH) 1.6 River Rd. Iron (14400, 8140)e Indian Creek (WWH) 1.2 Massieville Rd. DO (4.68)f North Branch Indian Creek (WWH) 0.1 Adj. Trego Rd DO (4.78, 4.39)f Pee Pee Creek (WWH) 11.5 Nipgen Road DO (4.76f, 3.51g) 7.65 CR 37 DO (4.74)f 0.4 US 23, South of Waverly DO (4.4)f Crooked Creek (WWH) 11.3 Blaine Highway DO (4.32)f 8.0 lane off Alpha Omega Rd. DO (3.02g, 4.51f) 2.4 SR 220, Waverly DO (4.69f, 3.79g, 3.4g, 4.85f) 0.1 Near mouth, dst. Lake White DO (4.88)f Big Beaver Creek (WWH) 16.0 Red Hollow Rd./CR 76 DO (4.74)f Shyville Rd., ust. Little Beaver DO (3.56g, 4.25f) 5.5 Creek Kincaid Creek (WWH-CWH) 0.8 Lapperell Rd., near spring house DO (4.71)f Sunfish Creek (WWH) 8.15 Tennyson Road DO (4.41)f 4.85 CR 21 pH (5.88)b Right Fork Morgan Fork (WWH) 1.3 Dst. Middle Fork Iron (7270, 17100)e Middle Fork Morgan Fork (WWH) 1.5 Dst. Pike Lake DO (4.9, 4.86)f; pH (6.24)b Left Fork Morgan Fork (WWH) 1.2 Firetower Rd. pH (6.28)b Leeth Creek (WWH)

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

1.5 Adj. Leeth Creek Rd. pH (6.38)b Camp Creek (WWH) 5.2 CR 25 pH (5.87)b Miller Run (WWH) 0.93 CR 55/Fairground Rd. DO (4.3)f a Use Designations: Aquatic Life Habitat-WWH (warm water habitat); EWH (exceptional Warmwater Habitat); CWH (Cold Water Habitat); Water Supply-IWS (industrial water supply); AWS (Agricultural Water Supply); PWS (Public Water Supply); Recreation-PCR (primary contact recreation); SCR (secondary contact recreation); BWR (Bathing waters). b exceedance of numerical criteria for prevention of chronic toxicity (CAC). c exceedance of numerical criteria for prevention of acute toxicity (AAC). d exceedance of numerical criteria for the protection of human health (non-drinking: protective of people against adverse exposure to chemicals via eating fish). eexceedance of agricultural water supply criterion f value is below the EWH minimum 24-hr average DO criterion (6.0 mg/l) or value is below the WWH minimum 24 hr average DO criterion (5.0 mg/l) g value is below the EWH minimum at any time DO criterion (5.0 mg/l) or value is below the WWH minimum at any time criterion (4.0 mg/l).

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Table 4. Summary statistics for select nutrient water quality parameters sampled in the lower Scioto River watershed study area, 2011. The 90th percentile value from reference sites from the Western Allegheny Plateau ecoregion is shown for comparison (Ohio EPA 1999). Values above the 90th percentile reference condition are shaded in yellow.

Ammonia—N Nitrate+Nitrite-N Phosphorus-T Stream River Mile Mean Mean Mean Scioto River Large River 119.90 0.045 2.304 0.439 Scioto River Large River 115.30 0.048 2.990 0.447 Scioto River Large River 109.20 0.074 2.706 0.445 Scioto River Large River 105.20 0.025 1.713 0.299 Scioto River Large River 100.00 0.056 3.201 0.315 Scioto River Large River 96.48 0.025 2.694 0.360 Scioto River Large River 94.60 0.025 2.790 0.338 Scioto River Large River 89.50 0.025 2.468 0.229 Scioto River Large River 86.40 0.033 2.468 0.260 Scioto River Large River 78.80 0.034 2.215 0.195 Scioto River Large River 70.40 0.045 2.805 0.237 Scioto River Large River 64.20 0.041 2.472 0.255 Scioto River Large River 56.00 0.044 2.614 0.213 Scioto River Large River 45.00 0.030 1.991 0.236 Scioto River Large River 39.05 0.032 1.955 0.241 Scioto River Large River 33.00 0.042 2.470 0.202 Scioto River Large River 30.08 0.029 2.143 0.213 Scioto River Large River 15.00 0.035 1.652 0.183 Hargus Creek Headwater 2.08 0.025 0.496 0.024 Hargus Creek Headwater 0.40 0.030 1.140 0.046 Hominy Creek Headwater 0.20 0.025 3.128 0.019 Lick Run Headwater 0.20 0.025 1.756 0.016 Yellowbud Creek Headwater 7.08 0.075 1.512 0.054 Yellowbud Creek Wading 1.10 0.081 2.777 0.099 Scippo Creek Headwater 14.80 0.032 0.784 0.156 Scippo Creek Headwater 11.10 0.025 0.728 0.037 Scippo Creek Wading 5.28 0.025 1.554 0.011 Scippo Creek Wading 4.45 0.025 1.390 0.155 Scippo Creek Wading 1.60 0.079 1.868 0.114 Congo Creek Headwater 2.20 0.025 2.264 0.010 Blackwater Creek Headwater 0.70 0.025 1.070 0.073 Kinnikinnick Creek Headwater 7.50 0.031 1.546 0.015 Kinnikinnick Creek Wading 2.95 0.025 1.244 0.024 Dry Run (East at RM Headwater 0.60 0.025 2.845 0.005 74.6) Lick Run Headwater 0.64 0.044 1.444 0.040 Indian Creek Wading 1.20 0.025 0.581 0.006

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Table 4. (cont) River Ammonia—N Nitrate+Nitrite-N Phosphorus-T Stream Mile Mean Mean Mean Walnut Creek Wading 5.16 0.025 0.754 0.006 Walnut Creek Wading 1.30 0.025 0.773 0.015 Peepee Creek Wading 7.65 0.025 0.664 0.005 Haw Fork Headwater 0.40 0.025 0.732 0.005 Crooked Creek Wading 2.30 0.045 0.582 0.022 Big Beaver Creek Headwater 19.80 0.191 0.964 0.082 Big Beaver Creek Wading 16.01 0.043 0.460 0.027 Sunfish Creek Wading 19.90 0.037 0.970 0.015 Sunfish Creek Wading 16.23 0.060 0.941 0.006 Sunfish Creek Wading 4.85 0.040 0.757 0.007 Kincaid Creek Headwater 0.80 0.025 0.822 0.005 Grassy Fork Headwater 0.01 0.025 0.824 0.005 Morgan Fork Wading 1.70 0.025 0.907 0.005 Right Fork Morgan Fork Headwater 1.30 0.025 0.744 0.014 Leeth Creek Headwater 1.50 0.025 1.108 0.007 Camp Creek Wading 0.20 0.031 1.270 0.113 Miller Run Headwater 0.93 0.086 0.256 0.017 Candy Run Headwater 1.04 0.025 0.373 0.020 Candy Run Headwater 0.87 0.564 9.400 1.330 Dry Run Headwater 1.20 0.025 1.072 0.010 WAP 90thpercentile Reference Value Headwater 0.060 0.606 0.090 Wading 0.060 1.054 0.110 Large River 0.090 3.005 0.478

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Stream Physical Habitat

The quality of near and in-stream macrohabitats of the lower Scioto River mainstem were evaluated at 23 sampling locations, assessing approximately 100 miles of the mainstem between the city of Circleville (RM 100.0) and the confluence with the Ohio River. Through this reach, QHEI values ranged between 69.0 and 93.0, with a mean score of 82.4. Aggregated QHEI values of tributary streams within the survey area ranged between 39.3 and 86.5, with a mean score of 66.8. Near and in-stream macrohabitat throughout the lower Scioto River survey area, with few exceptions, appeared capable of supporting diverse, functionally organized, and well-structured assemblages of aquatic organisms, consistent with respective ecoregional benchmarks. A matrix of QHEI macrohabitat features, by station, and the longitudinal performance of the QHEI for the lower Scioto River are presented in Table 5.

Mean QHEI values from rivers or river segments equal to or greater than 60.0 generally indicate a level of macrohabitat quality sufficient to support an assemblage of aquatic organisms fully consistent with the WWH aquatic life use designation. Reach average values at or greater than 75.0 are generally considered adequate to support fully exceptional (EWH) communities (Rankin 1989 and Rankin 1995). Values between 45 and 55 indicate limiting components of physical habitat are present and may exert a negative influence upon ambient biological performance. However, due to the potential for compensatory stream features (e.g., strong ground water influence) or other watershed variables, QHEI scores within this range do not necessarily exclude WWH or even EWH assemblages. Values below 45 indicate a higher probability of habitat derived aquatic life use impairment, but should not be viewed as determinant.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Table 5. QHEI matrix of macrohabitat features by station for the lower Scioto River survey area, 2011.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Biological Communities

Scioto River mainstem Biological sampling within the lower Scioto River study area was conducted at 101 sites. Macroinvertebrate results for the Scioto River mainstem and tributary sites are presented in Table 7 and Table 8, respectively, and in Appendix A-8 and A-9. Summarized fish community information is contained in Table 9. A complete listing of fish taxa is contained in appendix A-7.

