Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016

Erie, Seneca, Huron, Crawford and Richland Counties

Huron River at Milan Wildlife Area

Ohio EPA Technical Report AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Division of Surface Water Assessment and Modeling Section January 2020

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016

Erie, Seneca, Huron, Crawford and Richland Counties

January 2020 Ohio EPA Technical Report AMS/2016‐HURON‐2

Prepared by: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Lazarus Government Center 50 W. Town Street, Suite 700 Columbus, Ohio 43215

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Groveport Field Office 4675 Homer Ohio Lane Groveport, Ohio 43125

and

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Northwest District Office 347 N. Dunbridge Road Bowling Green, Ohio 43402

Mail to: P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216‐1049

Mike DeWine, Governor, State of Ohio Laurie A. Stevenson, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Page 1 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table of Contents List of Acronyms ...... 8 Executive Summary ...... 10 Components of an Ohio EPA Biological and Water Quality Survey ...... 17 What is a Biological and Water Quality Survey? ...... 17 Hierarchy of Indicators ...... 17 Ohio Water Quality Standards: Designated Aquatic Life Use ...... 19 Ohio Water Quality Standards: Non-Aquatic Life Uses ...... 20 Mechanisms for Water Quality Impairment ...... 21 Habitat and Flow Alterations ...... 21 Siltation and Sedimentation ...... 22 Nutrient Enrichment ...... 22 Organic Enrichment and Low Dissolved Oxygen ...... 23 Ammonia ...... 23 Metals ...... 23 Bacteria ...... 24 Sediment Contamination ...... 25 Materials and Methods ...... 25 Determining Use Attainment Status ...... 25 Habitat Assessment ...... 26 Sediment and Surface Water Assessment ...... 26 Recreation Use Assessment ...... 27 Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment ...... 27 Fish Community Assessment ...... 27 Causal Associations ...... 27 Overview: Huron River Watershed ...... 28 Study Area Description ...... 34 Location ...... 34 Land Use...... 34 Ecoregions, Geology and Soils ...... 34 Hydrology ...... 35 Wastewater Discharge Overview ...... 36 Protected Lands ...... 37 Drinking Water Supply ...... 38 Aquatic Life Use Results and Discussion ...... 39 Water Chemistry Results ...... 39 Weight of Evidence Nutrient Assessment ...... 46 Sediment Chemistry ...... 51 Physical Habitat Results ...... 52 Physiography and Ecoregions ...... 52 Macrohabitat Quality ...... 54 Fish Community Results ...... 60 Macroinvertebrate Community Results ...... 66 Aquatic Life Use Discussion ...... 70 Huron River and Direct Minor Tributaries ...... 74 East Branch Huron River ...... 78

Page 2 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

West Branch Huron River ...... 81 Aquatic Life Trends: 1984-2016 ...... 90 Aggregate Fish Community Performance ...... 90 Longitudinal Fish Community Trends: 1984-2016 ...... 92 Macroinvertebrate Community Trends: 1998-2016 ...... 100 Pollutant Loads ...... 106 Ambient Water Quality ...... 106 Macrohabitat and Biological Indicators ...... 110 Recreation Use Results and Discussion ...... 114 Public Water Supply Results and Discussion ...... 118 City of Bellevue ...... 119 Village of Monroeville ...... 119 City of Willard ...... 120 City of Norwalk ...... 121 Human Health (Sport Fish Consumption) Results and Discussion ...... 122 Fish Advisories ...... 122 Fish Tissue/Human Health Use Attainment ...... 123 Fish Contaminant Trends ...... 124 Mercury ...... 124 PCBs ...... 127 Beneficial Use Recommendations ...... 132 Acknowledgements ...... 136 References ...... 137 Glossary of Terms ...... 141

Tables Table 1. Summary of ALU attainment status for sampling sites in the Huron River basin, 2016...... 13 Table 2. Sampling locations in the Huron River watershed...... 30 Table 3. Land use in Ohio, Huron River Watershed, National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD 2011)...... 34 Table 4. Major NPDES Facilities and Minor Dischargers Bracketed with Biological Monitoring Sites ...... 37 Table 5. Protected lands, natural areas and parks, not including active recreation facilities, Huron River watershed. . 37 Table 6. Public water systems in the study area (Ohio EPA, DDAGW, 2016)...... 38 Table 7. Exceedances of Ohio WQS criteria (OAC 3745-1) for chemical and physical parameters in grab samples in the Huron River watershed, 2016...... 42 Table 8. Exceedances of Ohio Water Quality Standards criteria (OAC 3745-1) for chemical and physical parameters derived from diel monitoring in the Huron River watershed, 2016...... 45 Table 9. Nutrient sampling results in the Huron River, summer (June 15 – October 15) 2016...... 50 Table 10. A matrix of QHEI scores and macrohabitat features of river and streams contained within the Huron River study area, 2016...... 56 Table 11. Sampling stations, descriptive statistics, fish community indices and narratives, Huron River study area, 2016...... 63 Table 12. Summary of macroinvertebrate data collected from artificial substrates (quantitative sampling) and natural substrates (qualitative sampling) in the Huron River study area, June to September 2016. River miles (RM) and drainage areas (Dr. Ar.) are the point of record...... 67 Table 13. Summary of ALU attainment status for sampling sites in the Huron River basin 2016...... 70 Table 14. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Rank Sum tests for IBI scores from the Huron River (basin) and East and West Branch Huron River subbasins, through time. At p<0.05, significant differences in IBI scores between years are highlighted (bold)...... 92

Page 3 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table 15. Comparison of narrative evaluations and EPT diversity for selected Huron River and East Branch Huron River mainstem and tributary sites, 1998-2002 and 2016...... 104 Table 16. Comparison of narrative evaluations and EPT diversity for selected West Branch Huron River mainstem and tributary sites, 1998-2002 and 2016...... 105 Table 17. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Rank Sum tests for selected water quality parameters from the Huron River and Rattlesnake Creek subbasin through time. Data aggregation based upon actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years. At p<0.05, significant differences of D.O., ammonia and total phosphorus between years are highlighted (greyscale). Parameters: D.O.; ammonia (NH3); and total phosphorus (TP). All concentrations are represented as mg/L...... 108 Table 18. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Rank Sum tests for selected water quality parameters from East Branch Huron River (and tributaries), West Branch Huron River (mainstem) and selected West Branch tributaries, through time. Data aggregations based upon actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years. At p<0.05, significant differences in DO, ammonia and total phosphorus between years are highlighted (greyscale). Parameters: DO; ammonia (NH3); and total phosphorus (TP). All concentrations are represented as mg/L...... 109 Table 19. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Rank Sum tests for QHEI scores from the Huron River (and minor tributaries) and East and West Branch Huron River subbasins through time. At p<0.05, no significant differences in QHEI scores were observed between 1998 and 2016...... 111 Table 20. Summary of E. coli data for the 20 locations in the Huron River Basin sampled June through August 2016...... 116 Table 21. Summary of available Ohio EPA water quality data for parameters of interest at sampling sites near/at PWS intakes. This table does not include finished water sample results...... 118 Table 22. Previous and current impairment status for WAUs in the Huron River study area, from the 2016 and 2018 Ohio Integrated Reports (IRs), respectively, using fish tissue data from 2005-2014 (2016 IR) and 2007- 2016 (2018 IR)...... 123 Table 23. PCB contamination summary statistics for the Huron River mainstem...... 128 Table 24. PCB contamination summary statistics for the East Branch Huron River...... 128 Table 25. PCB contamination summary statistics for the West Branch Huron River...... 128 Table 26. Fish tissue mercury data from 2016 Huron River study area sampling (mg/kg)...... 128 Table 27. Fish tissue total PCB data from 2016 Huron River study area sampling (mg/kg)...... 130 Table 28. Waterbody use designations and recommendations for the Huron River study area. Designations based on the 1978 and 1985 Ohio Water Quality Standards are indicated with asterisks (*) while designations based on the results of a previous biological field assessment performed by Ohio EPA are symbolized using a (+) sign. Verification of current designations based on this study are symbolized as (*/+) while a (▲) denotes a new recommended use based on the findings of this study. Streams not assessed in this study appear in bold font...... 134