Fish and macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted at 23 sites on the lower Scioto River mainstem. Full attainment of the WWH aquatic life use (ALU) was documented for the entire sampled length. The macroinvertebrate community demonstrated excellent community condition at all sampled locations. Fish community index scores were in the excellent to good range (Table 7).

Significant positive changes have been documented in the lower Scioto River fish community since 1979 (Table 6). Fish index scores were largely in the fair to poor range in 1979. IBI and MIwb scores improved with subsequent surveys in 1985, 1997 and culminating in 2011 when index scores were, on average, in the very good to exceptional range. Much of the improvement can be attributed to controls on municipal and industrial effluent quality and CSO reduction. Consequential infrastructure improvements include projects upstream from the 2011 study area associated with city of Columbus WWTPs and treatment works for the cities of Circleville, Chillicothe, Waverly, and Portsmouth. An initial documentation of macroinvertebrate community condition occurred in 1985 (Table 6). Since that time, average ICI scores for the reach have been in the exceptional range, saw a modest improvement in 1997 and reflected relatively stable conditions since then based on the 2011 results.

Table 6. Gross measures of biological community performance for the lower 100 miles of the Scioto River mainstem, 1979-2011.

Cumulative Station Station Species No. Round- Mean Mean Mean Species Average Average Conservation of Blue Common Bodied Buffalo Year IBI MIwb ICI Richness Rel. No Rel. Wt. Status Sucker Carp Suckers Suckers (narrative) (narrative) (narrative) (No.) (No./km)1 (kg/km)1 (R,T,E,S)2 ( Wt.)3 (% Wt)4 (%Wt.4) (% Wt.)4 24.5 6.5 1979 NA 52 97.5 64.1 2 � 0 59% 5.8% 10.4% (Poor) (Fair) 𝑿𝑿

33.5 8.1 46.5 2 1985 71 309.0 72.5 4 50.8% 10.7% 7.0% (Fair) (Mrg. Good) (Exceptional) (1.6 kg)

41.2 9.6 49.7 15 1997 (Mrg. 78 448.1 145.1 7 22.5% 12.5% 28.3% (Exceptional) (Exceptional) (2.2 kg) Good)

45.5 10.4 49.3 48 2011 (Very 80 763.2 228.6 11 7.03% 15.33% 42.6% (Exceptional) (Exceptional) (3.1 kg) Good) 1 - Average relative catch per fish sample in terms of numerical abundance and biomass. 2 - Per Ohio DNR (2009), fish species classified as Rare (R), Threatened (T), Endangered (E), or recognized for Special conservation status (S). 3 - Raw number of observations and average individual weight of this iconic and highly sensitive, large river fish species. 4 - Proportion of cumulative biomass of selected taxa. Per Ohio EPA (1987b), Round-bodied Suckers include, all redhorse, spotted sucker, and white sucker. Buffalo Suckers include, smallmouth, bigmouth and black buffalo. NA - No macrobenthos monitoring in 1979.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

The increase in biological metric scores since 1979 substantiate the benefits that improved wastewater treatment has had on the lower Scioto River (Table 6). Of greater significance is the increase in species diversity and distribution of rare, threatened and endangered fishes including the blue sucker (Cycleptus elongates). The benefit that infrastructure expenditures have had on biological integrity in the lower Scioto basin is readily apparent.

Scioto River Tributaries The 2011 lower Scioto River study area included 78 tributary sampling sites with drainage areas ranging from 2.6 mi2 to 147.0 mi2. Sixty-one (80%) sites supported biological communities that met existing or recommended ecoregional ALU expectations. Thirteen sites partially met expectations and two sites were in nonattainment of designated ALUs. Limited sampling at two sites, Yellowbud Creek at RM 1.8 and Sunfish Creek at RM 0.5, precluded assessment of attainment status. The following text pertains to instances where one or both organism groups either marginally met, or failed to meet ecoregional expectations.

Congo Creek Congo Creek RM 2.2 drains an extensive agricultural landscape and was formerly channelized with a thin, one-sided riparian border. The community was predominated by high densities of facultative baetid mayflies and enrichment tolerant blackflies including only six pollution sensitive taxa. While the sample marginally met WWH expectations, performance was much lower than required for the existing EWH designation. Congo Creek appeared to have an abundance of clear, cool flow but the potential benefits of the strong ground water connection and elevated base flow were not reflected in the macroinvertebrate results.

The existing EWH designation for Congo Creek was based on fish sampling results from 1993; no macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted at that time. In 2011, the fish community was in very good condition but, as discussed above, the macroinvertebrate community only marginally met WWH expectations. Based on the 2011 results from both organism groups, WWH may be the more appropriate use for Congo Creek.

Blackwater Creek Neither organism group attained the WWH criteria at RM 0.7. A limited sensitive species diversity combined with an overabundance of tolerant individuals created an imbalance in the fish community. Though the fish community failed to meet WWH expectations, the IBI score demonstrated significant improvement compared with sampling results from 1993.

Blackwater Creek macroinvertebrates were similar to Congo Creek collections as the same, high density populations of facultative blackflies and baetid mayflies predominated. Only eight EPT taxa and seven sensitive taxa were found, numbers much lower than in similar sized, unimpaired tributaries from the lower Scioto River survey area. The community reflected fair quality and enriched conditions. However, the specific source of enrichment was not readily apparent. Besides extensive agriculture, the historic landscape in the area included large wetland areas (now drained) that may still influence the local drainages.

Water quality measurements at RM 0.7 revealed acceptable dissolved oxygen levels and low ammonia (NH4) concentrations. In the absence of a chemical signature identifying a pollutant source for impairment, it appears that habitat alteration resulting from channel modification to facilitate agricultural activity was

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018 the greatest single contributor to non-attainment of the fish and macroinvertebrate communities in Blackwater Creek.

Carrs Run The Carrs Run channel was clogged with a heavy bedload of sand and fine gravel, largely a product of runoff from the Ohio Basic Sand Company. As a result, riffle, run and pool habitats were poorly defined and characterized by soft compaction with fine substrates. Throughout the collection area, macroinvertebrate population densities were uniformly low and predominated by facultative populations of blackflies and Tanytarsini midges. Only nine EPT taxa and five sensitive taxa were found, falling well below performance levels in unimpaired lower Scioto River tributaries of similar size (e.g., Walnut Run RM 14.6, Little Walnut Creek, Meadow Run, Dry Run [@ RM 59.8], Stony Creek, No Name Creek). As a result, the Carrs Run community was rated as fair.

The fish community was unaffected, suggesting the impact from the sand and gravel operation was relatively localized. Stream reaches proximal to RM 1.5 on Carrs Run likely afforded suitable substrates to maintain a high-quality fish community in the affected reach. Sampling produced a diverse collection of minnow and darter species and an IBI in the exceptional range (ICI=52). The fish community has proved stable since 1993, when a similar assemblage was documented.

Pee Pee Creek The headwaters of Pee Pee Creek downstream to, at least, RM 7.6 supported very good to exceptional macroinvertebrate assemblages. However, the fish community within the reach was deficient due to limited summertime flows. This is especially noteworthy considering local drought conditions recorded in the Lower Scioto River watershed during summer, 2011. Partial attainment of the WWH ALU was determined at RMs 11.5 and 7.6. Macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted on July 12 at RM 11.5 where available habitat included a narrow riffle. Three weeks later when fish sampling was conducted, the stream consisted of a series of intermittent pools. Fish communities are negatively affected by lack of depth in pools and the absence of riffle habitat. Consequently, the IBI scored in the fair range (IBI= 22). The physical state of the stream appeared to be a naturally occurring condition rather than the result of anthropogenic alteration of the flow regimen.

Intermittent flow continued to impact the fish community in Pee Pee Creek at RM 7.7. The IBI score of 40 surpassed WWH expectations at RM 7.6, but the MIWb score reflected an imbalance in fish abundances within the community. In this case the collected assemblage was greatly predominated by central stonerollers, an herbivore that feeds primarily on algae. Typically, the overabundance of central stonerollers is an indication of nutrient enrichment.

The Pee Pee Creek sampling location at RM 1.1 was located immediately downstream from the confluence with Crooked Creek and the Lake White spillway. During most of the summer sampling period, little or no water was observed spilling over the dam face. In addition, flow in the lower reach of Pee Pee Creek below Lake White appeared to decrease as it encroached on the Scioto River flood plain, a common phenomenon in Scioto River basin hyporheic zones (USGS Circular 1139) and further indication of localized drought. Fish and macroinvertebrate communities marginally met WWH expectations as a result.

Camp Creek Exceptional quality macroinvertebrate communities were collected in upper Camp Creek at RM 5.2 under continuous flow. However, downstream at RM 1.7, the channel was largely de-watered and

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018 macroinvertebrate quality declined sharply to a fair condition. Lower performance at RM 1.7 was reflected by reductions in both EPT (from 19 to 8) and sensitive taxa richness (from 19 to 4) compared with the upper site. Once again, natural stream intermittence was the cause for the decline observed in the macroinvertebrate community and, as such, reflected a marginally good resource condition.

Candy Run Candy Run was sampled at two sites bracketing the Lucasville WWTP at RMs 2.6 and 0.87 in 2011; it was then re-sampled and re-evaluated at the same locations in 2012. Macroinvertebrate performance from all four sampling events consistently failed to meet WWH expectations. When compared against other similar-sized streams in the survey, the unusually low numbers of EPT and sensitive taxa in Candy Run were among the strongest indicators of impairment. Candy Run sites had drainage areas ranging from 5.2 mi2 to 8.0 mi2 and EPT and sensitive taxa averaged 8.0 and 4.75, respectively. In comparison, EPT and sensitive taxa richness at unimpaired lower Scioto River tributaries with drainages less than 10 mi2 averaged 15.1 and 13.2 respectively (n=26).

After all sampling was conducted at Candy Run RM 2.6, a poorly functioning septic tank discharge was discovered immediately upstream from the site. This specific discharge likely contributed to the lower performance observed during each sample year; however, the impairment is likely the result of multiple failing septics and unsewered areas. Further downstream at RM 0.87, high densities of enrichment tolerant flatworms, an abundance of pollution tolerant red-midges, and the persistent lack of sensitive taxa more clearly reflected organic enrichment attributable to the Lucasville WWTP discharge in 2012. Enrichment impacts were likely exacerbated by the hot, extended dry periods encountered during the summer of 2012.

Yellowbud Creek Yellowbud Creek was sampled in 2011 at RMs 7.08 and 1.1. Biological community results from the uppermost site were reflective of the assigned WWH use. Yellowbud Creek at RM 1.1 is designated with an EWH ALU and supported a fish assemblage consistent with the use, however the macroinvertebrate community was impaired. Both the ICI score of 38 and the collection of 12 EPT taxa and nine sensitive taxa from the natural substrates were below EWH expectations. It is notable that EPT and sensitive taxa numbers declined compared to RM 7.08, especially given the higher aquatic life use and larger stream size at RM 1.1. A significant bedload of sand and silt was observed at the site; its presence impacted macroinvertebrate communities by filling interstitial spaces among larger substrates and inhibited respiration in gilled insects. Channel modification adjacent to upstream agricultural areas was a likely source of the sedimentation described at RM 1.1. An additional macroinvertebrate sample collected at RM 1.8 in 2012 demonstrated significantly better community condition compared to results from RM 1.1, suggesting that the impairment affected a relatively short reach of Yellowbud Creek.

Kinnikinnick Creek and Scippo Creek There were two sites in the study area that generated subpar fish scores for which causes and sources of impairment remain undetermined: Kinnikinnick Creek at RM 2.9 and Scippo Creek at RM 1.6. Both streams are designated EWH and demonstrated full attainment of the ALU at other sites in their respective watersheds. Nothing of note was apparent in the analysis of the habitat and water chemistry that would explain the non-attainment in the fish community, and macroinvertebrate community results were consistent with the EWH ALU. The decline in IBI score for Kinnikinnick Creek at RM 2.9 represented a lowering of fish community condition since 1992, primarily resulting from a decline in percentage of simple lithophiles and a doubling in the proportion of tolerant fish. Similarly, a low MIWb score was a

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018 departure from the full attainment documented for Scippo Creek at RM 1.6 in 1997. Revisiting these sites is recommended to assess current conditions and further delve into potential causes and sources if persistent biological impairment is documented.

Middle Fork Morgan Fork Flow in Middle Fork Morgan Fork at RM 1.4 is dependent on water released from Pike Lake. The macroinvertebrate community met ecoregional expectations in 2011 but the IBI score of 34 was in the fair range. It was apparent that the flow alteration and proximity to the Pike Lake impoundment affected the fish community. A limited number of fish were collected and two species, creek chubs and central stonerollers, predominated. Additionally, largemouth bass, a lentic species and uncommon in typical headwater fish assemblages, were collected.

Other impaired streams Several streams, in addition to those discussed previously, experienced natural desiccation during the 2011 survey of the lower Scioto River. Four streams, Dry Run (@ RM 59.8), Left Fork Crooked Creek, Stoney Creek, and Pond Creek supported macroinvertebrate assemblages consistent with current or recommended ALU designations but impaired fish communities generated IBI scores in the fair range. One other stream, Dry Run (Pond Creek tributary) supported a limited fish assemblage in early July and was completely dry when macroinvertebrate sampling was attempted.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Table 7. Summary of macroinvertebrate descriptive statistics, field observations, and narrative evaluations for the lower Scioto River mainstem, June to October 2011. ICI scores and narrative assessments are color-coded to the following quality categories: Exceptional - Very Good (blue) and Good - Marginally Good (green) Fair (yellow), and Poor-Very Poor (Red).

Richness EPT Taxa Sens. Taxa Qual. Quant. Stream Drain. Narr. Density Density ICI Dominant Taxa (Tolerance Ratings*) RM Area Qual. Total Qual. Total Qual. Total Eval. (narrative) (No./ft.2) Scioto River Eastern Corn Belt Plain (ECBP) WWH ALU Rheotanytarsus midges (F,MI), netspinner 100.1 3217 71 77 30 33 35 39 Mod-High 2079 54 E caddisflies (F,MI), baetid mayflies (F) Rheotanytarsus midges (F), netspinner 97.9 3220 66 71 23 27 23 26 Mod-High 2049 48 E caddisflies(MI,F), Baetis Macaffertium. spp. (F,MI) Netspinner caddisflies (MI,F), mayflies 95.25 3233 70 77 21 24 27 30 Mod. 1360 48 E (F,MI), Rheotanytarsus and other midges (F) netspinner caddisflies (MI,F), Polypedilum, 89.55 3341 74 79 24 26 29 31 Mod. 3196 46 E Rheotanytarsus, and tanypode midges (F) Rheotanytarsus midges (F), netspinner 86.0 3348 59 59 22 22 24 24 Mod-High -- NA E caddisflies (MI,F), flatheaded mayflies (MI) Rheotanytarsus & Polypedilum midges (F), 83.0 3776 67 70 26 28 28 30 Mod-High 1428 52 E net spinner caddisflies (MI,F), mayflies (MI,F) Netspinner caddisflies (MI,F), 77.4 3828 62 62 27 27 26 26 Mod. -- NA E Rheotanytarsus spp. midges (F,MI), baetid mayflies (F,MI) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU Midges (Glyptotendipes sp. & Rheotanytarsus sp.) (F,MI), Caenis, 70.4 3849 57 69 18 22 20 25 Mod-High 1238 46 E Tricorythodes, & flatheaded mayflies (MI,F) Netspinner caddisflies (MI,F), tanytarsini 66.8 3858 78 78 25 25 25 25 Mod-High -- NA E midges (F,MI), baetid & flatheaded mayflies (F,MI) Netspinner caddisflies (MI,F), Polypedilum, & 64.46 3865 56 59 22 23 27 27 Mod-High 1735 48 E Rheotanytarsus midges (F), Baetis & Macaffertium. spp. (F,MI) Netspinner caddisflies (MI,F), ), 60.4 5038 56 65 21 23 21 25 Mod-High 3257 48 E Rheotanytarsus &Polypedilum midges (F), mayflies (F,MI) Tanytarsini midges (F), baetid mayflies (F), 56.1 5131 52 58 23 26 25 28 High 1386 54 E Netspinner caddisflies (MI) Tanytarsini midges (F), baetid mayflies (F), 50.9 5694 47 54 19 25 18 23 Mod. 2163 50 E Netspinner caddisflies (MI) Tanytarsini midges (F), baetid mayflies (F), 45.0 5722 36 43 15 19 17 20 High 3547 50 E netspinner caddisflies (MI) Tanytarsini midges (F), baetid mayflies (F), 40.0 5750 42 46 20 21 17 19 High 1063 50 E netspinner caddisflies (MI) Mayflies (I,MI,F), netspinner caddisflies (MI), 36.7 5832 46 51 17 19 19 20 High 1,144 54 E moth larvae (I) Tanytarsini midges (F), baetid mayflies (F), 33.0 5837 34 45 10 17 12 18 Mod. 1820 42 VG netspinner caddisflies (MI), blackflies (F) 28.6 5864 36 44 15 21 12 17 Mod. 920 52 E Mayflies (MI,F), netspinner caddisflies (MI) Tanytarsini midges (F), baetid mayflies (F), 23.6 6087 27 40 8 17 9 18 Mod. 3532 46 E netspinner caddisflies (MI), blackflies (F) Tanytarsini midges (F); mayflies (MI,F), 19.3 6137 33 43 14 20 9 17 High 2437 48 E netspinner caddisflies (MI) 40

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Richness EPT Taxa Sens. Taxa Qual. Quant. Stream Drain. Narr. Density Density ICI Dominant Taxa (Tolerance Ratings*) RM Area Qual. Total Qual. Total Qual. Total Eval. (narrative) (No./ft.2) Tanytarsini midges (F), flatheaded mayflies 13.8 6178 43 46 16 19 14 15 Mod 3454 40 G (MI), bryozoan (F), Red midges (MT) Tanytarsini midges (F); mayflies (MI,F), 9.0 6471 41 55 16 24 16 26 Mod-High 3057 52 E netspinner caddisflies (MI) Tanytarsini midges (F), bryozoan (F), 4.7 6480 35 53 12 22 12 21 High 2663 50 E netspinner caddisflies (MI) Tolerance categories for taxa groups are parenthetically expressed: VT = Very Tolerant, T = Tolerant, MT = Moderately Tolerant, F = Facultative, MI = Moderately Intolerant, and I = Intolerant. -- Dashed lines indicate stations where quantitative data (and the resulting ICI) were not available due to multiple factors: drainage area <20mi2 , vandalism, desiccation, or other disturbance to the Hester Dendy artificial substrates. EPT = total Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) taxa richness. RR - Regional Reference Site. ns - Nonsignificant departure from ecoregional biocriterion (<4 units). * - Significant departure from the prescribed biocriterion (> 4 units).