Page 4 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Figures Figure 1. Map summarizing ALU attainment status in the Huron River basin in 2016...... 12 Figure 2. Hierarchy of administrative and environmental indicators which can be used for water quality management activities such as monitoring and assessment, reporting, and the evaluation of overall program effectiveness. This is patterned after a model developed by U.S. EPA...... 19 Figure 3. Huron River Watershed, Ohio. Sites listed in table below...... 29 Figure 4. Hydrologic soil groups (STATSGO)...... 35 Figure 5. Drainage maintenance in the Huron River watershed, illustrated by red segments...... 36 Figure 6. Huron River near Milan, 2016 flow data with median flow statistic (1997 - 2016), (USGS). Includes chemistry sampling events used in assessment...... 39 Figure 7. Distribution of sampling locations, Huron River basin study area, 2016...... 41 Figure 8. Longitudinal representation of diel DO, benthic/sestonic chlorophyll-a, TP and DIN used to evaluate the impact of nutrients on the mainstem Huron River and West Branch Huron River. Relevant benchmarks for chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations (Dodds 2006, Miltner 2010, Ohio EPA 2014) are presented within their respective plots. Boxes on DO plots are shaded if the diel range exceeds the benchmark of 6.5 mg/L (Miltner 2010). The diel DO and chlorophyll data were collected from Aug. 3 – 4, 2016; except for the west branch sites at RM 3.67 and 29.18, and the mainstem site at RM 11.85, which were collected June 29 – 30, 2016. Chemistry grab samples are from the period of June 15 – Oct. 15, 2016...... 48 Figure 9. Representation of diel DO, benthic/sestonic chlorophyll-a, TP and DIN used to evaluate the impact of nutrients on tributaries to the Huron River. Benchmarks for chlorophyll-a and nutrients (Dodds 2006, Miltner 2010, Ohio EPA 2014) are presented within their respective plots. Boxes on DO plots are shaded if the diel range exceeds the benchmark of 6.5 mg/L. The DO and chlorophyll data were collected on two surveys from June 28 – 30, 2016 and Aug. 2 – 3, 2016. Chemistry grab samples are from the period of June 15 – Oct. 15, 2016...... 49 Figure 10. Performance of the IBI and QHEI for the Huron River study area, 2016: mainstem and tributaries. Horizontal dashed lines and shaded area indicate sundry QHEI benchmarks (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a) and tiered aquatic life use biocriteria...... 58 Figure 11. Distributions of IBI and QHEI scores from the Huron River study area, by stream size (drainage area). Figures display the results from both the ECBP and HELP ecoregions (Odesnik 1987 and Omernik and Gallant 1988). Vertical lines demark headwaters (<20 miles2) and wading (≥20 miles2) sites. Horizontal dashed lines and shaded areas indicate sundry QHEI benchmarks (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a) and tiered use biocriteria. Fair to poor QHEI values are outlined in red. Note concentration of subpar QHEIs from West Branch Huron tributaries...... 59 Figure 12. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb and the QHEI, Huron River mainstem and tributaries, 2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the WWH and EWH biocriteria and areas of non-significant departure for IBI and MIwb. Arrows identify significant direct points of discharge for NPDES-permitted entities or confluence(s) of direct tributary. Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a). The lower lake affected segment of the Huron River is represented by rectangular area of greyscale hatch marks. The entire length of the Huron River mainstem and minor tributaries are contained within the HELP ecoregion (Omernik 1987, Omernik and Gallant 1988)...... 76 Figure 13. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb and the QHEI, East Branch Huron River, 2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the WWH and EWH biocriteria and areas of non-significant departure for IBI and MIwb. Arrows identify significant direct points of discharge for NPDES-permitted entities or confluence(s) of direct tributary. Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a). The entire length of the East Branch mainstem and tributaries are contained within the ECBP ecoregion (Omernik 1987, Omernik and Gallant 1988)...... 80 Figure 14. Scatter plot of QHEI from the West Branch Huron watershed (mainstem and tributaries), 2016. Vertical dashed line represents the boundary between headwaters and wading methods, based upon drainage

Page 5 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

area (miles2). Horizontal dashed lines represent various QHEI performance benchmarks. Note concentration of lower QHEI scores within headwater tributaries, including results from the uppermost West Branch Huron station (RM 47.47)...... 83 Figure 15. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb and the QHEI, West Branch Huron River, 2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the WWH and EWH biocriteria and areas of non-significant departure for IBI and MIwb. Arrows identify significant direct points of discharge for NPDES-permitted entities or confluence(s) of direct tributary. Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a). The entire length of the West Branch mainstem and most tributaries are contained within the ECBP ecoregion (Omernik 1987, Omernik and Gallant 1988). Exceptions to this include Clayton Ditch and Seymore Creek, both of which are located within the HELP...... 86 Figure 16. Performance of the IBI for the Huron River basin (mainstem and selected tributaries), East Branch subbasin, and West Branch subbasin, through time. Data aggregation based upon a high degree of actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years. Horizontal greyscale bars represent the generic WWH biocriteria and areas of non-significant departure for the IBI...... 92 Figure 17. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb and the QHEI on the Huron River mainstem, 1984-2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the WWH and EWH biocriteria and areas of non-significant departure for IBI and MIwb. Arrows identify significant direct points of discharge for NPDES-permitted entities, confluence(s) of direct tributary or temporal activity (dam removal in 2003). Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a). The lower lake affected segment of the Huron River is represented by rectangular area of greyscale hatch marks...... 94 Figure 18. Longitudinal performance of selected biometrics, Huron River mainstem, 1984-2016. Arrows identify significant points of discharge for NPDES-permitted entities, confluence(s) of direct tributary or temporal activity (dam removal). The lower, lake affected segment of the Huron River is represented by rectangular area of greyscale hatch marks...... 95 Figure 19. Longitudinal performance of the IBI and selected biometrics from Rattlesnake Creek (left column) and West Branch Rattlesnake Creek (right column), 1984-2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the statewide EWH and WWH HELP biocriteria for the IBI. Arrows identify either Norwalk WWTP discharge or confluence of West Branch Rattlesnake Creek (receiving stream) on Rattlesnake Creek. Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a)...... 95 Figure 20. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb and the QHEI on the East BranchHuron River mainstem, 1984- 2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the WWH and EWH biocriteria and areas of non-significant departure for IBI and MIwb. Arrows identify significant direct points of discharge for NPDES-permitted entities, confluence(s) of direct tributary or temporal activity (dam removal in 2003). Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a)...... 96 Figure 21. Longitudinal performance of selected biometrics, East Branch Huron River, 1984-2016. Arrows identify significant points of discharge for NPDES-permitted entities and confluence(s) of direct tributaries...... 97 Figure 22. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb and the QHEI on the West Branch Huron River, 1984-2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the WWH and EWH biocriteria and areas of non-significant departure for IBI and MIwb. Arrows identify discharge for significant NPDES-permitted entities or confluence(s) of direct tributaries. Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a)...... 98 Figure 23. Longitudinal performance of selected biometrics, West Branch Huron River, 1984-2016. Arrows identify significant points of discharge for NPDES-permitted entities and confluence(s) of direct tributaries...... 99

Page 6 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Figure 24. Longitudinal profiles of pICI scores for the Huron River by sampling year. Note that pICI scores are used solely to permit comparison of sites with a mix of narrative evaluation and ICI scores and not as an alternative determinant of aquatic life use attainment...... 101 Figure 25. Longitudinal profiles of pICI scores for the East Branch Huron River by sampling year. Note that pICI scores are used solely to permit comparison of sites with a mix of narrative evaluation and ICI scores and not as an alternative determinant of aquatic life use attainment...... 102 Figure 26. Longitudinal profiles of pICI scores for the West Branch Huron River by sampling year. Note that pICI scores are used solely to permit comparison of sites with a mix of narrative evaluation and ICI scores and not as an alternative determinant of aquatic life use attainment...... 103 Figure 27. Performance of the selected water quality parameter from the Huron River mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek subbasin (minor drainage to the Huron River mainstem) through time. Data aggregation based upon actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years...... 107 Figure 28. Performance of the selected water quality parameter from the East Branch Huron River (and minor tributaries) through time. Data aggregation based upon actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years...... 109 Figure 29. Performance of the selected water quality parameters from the West Branch Huron River (mainstem) and six West Branch Tributaries (Holiday Lake Outlet, Seymore Creek, Frink Run, Slate Run, Marsh Run and East Branch Mud Run) through time. Data aggregation based upon actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years...... 110 Figure 30. Performance of the QHEI from the Huron River basin (mainstem and selected tributaries), East Branch subbasin and West Branch subbasin through time. Data aggregation based upon actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years. WWH QHEI benchmark indicated by greyscale line...... 111 Figure 31. Relative abundance estimates of bigeye chub (Notropis amblops) at fish monitoring stations common to sampling efforts from the 1980s and 2016. 1 - Rattlesnake Creek estimate is a subbasin mean from two streams, Rattlesnake and West Branch Rattlesnake Creek. 2 - Stray individuals were observed as far upstream as RM 35.0 in 2002. Note: Including 1998 and 2002 data, bigeye chub has become reestablished on five streams or monitoring stations over the past 30 years. Furthermore, where this species has been observed through the period of record, relative abundance has typically increased significantly at nearly every location...... 113 Figure 32. E. coli samples within the Huron River watershed for the selected sampling locations...... 115 Figure 33. Average fish tissue mercury concentration by year and trophic level for the Huron River. Mercury concentrations were generally low, with most yearly averages below Ohio’s 0.220 mg/kg threshold for issuing consumption advisories at the one meal per month level. Observed inter-annual fluctuations were consistent with expected natural variation...... 125 Figure 34. Average fish tissue mercury concentration by year and trophic level for the East Branch Huron River. Mercury concentrations were low, with all yearly averages below Ohio’s 0.220 mg/kg threshold for issuing consumption advisories at the one meal per month level. Concentrations were steady between these two sampling events...... 126 Figure 35. Average fish tissue mercury concentration by year and trophic level for the West Branch Huron River. Mercury concentrations were low, with all yearly averages below Ohio’s 0.220 mg/kg threshold for issuing consumption advisories at the one meal per month level. Concentrations were quite steady between these four sampling events, with some apparent fluctuation in the 1998 results, but which were well below the natural fluctuation often seen for this contaminant...... 127