EAS/2017-02-02 Lower Scioto River 2011 December 29, 2017

Relative Drain. Qual./Tot. Qual./Tot. Sens. Taxa CW Density Narr. Dominant Taxa (Tolerance Ratings) RM Area Taxa EPT Qual./Total Taxa QCTVa Narr./(#/ft.2) ICI Eval. Hargus Creek ECBP WWH ALU Tanytarsini midges (F,MI), Polypedilum 2.08 9.6 65/65 17/17 16/16 1 41.6 Mod.-High -- VG and Microtendipes midges (F,MI), Netspinner caddisflies (F,MI), Baetis spp.(F) Mod.- Netspinner caddisflies (MI,F), Baetis spp. 0.4 19.1 59/71 12/13 10/13 2 40.1 48 E High/(371) mayflies (F), midges (F,MI) Hominy Creek ECBP WWH ALU Netspinner caddisflies (MI,F), Baetis spp. 1.1 5.5 57/57 12/12 12/12 2 40.1 Mod.-High -- G mayflies (F), midges (F,MI,MT,T) Lick Run ECBP WWH ALU Rheotanytarsus spp. midges (F,MI), Neophylax sp. caddisflies (MI), 0.20 10.4 68/76 12/14 12/16 3 40.5 Moderate 46 E Polypedilum & Rheocricotopus midges (F), Baetis spp. mayflies (F) Yellowbud Creek ECBP WWH ALU Netspinner caddisflies (F,MI), baetid mayflies (F,MI), flathead mayflies (F), 7.0 13.4 68/68 15/15 10/10 0 38.6 High -- VG tanytarsini midges (F,MI), other midges (F, MT) ECBP EWH ALU Netspinner caddisflies (F,MI), 1.8 35.6 71/71 20/20 20/20 0 40.6 Moderate -- E baetid mayflies (F,MI), flathead mayflies (MI,F), flatworms (F) Netspinner caddisflies (F,MI), 1.1b 36.2 57/84 12/15 9/15 1 39.3 Mod./(303) 38 G tanytarsini midges (F,MI) Scippo Creek ECBP EWH ALU Chimarra & netspinner caddisflies 14.80 5.6 59/59 14/14 10/10 1 41.6 Mod.-High -- VG (F,MI), baetid mayflies (F) Netspinner caddisflies (F,MI), 11.40 15.0 65/87 20/24 14/21 1 41.1 Moderate 52 E baetid mayflies (F,MI), midges (F,MI,MT) Netspinner caddisflies (MI,F), baetid mayflies (F,MI), tanytarsini (F,MI), 5.28 26.9 52/65 20/21 16/20 0 41.8 48 E Polypedilum & Microtendipes midges (F,MI) Micro and netspinner caddisflies (F,MI), baetid mayflies (F,MI,MT), flatheaded 4.45 31.1 70/89 22/26 18/24 1 39.7 Mod./(508) 58 E mayflies (F,MI), tanytarsini & other midges (F,MI,MT,T) Netspinner caddisflies (MI,F), baetid 1.60 50.4 65/65 26/26 19/19 0 41.6 High -- E mayflies (F,MI), ), tanytarsini & other midges (F,MI,MT,T) Congo Creek ECBP WWH ALU 2.2 11.0 50/50 12/12 6/6 1 39.7 High -- MG* Baetid mayflies (F), blackflies (F) Blackwater Creek ECBP WWH ALU-Recommended 0.7 8.1 42/42 8/8 7/7 2 41.1 High -- F* Baetid mayflies (F), blackflies (F)

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Relative Drain. Qual./Tot. Qual./Tot. Sens. Taxa CW Density Narr. Dominant Taxa (Tolerance Ratings) RM Area Taxa EPT Qual./Total Taxa QCTVa Narr./(#/ft.2) ICI Eval. Kinnikinnick Creek ECBP EWH ALU Midges (F,MI,T), Baetis spp. Mayflies (F), 7.5 11.1 59/59 13/13 15/15 2 40.9 Mod.-High -- VGns micro and netspinner caddisflies (MI, F) Tanytarsini midges (F,MI), baetid mayflies (F,MI), netspinner (MI,F) 2.95 31.6 76/101 23/30 23/35 4 41.6 Mod.-High 58 E and micro caddisflies (F,MI), other midges (F,MI,MT,T) South Fork Kinnikinnick Creek ECBP WWH ALU-Recommended Netspinner caddisflies (F,MI), mayflies 0.8 7.12 52/52 13/13 15/15 1 41.1 Mod.-Low -- G (F,MI) Dresbach Creek ECBP WWH ALU-Recommended Netspinner caddisflies (F,MI), mayflies 0.7 3.1 66/66 15/15 16/16 3 41.5 Mod.-High -- VG (F,MI) Dry Run (@ RM 74.6) WAP CWH ALU-Recommended Midges (F,MI,MT,T), blackflies (F), 1.4 5.7 65/85 16/17 17/20 11 40.0 Moderate 46 E netspinner caddisflies (MI, F) and micro caddisflies (F), stoneflies (MI,F) Lick Run WAP WWH ALU Tanytarsini midges (F,MI), netspinner 0.64 5.4 58/72 12/14 12/16 3 40.5 Mod./(741) 44 VG caddisflies (F,MI), baetid mayflies (F), blackflies (F) Indian Creek WAP WWH ALU Netspinner caddisflies (F,MI), water pennies (MI), baetid mayflies (F,MI), 1.25 21.57 48/73 17/22 12/21 1 40.1 Low 50 E Tanytarsini and other midges (F,MI,MT,T) North Branch Indian Creek WAP WWH ALU Tanytarsini midges (F,MI), baetid 0.1 6.6 50/50 12/12 12/12 2 39.3 Low -- G mayflies (F), Netspinner caddisflies (MI,F) Dry Run (@RM 59.8) WAP WWH ALU Baetid mayflies (F), flatheaded mayflies 5.36 10.6 42/ -- 16/ -- 9/ -- 1 40.4 Mod-High -- G (MI), caddisflies (MI, F) Stony Creek WAP WWH ALU 0.6 10.5 39/ -- 13/ -- 11/ -- 3 41.5 Low -- G Baetid mayflies (F, MI), midges (F) Walnut Creek WAP WWH ALU-Recommended Flatheaded mayflies (MI), netspinner 14.6 11.6 59/ -- 25/ -- 21/ -- 2 42.7 Moderate -- E caddisflies (F) WAP EWH ALU Baetid mayflies (F, MI), brush-legged 11.3 22.3 52/81 17/22 17/23 3 41.8 High./(252) 56 E (Isonychia)mayflies (MI), fingernet (Chimarra)caddisflies (MI) Baetid mayflies (F), flatheaded mayflies 5.16 47.6 50/80 20/25 20/25 0 42.6 Mod./(127) 44ns VG (MI), Elimia sp. snails (MI) Chimarra caddisflies (MI), minnow 1.3 58.0 43/73 15/21 15/22 0 43.1 Low /(213) 52 E mayflies (F) Piney Run WAP CWH ALU-Recommended Leuctra and perlid stoneflies (MI,F), 0.34 4.9 37/37 14/15 13/17 7 43.8 -- X15 VG Baetid mayflies (F,MI,I) Little Walnut Creek WAP EWH ALU-Recommended 0.25 13.2 54/54 19/19 17/17 2 42.6 Moderate -- E Flatheaded mayflies (MI), minnow