Page 7 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

List of Acronyms ALU aquatic life use CFR Code of Federal Regulations cuffs cubic feet per second cfu colony forming units CSO combined sewer overflow CWA Clean Water Act DC direct current DELT deformities, erosions, lesions, tumors DO dissolved oxygen ECBP Eastern Corn Belt Plains EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera EWH exceptional warmwater habitat GIS geographic information system GPS Global Positioning System HELP Huron/Erie Lake Plains HHEI headwater habitat evaluation index HUC hydrologic unit code IBI index of biotic integrity I/I inflow and infiltration ICI invertebrate community index IP Interior Plateau IPS Integrated Prioritization System LRAU large river assessment unit LRW limited resource water MGD million gallons per day MIwb Modified Index of well-being NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OAC Ohio Administrative Code ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources ORC Ohio Revised Code PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCR primary contact recreation PEC probable effects concentration QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index RM river mile SCR secondary contact recreation

Page 8 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

SRV sediment reference value SSO sanitary sewer overflow TALU tiered aquatic life use TDS total dissolved solids TEC threshold effects concentration TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen TMDL total maximum daily load TSS total suspended solids UAA use attainability analysis VOC volatile organic compound WAU watershed assessment unit WQS water quality standards WWH warmwater habitat WWTP wastewater treatment plant

Page 9 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Executive Summary Ohio’s rivers and streams support a variety of beneficial uses, such as recreation, water supply and aquatic life. Ohio EPA evaluates streams to recommend appropriate use designations and determine if the uses are meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act. In 2016, Ohio EPA evaluated the Huron River basin in Erie, Seneca, Huron, Crawford and Richland counties for aquatic life use (ALU) in 24 streams, recreation use in 13 streams and public water supply (PWS) use in four streams. Most of the streams sampled (20 of 24) are listed in the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS) as verified warmwater habitat (WWH) and primary contact recreation (PCR). Mud Brook is listed as unverified WWH/PCR and unnamed tributaries (UT) to West Branch, Frink Run and Marsh Run are unlisted. ALU attainment status by site is displayed in Figure 1. Biological assessments were completed at a total of 47 sites in 2016. Results show that 35 sites (75 percent) were fully meeting the current or recommended aquatic life use, 11 (23 percent) were partially attaining and one (2 percent) was in non-attainment. Continuous full attainment was realized in a 60-mile long segment of the West Branch Huron River and free-flowing portion of the Huron River mainstem. An exceptional warmwater habitat (EWH) aquatic life use is recommended for the lower 22.73 miles of the West Branch and upper 5.60 miles of the Huron River mainstem based on documented biological attainment and the presence of sufficiently diverse habitat to expect that high-quality fish and macroinvertebrate communities will be maintained. The most common cause of ALU impairment was intermittent flow. In many instances, this was from a natural condition due to wide and shallow channels on fractured bedrock. Agricultural drainage practices, like ditching and tiling, were the source in a couple of streams, and these practices exacerbated the problem in others. The second most common cause of ALU impairment was direct habitat alterations. Agricultural drainage was the most frequent source of these alterations, although a small dam was the source on one of the streams. Other documented causes of ALU impairment include biological indicators of nutrient enrichment/eutrophication and unknown toxicity. Runoff from row crop agriculture is the suspected source of nutrients on two streams and a municipal wastewater treatment plant is the source on another. Unknown toxicity is suspected on three streams due to the absence of certain macroinvertebrate taxa. The watershed was previously assessed in 1998/2002 at a total of 68 sites. A summary of those results showed that 35 sites (51 percent) were fully meeting the current or recommended aquatic life use, 17 (25 percent) were partially attaining and 16 (24 percent) were in non-attainment. A total of 40 sites sampled in 2016 were also sampled in 1998/2002. Attainment status improved at 11 sites and declined at three sites. The positive trajectory in ALU performance can be attributed to point source regulation and adoption of soil conservation practices on agricultural lands. Sites where status declined were all channel modified streams and fell from full to partial attainment. Two of the sites (Frink Run, Megginson Creek) fell because the macroinvertebrate narrative score went from marginally good to fair. Bacteriological assessments were completed at 20 sites in 2016. Results show that four sites (20 percent) were fully meeting the recreation use while 16 (80 percent) were in non-attainment. Recreation use attainment is determined using Escherichia coliform (E. coli) as an indicator for the potential presence of illness-causing pathogenic organisms. A minimum of five samples were collected from each site during a 90-day period. An index period from Memorial Day-Labor Day is targeted because this is the busiest part of the recreation season. Full attainment was realized in the Huron River mainstem and lower West Branch Huron River, representing two of 17 watershed assessment units (WAUs). Physical and chemical water quality was evaluated with grab samples at 32 sites in 2016. At 25 of these sites continuous monitors were deployed to help characterize daily patterns. Very few problems were noted with the physical quality of any streams in the study area. Where problems occurred, they were often

Page 10 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

associated with channel-modified streams when stream flow was either absent or interstitial. Nitrate- nitrite nitrogen exceeded benchmark levels at six sites (19 percent) and levels of total phosphorus exceeded benchmark at 12 sites (38 percent). The highest levels of nutrients were documented below wastewater treatment plants. Raw drinking water supplies were evaluated at five surface water systems in 2016. Both intakes and storage reservoirs were assessed. Nitrate-nitrite levels at the intakes were generally low during the study period, except for a series of high concentrations in the West Branch Huron River sub basin during mid- August. This sub basin also consistently had atrazine levels detected above the reporting limit. Upground storage reservoirs were either sampled from shore or the open water if a boat ramp was present. Levels of cyanotoxins are of special interest in these lakes. Of the 28 sets of samples collected, no toxins were detected in any of the five lakes.

Page 11 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Figure 1. Map summarizing ALU attainment status in the Huron River basin in 2016.