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Relative Drain. Qual./Tot. Qual./Tot. Sens. Taxa CW Density Narr. Dominant Taxa (Tolerance Ratings) RM Area Taxa EPT Qual./Total Taxa QCTVa Narr./(#/ft.2) ICI Eval. mayflies (F, MI), netspinner caddisflies (F) Carrs Run WAP WWH ALU 1.52 12.7 40/40 9/9 5/5 0 40.0 Low -- F* Blackflies (F) Hickson Run WAP CWH ALU (Recommended) Netspinner caddisflies (F,MI), fishflies 0.33b 3.8 54/54 17/17 14/14 4 43.1 Mod.-Low -- VG (F), burrowing mayflies (MI), flatheaded mayflies (F,MI), crayfish (F) Moore Run WAP WWH ALU Netspinner caddisflies (F), Elimia snails (MI), (MI), flatheaded mayflies (MI,F), 2.0 2.6 50/50 17/17 14/14 2 41.6 Mod.-Low -- VG snailcase caddisflies (MI), water pennies (MI) Meadow Run WAP WWH ALU Baetid mayflies (MI,F), flatheaded 0.26 7.8 61/61 23/23 19/19 1 42.1 Mod-High -- E mayflies (MI), blackflies (F) Crooked Creek WAP WWH ALU Tanytarsini midges (F,MI), Stenonema 11.27 8.3 39/39 10/10 9 /9 1 40.0 Mod.-Low -- G femoratum (F) Netspinner caddisflies (F), Chimarra Mod.-Low/ 8.0 19.6 63/73 12/13 8 /9 0 40.0 42 VG caddisflies (MI), Baetid mayflies (F,MI), (258) tanytarsini midges (F) Netspinner caddisflies (F), midges (F,MT,T), 2.37 40.8 66/84 13/13 11/12 1 38.3 Mod./(414) 38 G Chimarra and micro caddisflies (F) Netspinner caddisflies (F), elmid beetles (F), 0.85 42.4 56/56 10/10 7/7 2 35.9 Mod.-Low -- MGns flatheaded mayflies (F,MI), water pennies (MI) Haw Fork WAP WWH ALU Baetid mayflies (F,MI,I), Tanytarsini 0.4 8.4 28/28 12/12 10/10 0 43.8 Low -- VG midges (F,MI), netspinner caddisflies (F,MI) Left Fork Crooked Creek WAP WWH ALU Baetid mayflies (F,MI,I), stoneflies 2.65 13.2 32/32 14/14 11/11 4 40.1 Mod.-Low -- VG (FMI,I), water pennies(MI) Pee Pee Creek WAP WWH ALU Baetid mayflies (F,MI,I), flatheaded 11.5 4.1 35/35 15/15 8/8 1 43.1 Mod.-Low -- VG mayflies (F) Micro (F) and netspinner caddisflies 7.65 21.1 41/56 18/20 15/18 2 43.1 Mod.-Low X15 E (F,MI), flatheaded mayflies (F,MI), water pennies (MI) 1.1 78.0 34/57 8/10 4/3 0 37.2 Low/(203) X15 MG Midges (F-T), sludge worms (T) No Name Creek WAP WWH ALU 0.8 13.2 48/48 23/23 18/18 1 40.5 Moderate -- E Baetid mayflies (MI,F) Big Beaver Creek WAP WWH ALU 19.8 9.0 52/52 11/11 9/9 2 40.0 Low -- MG Netspinner caddisflies (F), midges (F) Baetid mayflies (F, MI), brush-legged 16.01 24.3 53/53 15/15 14/14 0 40.5 Moderate -- VG mayflies (MI), fingernet caddisflies (MI) Fingernet caddisflies (MI), flatheaded 5.6 59.0 50/72 14/15 8/10 0 40.5 Mod./(820) 48 E mayflies (MI) Fingernet caddisflies (MI), minnow 3.15 62.0 62/87 18/21 16/20 0 41.8 Mod./(387) X15 VG mayflies (F, MI)

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Relative Drain. Qual./Tot. Qual./Tot. Sens. Taxa CW Density Narr. Dominant Taxa (Tolerance Ratings) RM Area Taxa EPT Qual./Total Taxa QCTVa Narr./(#/ft.2) ICI Eval. Pecks Creek WAP WWH ALU Netspinner caddisflies (F), minnow 1.5 6.8 48/48 20/20 17/17 2 43.3 Low -- E mayflies (F,MI), water pennies (MI), riffle beetles (F) Little Beaver Creek WAP WWH ALU Baetid mayflies (F), brush-legged 0.6 6.3 34/34 14/14 13/13 0 43.3 Mod-High -- VG mayflies (MI), flatheaded mayflies (MI) Sunfish Creek WAP WWH ALU 23.30 17.7 37/37 15/15 14/14 0 43.1 Low -- G Baetid mayflies (F) Baetid mayflies (F, MI), flatheaded 19.9 38.6 57/57 24/24 19/19 1 43.3 Moderate -- E mayflies (MI), brush-legged mayflies (MI) Baetid mayflies (F, MI), flatheaded 16.2 52.3 50/68 20/24 16/21 2 43.1 Mod./(332) 48 E mayflies (MI), fingernet caddisflies (MI) Fingernet caddisflies (MI), brush-legged 8.15 132.0 54/74 15/16 19/21 0 42.6 Low/(589) 42 VG mayflies (MI), flatheaded mayflies (MI), Tanytarsini midges (F) Baetid mayflies (F), midges (F), 5.3 135.1 56/70 15/17 14/16 0 40.5 Mod./(716) 44 VG flatheaded mayflies (MI), hellgrammites (MI) Fingernet caddisflies (MI), minnow 0.5 144.0 51/71 18/24 17/22 0 42.6 Mod./(201) 36 G mayflies (F, MI) Kincaid Creek WAP CWH ALU-Recommended Stoneflies (F,MI), Baetid mayflies (F), 0.8 10.8 42/42 13/13 13/13 9 39.0 Moderate -- G blackflies (F) Grassy Fork WAP CWH ALU-Recommended Baetid mayflies (F,MI), netspinner 1.0 5.1 60/60 18/18 20/20 7 43.3 Moderate -- E caddisflies (MI,F) Morgan Fork WAP WWH ALU Fingernet caddisflies (MI), flatheaded 1.7 32.4 52/72 24/25 21/23 2 43.2 Mod./(422) X15 E mayflies (F,MI) Right Fork Morgan Fork WAP WWH ALU Baetid mayflies (F, MI), flatheaded 0.7 20.0 25/ -- 16/ -- 10/ -- 0 43.8 Moderate 36 G mayflies (MI) Middle Fork Morgan Fork WAP WWH ALU-Recommended Midges (F, MI,CW), Leuctra stoneflies 1.4 4.7 33/45 10/11 10/13 5 42.6 Low -- G (MI), flatheaded mayflies (F) Left Fork Morgan Fork WAP CWH ALU-Recommended Leuctra stoneflies (MI), flatheaded Mod.-Low/ 1.2 7.7 48/64 16/17 15/18 8 43.3 X15 VG mayflies (MI,F), netspinner (177) caddisflies (F) Leeth Creek WAP CWH ALU (Recommended) Tanytarsini and tanypode midges 1.5 5.2 39/52 14/15 12/16 2 43.3 Low/(125) 46 E (F,MI), Baetid mayflies (F,MI), flatheaded mayflies (F,MI) Chenoweth Fork WAP WWH ALU 8.1 6.8 35/35 17/17 15/15 0 43.4 Moderate -- VG Baetid mayflies (F, MI) Flatheaded mayflies (MI), dryopoid(Helichus) 1.7 28.9 40/61 13/18 10/16 0 42.6 Low/(100) 48 E beetles (MI)

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Relative Drain. Qual./Tot. Qual./Tot. Sens. Taxa CW Density Narr. Dominant Taxa (Tolerance Ratings) RM Area Taxa EPT Qual./Total Taxa QCTVa Narr./(#/ft.2) ICI Eval. Carter Run WAP WWH ALU Baetid mayflies (F,MI,I),midges 0.4 7.5 45/ -- 20/20 17/17 2 43.1 Moderate -- E (F,MI,CW),flatheaded mayflies (F,MI) Camp Creek WAP WWH ALU Baetid mayflies (MI,F), 5.2 18.7 38/38 19/19 19/19 2 43.8 Low -- E netspinner caddisflies (F) 1.7 30.0 40/40 8/8 4/4 0 36.4 Low -- MG Flatheaded mayflies (F) Left Fork Camp Creek WAP CWH ALU (Recommended) Mod.- Baetid mayflies (F,MI,I), flatheaded 1.4 8.3 39/65 20/26 15/23 3 42.6 X15 E Low/(285) mayflies (F,MI) Big Run WAP WWH ALU Netspinner caddisflies (F,MI), Polypedilum and tanytarsini midges 2.0 8.1 50/50 16/16 12/12 0 41.6 Mod.-High -- VG (F,MI), baetid mayflies (F,MI), Chimarra caddisfly(MI) Big Run WAP WWH ALU Flatheaded mayflies (F), netspinner 2.4 8.9 25/25 11/11 6/6 0 43.1 Low -- G caddisflies (F) Miller Run WAP WWH ALU Fingernet caddisflies (MI), netspinner 0.93 13.7 44/44 15/15 10/10 0 39.1 Moderate -- G caddisflies (F) Cockrell Run WAP WWH ALU 2.6 4.6 52/52 17/17 14/14 0 41.9 Low-Mod. -- E Netspinner caddisflies (F,MI), midges (F) Candy Run WAP WWH ALU Netspinner caddisflies (F), minnow 2.6 5.2 44/44 9/9 4/4 0 40.0 Low -- F* mayflies (F), water pennies (MI), riffle beetles (F) Midges (MI-T), craneflies (MI, F), 2.6b 5.2 42/ -- 8/ -- 8/ -- 0 38.2 Low -- F* square-gilled mayflies (F) Baetid mayflies (F), netspinner 0.87 8.0 34/ -- 7/ -- 3/ -- 0 40.0 Moderate -- F* caddisflies (F) Flatworms (F), hemoglobin utilizing 0.87b 8.0 44/ -- 8/ -- 4/ -- 0 39.3 Mod-High -- F* midges (F-T), square-gilled mayflies (F) Pond Creek WAP WWH ALU 8.4 8.0 38/ -- 19/ -- 14/ -- 0 43.2 Low -- E Baetid mayflies (MI, F), blackflies (F) Flatheaded mayflies (MI), minnow 4.8 18.0 41/ -- 15/ -- 15/ -- 0 41.8 Low-Mod. -- E mayflies (MI, F), hellgrammites (MI) Dry Run WAP WWH ALU 1.2 4.51 ------NA Dry Channel – not sampled Tolerance categories for taxa groups are parenthetically expressed: VT = Very Tolerant, T = Tolerant, MT = Moderately Tolerant, F = Facultative, MI = Moderately Intolerant, and I = Intolerant. -- Dashed lines indicate stations where quantitative data (and the resulting ICI) were not available due to multiple factors: drainage area <20mi2, vandalism, desiccation, or other disturbance to the Hester Dendy artificial substrates. EPT = total Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) taxa richness. Data codes: X15 = current velocity over artificial substrates >0.0 feet per second but < 0.3 fps; qualitative narrative assessment used instead of ICI score. RR - Regional Reference Site. ns - Nonsignificant departure from ecoregional biocriterion (<4 units). * - Significant departure from the prescribed biocriterion (> 4 units). b - Follow-up monitoring in 2012.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Table 9. Attributes of fish samples collected from the lower Scioto River study area, 2011.

Drain. River Area Total Mean Rel. No. Rel. Wt. Mile (miles2) Species Species (No./km) (kg/km) QHEI IBI MIwb Narrativesc Scioto River (02-001) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH ALU (Existing) 100.0 b 3217 50 33.7 544.0 183.0 84.8 46 10.5 Very Good/Exceptional 97.9 b 3220 48 39.0 851.0 151.6 84.8 49 10.9 Exceptional 94.2 b 3236 46 32.3 736.7 226.6 86.5 47 10.8 Very Good/Exceptional 89.5 b 3341 33 33.0 988.0 201.0 87 46 10.5 Very Good/Exceptional 86.4 b 3348 34 28.5 672.0 181.5 77.5 47 10.6 Very Good/Exceptional 83.0 b 3771 38 32.0 1025.0 224.4 93.0 44 10.6 Very Good/Exceptional 77.4 b 3828 34 29.0 537.0 264.5 81.8 44 10.6 Very Good/Exceptional Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 70.4 b 3849 33 27.0 583.0 158.2 83.5 48 10.5 Exceptional 67.5 b 3857 39 30.5 742.0 220.0 81.0 49 10.6 Exceptional 64.2 b 3866 38 32.5 709.0 249.1 89.0 48 10.5 Exceptional 60.0 b 5038 43 36.5 670.0 245.6 91.5 48 10.8 Exceptional 56.0 b 5131 41 32.0 678.0 144.4 91.0 46 10.5 Very Good/Exceptional 50.9 b 5694 43 32.0 818.0 322.3 86.5 46 10.3 Very Good/Exceptional 46.0 b 5721 34 29.0 852.0 129.7 86.3 42 9.7 Good/Exceptional 40.0 b 5750 40 33.5 1324.0 198.7 70.3 44 10.3 Very Good/Exceptional 37.1 b 5832 39 29.5 819.0 333.3 79.5 42 10.3 Good/Exceptional 33.0 b 5837 34 25.5 482.0 168.6 71.5 48 9.9 Exceptional 28.6 b 5864 42 31.0 875.0 197.6 75.5 46 10.1 Very Good/Exceptional 23.9 b 6089 31 25.0 449.2 213.8 82.8 43 9.7 Good/Exceptional 20.5 b 6134 37 26.5 572.0 298.9 82.5 43 10.0 Good/Exceptional 15.0 b 6167 38 28.5 1427.0 375.5 80.8 43 10.4 Good/Exceptional 9.0 b 6471 31 31.0 1038.0 377.1 79.8 50 10.4 Exceptional 5.4 b 6475 32 24.0 534.0 276.1 69.0 39ns 10.2 Good/Exceptional Hargus Creek (02-074) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH ALU (Existing) 2.0 h 9.6 21 21.0 1471.5 14.6 66.5 50 NA Exceptional 0.4 h 19.1 18 18.0 826.9 9.6 68.5 46 NA Very Good Hominy Creek (02-075) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH ALU (Existing) 0.2 h 6.2 12 12.0 790.5 NA 56.8 40 NA Good Lick Run (02-073) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH ALU (Existing) 0.2 h 10.4 19 19.0 1048.4 NA 66.8 42 NA Good Yellowbud Creek (02-071) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH ALU (Existing) 7.1 h 13.4 17 17.0 310.5 31.2 54.0 40 NA Good Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) EWH ALU (Existing) 1.1 w 36.2 38 32.5 1195.5 20.0 79.3 57 9.6 Exceptional Scippo Creek (02-069) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) EWH ALU (Existing) 14.8 h 5.6 21 21.0 1572.0 12.0 75.5 52 NA Exceptional 11.5 h 15.0 20 20.0 1497.0 9.2 65.5 48 NA Very Good 5.3 w 26.9 30 25.5 688.2 18.9 81.5 56 9.3ns Exceptional/Very Good 4.5 w 31.1 26 23.0 753.8 15.8 72.8 49ns 9.2ns Very Good 1.6 w 50.4 32 26.0 549.0 7.3 73.0 49ns 8.5* Very Good/Good Congo Creek (02-070) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) EWH/WWH ALU (Existing/Recommended) 2.2 h 11 19 19.0 852.9 6.1 63.8 48 NA Very Good 47

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Drain. River Area Total Mean Rel. No. Rel. Wt. Mile (miles2) Species Species (No./km) (kg/km) QHEI IBI MIwb Narrativesc Blackwater Creek (02-196) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH ALU (Existing) 0.6 h 8.1 12 12.0 914.0 9.8 58.0 34* NA Fair Kinnikinnick Creek (02-068) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) EWH ALU (Existing) 7.5 h 11.1 20 20.0 519.0 NA 57.5 58 NA Exceptional 2.9 w 31.6 24 22.5 1168.5 16.2 75.8 43* 8.9ns Good Dresbach Creek (02-491) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH ALU (Recommended) 0.7h,b 3.1 12 12.0 2448.0 NA 60.0 48 NA Very Good South Fork Kinnikinnick Creek (02-488) Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) WWH ALU (Recommended) 0.8 h 7.1 15 15.0 600.0 NA 67.0 48 NA Very Good Dry Run (RM 74.6) (02-066) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH/CWH ALU (Existing/Recommended) 1.0 h 5.7 11 11.0 1992.0 NA 65.0 34* NA Fair Lick Run (02-065) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 1.2 h 5.1 12 12.0 1783.5 NA 57.5 44 NA Good Indian Creek (02-063) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 1.2 w 21.6 27 22.5 2584.5 15.4 71.3 49 9.0 Very Good North Branch Indian (02-064) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 0.1 h 6.6 18 18.0 1118.0 NA 73.5 54 NA Exceptional Dry Run (RM 59.8) (02-062) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 5.4 h 10.6 8 8.0 336.0 NA 62.3 28* NA Fair Stony Creek (02-061) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 0.2 h 10.6 12 12.0 310.0 NA 70.8 30* NA Fair Walnut Creek (02-056) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) EWH/WWH ALU (Existing/Recommended) 14.6 h 11.6 17 17.0 1068.0 NA 63.3 44 NA Good Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) EWH ALU (Existing) 11.3 w 22.3 31 27.0 1683.8 18.0 71.5 54 9.7 Exceptional 5.2 w 47.6 31 29.0 1647.0 21.9 67.5 56 9.9 Exceptional 1.3 w 58 47 38.5 1682.3 13.8 67.5 50 10.0 Exceptional Piny Run (02-060) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH/CWH ALU (Existing/Recommended) 0.3 h 4.9 9 9.0 718.0 NA 56.5 42 NA Marginally Good Little Walnut Creek (02-058) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 0.2 h 13.2 25 25.0 1081.5 NA 71.3 58 NA Exceptional Hickson Run (02-054) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH/CWH ALU (Existing/Recommended) 0.3h, 3.8 15 15.0 1542.0 NA 68.5 52 NA Exceptional Carrs Run (02-050) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 1.5 h,b 12.7 27 27.0 1093.5 NA 64.5 52 NA Exceptional Moore Run (02-049) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 2.0h,b 2.6 23 23.0 1912.5 NA 51.8 52 NA Exceptional Meadow Run (02-046) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 0.3 h 7.8 21 21.0 724.5 NA 73.8 44 NA Good Pee Pee Creek (02-035) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 11.5 h 4.1 4 4.0 706.2 NA 49.0 22* NA Poor 7.7 w 21.1 21 17.5 2802.0 6.5 63.8 40ns 7.0* Good/Fair 1.1 w 78 27 22.5 699.0 6.9 66.5 44 8.2 ns Good/Marginally Good Haw Fork (02-042) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 0.4 h 8.4 13 13.0 2488.0 NA 47.0 48 NA Very Good