Page 12 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table 1. Summary of ALU attainment status for sampling sites in the Huron River basin, 2016. The index of biotic integrity (IBI), Modified Index of well‐being (MIwb) and invertebrate community index (ICI) scores are based on the performance of the biological community. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI) is based on the ability of the stream habitat to support a biological community. The table is organized by assessment unit (12‐digit hydrologic unit code). SitePs with ALU changes recommended are evaluated using the biocriteria for the recommended use, not the current use. For an explanation regarding recommended ALU designations, please refer to Beneficial Use Designations and Recommendations within this report. Ecoregion1/ River Area Attain. Station Station Name IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Causes Sources ALU2 Milea mi2 Status 04100012 04 01 – Marsh Run Marsh Run at Kenestrick K01G13 ECBP/WWH 7.53H 6.6 36ns ‐ MGns 60.3 FULL Rd. K01K18 Marsh Run at SR 61 ECBP/WWH 0.2W 31.2 36ns 8.4 38 63.5 FULL Trib. to Marsh Run (RM K01G14 ECBP/WWHd 0.28H 7.8 50 ‐ MGns 49.0 FULL 3.12) at May Rd. 04100012 04 02 – Town of Plymouth – West Branch Huron River W. Br. Huron at Old State K01G10 ECBP/WWH 47.47H 10.8 30* ‐ MGns 54.5 PARTIAL Direct habitat alterations Channelization Rd. W. Br. Huron at Base Line K01W11 ECBP/WWH 42.23H 18.5 42 ‐ G 62.5 FULL Rd. W. Br. Huron at Skinner K01P06 ECBP/WWH 38.4W 27.2 39ns 8.0ns 46 70.0 FULL Rd. Trib. to W. Br. Huron (RM K01G09 ECBP/WWHd 0.12H 6.2 36ns ‐ MGns 41.5 FULL 48.05) at Plymouth E Rd. 04100012 04 03 – Walnut Creek – West Branch Huron River W. Br. Huron at Green K01G12 ECBP/WWH 35.34W 64 43 9.7 36 80.5 FULL Bush Rd. Walnut Creek at Walnut K01P13 ECBP/WWH 0.98H 9.6 50 ‐ G 50.8 FULL Rd. 04100012 04 04 – Holiday Lake Holiday Lake Tributary at K01P10 ECBP/WWH 2.97H 14.1 38ns ‐ MGns 82.0 FULL SR 162 Trib. to Holiday Lake Dam or K01G22 Tributary (RM 2.80) at SR ECBP/WWH 0.17H 5.8 36ns ‐ F* 61.0 PARTIAL Direct habitat alterations Impoundment 162 04100012 04 05 – Peru Township – West Branch Huron River K01W18 W. Br. Huron at SR 162 ECBP/WWH 29.18W 88 52 9.7 42 89.5 FULL

Page 13 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Ecoregion1/ River Area Attain. Station Station Name IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Causes Sources ALU2 Milea mi2 Status W. Br. Huron at Bauman K01P05 ECBP/EWHd 22.73W 120 48ns 9.7 46 72.4 FULL Rd. K01W17 W. Br. Huron at Snyder Rd. ECBP/EWHd 16.59W 124 51 9.3ns VGns 66.9 FULL K01K16 W. Br. Huron at Terry Rd. ECBP/EWHd 13.34W 131 52 9.8 54 77.5 FULL 04100012 05 01 – Mud Run E. Br. Mud Run at Daniels Natural sources 303491 ECBP/WWH 6.42H 5.9 32* ‐ P* 42.0 NON Intermittence Rd. Agriculture E. Br. Mud Run at N. K01W15 ECBP/WWH 1.38H 15.1 38ns ‐ MGns 48.8 FULL Greenfield Rd. 04100012 05 02 – Slate Run Slate Run at Section Line K01W16 ECBP/WWH 10.42H 12.2 44 ‐ MGns 47.0 FULL Rd. Natural sources K01S03 Slate Run at Townline Rd. ECBP/WWH 4.1W 38.4 41 8.7 F* 49.9 PARTIAL Intermittence Agriculture K01W14 W. Br. Mud Run at TR 197 ECBP/WWH 0.52H 5.7 44 ‐ MGns 47.5 FULL 04100012 05 03 – Frink Run Channelization Intermittence Frink Run at Section Line Agriculture 303492 ECBP/WWH 7.15H 9.3 38ns ‐ F* 29.0 PARTIAL Rd. Channelization Direct habitat alterations Agriculture K01P08 Frink Run at SR 99 ECBP/WWH 0.09W 29.8 41 7.8ns F* 44.3 PARTIAL Intermittence Natural sources Trib. to Frink Run (RM 303493 5.83) at Pontiac Section ECBP/WWHd 2.01H 9.0 38ns ‐ F* 40.8 PARTIAL Intermittence Natural sources Line Rd. 04100012 05 04 – Seymour Creek Seymour Creek at Peru K01W27 ECBP/WWH 0.7H 16.4 38ns ‐ F* 50.5 PARTIAL Intermittence Natural sources Center Rd. Channelization Intermittence Megginson Creek at Sand Agriculture K01W24 HELP/WWH 0.59H 8.2 36 ‐ F* 44.0 PARTIAL Hill Rd. Channelization Direct habitat alterations Agriculture 04100012 05 05 – Unnamed Creek C (Clayton Ditch) Clayton Ditch at Strecker K01G17 HELP/MWHd 4.09H 7.9 26 ‐ HF 38.5 FULL Rd. K01G16 Clayton Ditch at Mouth HELP/WWH 0.01H 16.3 36 ‐ G 73.8 FULL