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Drain. River Area Total Mean Rel. No. Rel. Wt. Mile (miles2) Species Species (No./km) (kg/km) QHEI IBI MIwb Narrativesc Crooked Creek (02-036) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 11.3 h 8.3 15 15.0 4728.0 NA 70.8 52 NA Exceptional 8.0 h 19.6 23 23.0 796.5 NA 61.5 48 NA Very Good 2.3 w 40.8 28 28.0 1128.0 11.8 71.0 50 9.8 Exceptional 0.1 w 42.8 32 25.5 1039.5 3.3 58.0 42ns 8.3ns Marginally Good Left Fork Crooked Creek (02-037) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 2.7 h 13.2 10 10.0 572.0 NA 68.8 38* NA Fair No Name Creek (02-031) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 0.8 h 13.2 27 27.0 558.0 NA 68 48 NA Very Good Big Beaver Creek (02-022) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 19.8 h 9 22 22.0 1126.0 NA 61.5 44 NA Good 16.0 w 24.3 34 32.0 2256.0 9.4 70.8 50 9.7 Exceptional 5.6 w 59 34 29.5 931.3 6.9 80.5 43ns 9.0 M. Good/Very Good 3.3 w 62 37 33.0 1177.5 7.6 73.0 45 9.4 Good/Very Good Pecks Creek (02-027) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 1.5 h 6.8 20 20.0 2224.0 NA 71.5 46 NA Very Good Little Beaver Creek (02-023) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 0.1 h 6.3 29 29.0 1447.5 NA 80.3 52 NA Exceptional Sunfish Creek (02-800) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 23.3 h 17.7 19 19.0 1335.0 NA 57.5 54 NA Exceptional 19.8 w 38.6 24 24.0 1014.0 9.2 67.5 50 9.2 Exceptional/Very Good 16.2 w 52.3 34 28.5 579.0 7.7 83.5 55 9.1 Exceptional/Very Good 8.1 w 132 41 34.5 939.0 8.7 82.3 53 9.8 Exceptional 4.8 b 136.6 42 35.5 629.0 63.3 64.5 44 10.1 Good/Exceptional Kincaid Creek (02-815) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH/CWH ALU (Existing/Recommended) 0.8 h 10.8 18 18.0 768.0 NA 66.5 52 NA Exceptional Grassy Fork (02-814) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH/CWH ALU (Existing/Recommended) 1.0h,b 5.4 12 12.0 1652.0 NA 73.5 48 NA Very Good Morgan Fork (02-809) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 1.7 w 32.4 25 25.0 535.5 9.7 75.0 48 8.6 Very Good / Good Left Fork Morgan Fork (02-810) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH/CWH ALU (Existing/Recommended) 1.2 h 7.7 10 10.0 469.5 NA 69.5 52 NA Exceptional Right Fork Morgan Fork (02-811) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 0.7 h 20 20 20.0 292.5 NA 68.0 56 NA Exceptional Middle Fork Morgan Fork (02-817) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Recommended) 1.5 h 4.7 10 10.0 231.0 NA 78.0 34* NA Fair Leeth Creek (02-808) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH/CWH ALU (Existing/Recommended) 1.5 h 5.2 10 10.0 802.5 NA 68.0 46 NA Very Good Chenoweth Fork (02-802) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 8.1 h 6.8 13 13.0 1867.5 NA 62.5 52 NA Exceptional 1.7 w 28.9 32 27.0 603.8 4.1 68.3 46 8.5 Good Carter Run (02-804) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 0.4 h 7.5 8 8.0 2803.6 NA 65.3 42 NA Marginally Good

Camp Creek (02-015) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 5.2 h 18.7 18 18.0 1834.0 NA 74.5 50 NA Exceptional 1.8 w 28.7 29 23.0 1126.5 9.2 69.5 49 9.1 Very Good

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Drain. River Area Total Mean Rel. No. Rel. Wt. Mile (miles2) Species Species (No./km) (kg/km) QHEI IBI MIwb Narrativesc Left Fork Camp Creek (02-017) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH/CWH ALU (Existing/Recommended) 1.4 h 8.3 12 12.0 924.0 NA 58.5 38* NA Marginally Good Big Run (02-398) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 2.0 h 8.1 23 23.0 1087.5 10.2 72.0 46 NA Very Good Bear Creek (02-014) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 2.4 h 8.9 16 16.0 997.5 NA 57.0 42 NA Good Miller Run (02-009) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 1.0 h 13.7 24 24.0 475.0 14.3 47.0 50 NA Exceptional Cockrell Run (02-10) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 2.6 h 4.6 14 14.0 1442.0 16.2 60.5 46 NA Very Good Candy Run (02-008) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 2.6 h 5.2 20 20.0 2296.0 NA 73.3 52 NA Exceptional 0.8 h 8.5 30 30.0 1316.0 NA 71.0 56 NA Exceptional Pond Run (02-002) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 8.4 h 8 10 10.0 928.5 NA 65.0 38* NA Fair 4.8 h 18 15 15.0 492.0 NA 61.5 42 NA Good Dry Run (02-003) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) WWH ALU (Existing) 1.3 h 4.5 10 10.0 555.0 NA 39.3 32* NA Fair H - Headwaters: sites draining areas <20 miles2. W - Wadable streams: sites draining areas > 20 miles2. B - Boat sites (large waters). a - MIwb not applicable for waters draining <20 miles2. b - Stations so identified were sampled in 2012 as part of a small follow-up effort. c - Narratives: Exceptional-Very Good (blue), Good-Marginally Good (green), Fair (yellow), Poor-Very Poor (red). ns - Non-significant departure from the biocriteria (<4 IBI and ICI units or <0.5 MIwb units). * - Significant departure from the biocriteria (>4 IBI and ICI units or >0.5 MIwb units). Poor to very poor results are underlined. Ecoregional Biocriteria (OAC 3745-1-07, Table 7-15) Eastern Corn Belt Plain (ECBP) Ecoregion Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) Ecoregion Index-Site Type WWH EWH MWH Index-Site Type WWH EWH MWHd IBI- 40 50 24 IBI-Headwater 44 50 24 Headwater IBI-Wading 40 50 24 IBI-Wading 44 50 24 MIwb- 8.3 9.4 6.2 MIwb-Wading 8.4 9.4 6.2/5.5 Wading IBI-Boat 42 48 24 IBI-Boat 40 48 24 MIwb-Boat 8.5 9.6 5.8 MIwb-Boat 8.6 9.6 5.8/5.5 d - MWH: where two criteria are listed for the MIwb, the second is restricted to mine affected waters. MWH IBI criteria for non-mine affected modified waters (drainage impoundment, etc.) and mine affected water are identical.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

60 ECBP-WWH WAP-WWH Chillicothe WWTP Circleville WWTP Waverly WWTP Ross Co. Corr. PH Glaltfelter DuPont Piketon WWTP Inst. WWTP (via Paint Creek) 50 USEC GDP

40 WWH Criterion (Boat) IBI 30

Thompson Elec. (non-active) Smurfit Corp. (non-active) 10 Chillicothe WWTP Circleville WWTP Waverly WWTP Ross Co. Corr. PH Glaltfelter DuPont Piketon WWTP 12 Inst. WWTP (via Paint Creek) USEC GDP 10

8 WWH Criterion (Boat)

MIwb 6

4 Smurfit Corp. (non-active) 2 Thompson Elec. (non-active) 0 100 DuPont Chillicothe WWTP

80 EWH Benchmark

60 WWH Benchmark PH Glaltfelter USEC GDP Smurfit Corp. (non-active) (via Paint Creek) Waverly WWTP

QHEI Piketon WWTP 40 Circleville WWTP Ross Co. Corr. Inst. WWTP 20 Thompson Elec. (non-active) IBI 2011 IBI 1985 IBI 1997 IBI 1979 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 River Mile

Figure 11. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb, and QHEI, for the lower Scioto River, 1979- 2011. Shaded areas indicate applicable WWH biocriteria and area of nonsignificant departure for the ECBP and WAP ecoregions. Dashed lines mark the QHEI EWH and WWH benchmark. Solid arrows identify points of discharge of major public and private NPDES permittees.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Fish Tissue (Human Health) Ohio has been sampling streams annually for sport fish contamination since 1993. Fish are analyzed for contaminants that bioaccumulate and pose a threat to human health if consumed in excessive amounts. Contaminants analyzed in Ohio sport fish include mercury, PCBs, DDT, mirex, hexachlorobenzene, lead, selenium, and several other metals and pesticides. Other contaminants are analyzed if indicated by site- specific current or historic sources. For more information about the chemicals analyzed, how fish are collected, or the history of the fish contaminant program, see State Of Ohio Cooperative Fish Tissue Monitoring Program Sport Fish Tissue Consumption Advisory Program, Ohio EPA, January 2010 .

Fish contaminant data are primarily used for three purposes: 1) to determine fish advisories; 2) to determine attainment with the water quality standards; and 3) to examine trends in fish contaminants over time.

Fish advisories Fish contaminant data are used to determine a meal frequency that is safe for people to consume (e.g., two meals a week, one meal a month, do not eat), and a fish advisory is issued for applicable species and locations. Because mercury mostly comes from nonpoint sources, primarily aerial deposition, Ohio has had a statewide one meal a week advisory for most fish since 2001. Most fish are assumed to be safe to eat once a week unless specified otherwise in the fish advisory, which can be viewed at http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/fishadvisory/index.aspx.

Fish tissue sampling was conducted at 20 sites on the Scioto River mainstem, and Scippo Creek, Walnut Creek, Pee Pee Creek and Big Beaver Creek tributaries as part of the 2011 sampling effort. Based on these results, only the Scioto River mainstem currently has listed advisories over and above the statewide one meal per week restriction for mercury (Table 10). The PCBs found in fish tissue are an artifact of PCBs that have been widely dispersed since the industrial revolution. PCBs persist in the environment and remain in the food chain as is evident in Scioto River catfish species.

Table 10. Fish consumption advisory for the lower Scioto River study area, 2017.

Scioto Area Under Advisory Species Triggering Meal Contaminant River Advisory Frequency U.S. Route 35 (Chillicothe) to State White Bass 12" and One/month Mercury Route 335 (Omega) (Pike, Ross counties) over Flathead Catfish One/month PCBs, Mercury Channel Catfish, One/month PCBs Common Carp, Smallmouth Buffalo State Route 335 (Omega) to mouth White Bass 12" and One/month Mercury (Ohio River) (Pike, Scioto counties) over Flathead Catfish One/month PCBs, Mercury Channel Catfish, One/month PCBs Common Carp

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Lakes Assessment Five public lakes located within the lower Scioto River basin were monitored in both 2011 and 2012. Additionally, Stewart Lake was sampled in 2011. Reporting on the status of Hargus Lake, Caldwell Lake, Pike Lake, Lake White, Ross Lake, and Stewart Lake is included in Appendix A-11 of this document.

Sediment Quality Sediment samples were collected from 13 locations in the summer/fall of 2011 (Table 11 and Appendix A-6). Samples were analyzed for metals, semi-volatile organic compounds, nutrients, total organic carbon (TOC), and particle size. Pond Creek was the only stream where sediment contamination coincided with biological impairment. Arsenic was elevated and detections of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene and pyrene were documented. Even so, a causal relationship to aquatic life impairment could not be affirmed based on the available data.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Table 11. Chemical parameters measured above screening levels in samples collected by Ohio EPA from sediments in the lower Scioto River and tributaries, 2011. Contaminant levels were determined for parameters using Ohio Sediment Reference Values (SRVs) and consensus- based sediment quality guidelines (MacDonald, et.al., 2000). Color-coding indicates values above the following: SRVs-yellow; Threshold Effect Concentration (TEC)-blue; Probable Effect Concentration (PEC)-orange; all thresholds-red. Sampling locations are by river mile (RM).

Sunfish Yellowbud Paint No Big Creek, Sunfish

Scioto River, Scioto River, Creek., near Kinnikinnick Creek, SR Indian Walnut Crooked Name Beaver Redbridge Creek, Thresholds Parameter Units Circleville Jasper mouth Creek 772 Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Rd. CR 21 Pond Cr. SRV / TEC / PEC (RM 100) (RM 30.1) (RM 1.1) (RM 2.95) (RM 3.8) (RM1.2) (RM1.3) (RM 2.3) (RM 0.8) (RM 3.1) (RM 16.2) (RM 4.8) (RM 4.8) (WAP ecoregion) Arsenic mg/kg 11.2 13.7 15.4 8.47 9.33 28.1 9.23 15.4 22.7 11.6 62.9* 16.3 79* 19 / 9.79 / 33 Cadmium mg/kg 1.09 0.801 0.501 0.502 0.766 1.76 0.322 1.20 1.39 0.907 4.39 2.51 0.757 0.8 / 0.99 / 4.98 Chromium mg/kg 17.4 12 7.05 6.83 8.81 15 10.5 12.8 18.5 15.2 24.8 11.3 44.4 53 / 43.4 / 111 Copper mg/kg 26.2 15 11.7 10 12.9 19.4 10.8 22.3 22.4 22.1 35.5 18.7 25.8 33 /31.6 / 149 Lead mg/kg 32 15.3 13.6 8.98 11.1 30.9 11.4 71.1 17.1 21.9 27 17.3 39.8 47 / 35.8 / 128 Nickel mg/kg 24.6 25.4 15.9 13.1 18.7 50.7 14.5 36.1 44.4 24.3 139* 50.8 43.5 61 / 22.7 / 48.6 Selenium mg/kg <2.14 <2.11 <1.56 <1.27 <1.43 <1.54 <1.72 <1.56 <1.56 <1.77 2.13 <1.87 <1.9 2.6 / - / - Aluminum mg/kg 10500 8010 5110 4320 6070 8710 6060 8370 10900 10100 9560 6350 14700 53,000 / - / - Barium mg/kg 121 110 74.9 55.7 66.8 92.4 58.5 98.6 82.7 116 129 105 117 360 / - / - Calcium mg/kg 61700 8950 104000 61500 45900 6480 11300 27400 36200 50200 2870 4790 3950 27000 / - / - Iron mg/kg 24700 23200 19400 13300 16500 41500 18100 24200 37100 23700 68200 26000 105000 51000 / - / - Magnesium mg/kg 23200 5520 32300 21000 18800 4140 4300 12900 16700 16100 1820 3330 3870 9900 / - / - Manganese mg/kg 620 1680 430 346 472 963 596 912 654 772 1280 791 1630 3000 / - / - Potassium mg/kg <2140 <2110 <1560 <1270 <1430 <1540 <1720 <1560 2000 <1770 <1950 <1870 <1900 14000 / - / - Sodium mg/kg <5360 <5290 <3890 <3180 <3580 <3860 <4310 <3910 <3900 <4430 <4870 <4670 <4750 - / - / - Strontium mg/kg 206 <32 278 50 79 <23 <26 32 45 197 <29 <28 <29 250 / - / - Zinc mg/kg 193 89.3 64.3 54.4 72 176 53.9 157 127 141 407 159 186 170 / 121 / 459 Ammonia mg/kg 230 140 150 61 110 110 1100 60 58 130 210 110 180 - / - / - Phosphorus mg/kg 1860 522 785 501 644 555 341 667 486 919 512 370 581 - / - / - (2000 SEL) TOC % <0.1 1.7 5.3 2.7 3.3 2.2 1.3 2.8 2.1 2.8 1.9 1.8 1.0 - / - / - (10 SEL) % Solids % 35.9 35.7 46.7 59.3 51.8 49.8 44.6 50.2 51.3 44.3 40.3 40.4 40.5 - / - / - Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg <0.69 <0.81 <0.63 <0.56 <0.63 <0.72 <0.73 <0.79 <0.65 <0.78 <0.63 <0.7 0.70 - / 0.150 / 1.450 Fluoranthene mg/kg 1.30 <0.81 <0.63 <0.56 <0.63 <0.72 <0.73 <0.79 <0.65 <0.78 <0.63 <0.7 0.98 - / 0.423 / 2.230 Pyrene mg/kg 1.04 <0.81 <0.63 <0.56 <0.63 <0.72 <0.73 <0.79 <0.65 <0.78 <0.63 <0.7 0.81 - / 0.195 / 1.520 Chrysene mg/kg 0.8 <0.81 <0.63 <0.56 <0.63 <0.72 <0.73 <0.79 <0.65 <0.78 <0.63 <0.7 <0.65 - / 0.166 / 1.29

Value> SRV (Blue) Value>TEC(Yellow) Value>PEC (Orange) Values>All thresholds: SRV, TEC, and PEC (Red)

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

Acknowledgements

The following Ohio EPA staff provided technical expertise for this project:

Joann Montgomery, Kelly Capuzzi, Randy Spencer, Jeff Lewis, Report preparation and analysis Chuck McKnight, Mohammad Asasi, Chuck Boucher, Ed Moore, and Jack Freda Data support Dennis Mishne and Robert Miltner Reviewers Jeff DeShon, Jeff Lewis, and Rachel Taulbee, Jeff Bohne

Water Column Chemistry: Jeff Lewis, Paul Vandermeer, Kelly Capuzzi, Randy Spencer, Joann Montgomery, Dan Imhoff, Jack Knapp Stream sampling Macroinvertebrate Community: Ed Moore, Jack Freda, Dale Eicher Fish Community: Chuck Boucher Datasonde © monitoring: Mohammad Asasi

Jeff Bohne, Jeff Lewis, Eric Saas, Randy Spencer, Kelly Capuzzi, Lake Sampling Dan Imhoff

The Ohio EPA appreciates the cooperation of the property owners who allowed Ohio EPA personnel access to the project area. Thanks to our summer interns for 2011 which include Laura Burns, Don King, Mariah Thrush, Melody Wilson and Rene Reber.

Thanks to Alix Flint (DSW SEDO Intern - 2017) for providing the cover photo of Scioto River at the Higby bridge.

EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018

REFERENCES MacDonald, D., C. Ingersoll, T. Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxical.: Vol.39, 20-31 Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Gazetteer of Ohio Streams, Second Edition.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2001. Gazetteer of Ohio Streams. Ohio Water Inventory Report No. 29. Ohio DNR Div. of Water, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio EPA 2006. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Streams. Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio EPA. 1999. Association Between Nutrients, Habitat, and Aquatic Biota in Ohio Rivers and Streams. Ohio EPA Tech. Bull. EAS/2006-06-1. Division of Surface Water, Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio EPA. 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.

Rankin, E.T. 1995. Habitat Indices in Water Resource Quality Assessments, in W.S. Davis and T. Simon (eds.). Biological assessment and criteria: tools for risk-based planning and decision making. CRC Press/Lewis Publisher, Ann Arbor.

Rankin, E.T. 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods, and application. Div. Water Qual. Plan. & Assess., Ecol. Assess. Sect., Columbus, Ohio.