Page 14 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Ecoregion1/ River Area Attain. Station Station Name IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Causes Sources ALU2 Milea mi2 Status 04100012 05 06 – Mouth West Branch Huron River K01W25 W. Br. Huron at River Rd. ECBP/EWHd 7.6W 217 55 10.3 52 71.8 FULL W. Br. Huron at Lamereaux K01S12 ECBP/EWHd 3.67W 220 46ns 9.1ns E 56.5 FULL Rd. W. Br. Huron at Lovers 501090 ECBP/EWHd 0.38W 262 52 10.1 E 79.5 FULL Lane Rd. 04100012 06 01 – Headwaters East Branch Huron River Nutrient/eutrophication E. Br. Huron at Old State Agriculture K01W22 ECBP/WWH 24.67H 7.8 38ns ‐ F* 45.0 PARTIAL biological indicators Rd. Unknown toxicity Unknown Nutrient/eutrophication E. Br. Huron at Hanville Agriculture K01G21 ECBP/WWH 19.11H 16.7 44 ‐ F* 68.0 PARTIAL biological indicators Corners Rd. Unknown toxicity Unknown 04100012 06 02 – Cole Creek Cole Creek at New State K01W20 ECBP/WWH 6.52H 7.7 44 ‐ MGns 60.3 FULL Rd. K01P04 Cole Creek at SR 61 ECBP/WWH 0.14W 23.2 45 8.1ns 54 62.3 FULL 04100012 06 03 – Norwalk Creek K01P03 Norwalk Creek at SR 61 ECBP/WWH 0.13W 20.8 48 8.4 48 54.8 FULL Trib. to Norwalk Creek (RM K01G20 ECBP/WWH 1.62H 8.3 44 ‐ G 69.3 FULL 0.38) at Ridge Rd. 01400012 06 04 – Mouth East Branch Huron River K01W19 E. Br. Huron at Geiger Rd. ECBP/WWH 13.66W 32 39ns 8.4 46 77.5 FULL K01S11 E. Br. Huron at Brown Rd. ECBP/WWH 6.85W 37 52 9.6 48 69.5 FULL E. Br. Huron at Schaefer 501070 HELP/WWH 1.47W 87 52 9.9 54 68.8 FULL Rd. 04100012 06 05 – Unnamed Creek B (Rattlesnake Creek) Rattlesnake Creek at Old K01W34 HELP/WWH 2.37H 8.3 50 ‐ MGns 68.0 FULL State Rd. Rattlesnake Creek at Shaw K01W36 HELP/WWH 0.23H 17.7 52 ‐ MGns 59.3 FULL Mill Rd. W. Br. Rattlesnake Creek Municipal point Nutrient/eutrophication 501080 at Lais Rd. (dst. Norwalk HELP/WWH 1.38H 3.4 36 ‐ F* 67.0 PARTIAL source biological indicators WWTP) discharge 04100012 06 06 – Huron River – Frontal Lake Erie Huron River dst. E/W K01W01 HELP/EWHd 14.65W 350 53 9.8 54 87.0 FULL Branches 501030 Huron River dst. U.S. 250 HELP/EWHd 12.3W 371 53 9.7 54 79.3 FULL Page 15 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Ecoregion1/ River Area Attain. Station Station Name IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Causes Sources ALU2 Milea mi2 Status Huron River adj. Mud 501050 HELP/EWHd 11.85W 383 55 10.2 54 76.0 FULL Brook Rd. K01G19 Village Creek at Berlin St. HELP/WWH 1.12H 10.5 44 ‐ MGns 67.0 FULL K01W28 Mud Brook at Scheid Rd. HELP/MWHd 3.01H 4.8 28 ‐ HF 41.5 FULL

1 Level III Ecoregions: Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP), Huron/Erie Lake Plains (HELP) 2 Aquatic life use (ALU) designations: exceptional warmwater habitat (EWH), warmwater habitat (WWH), modified warmwater habitat (MWH). ALU designations for listed waters are in OAC 3745‐1‐19 a River mile represents point of record for the station ID b MIwb is not applicable to headwater streams with drainage areas <20 mi2 c A narrative evaluation was used when quantitative data was either unreliable or not available (VP=very poor; P=poor; LF=low fair; F=fair; HF=high fair; MG=marginally good; G=good; VG=very good; E=exceptional) d Attainment status is given for the recommended use if a change is proposed ns Non‐significant departure from biocriteria (≤4 IBI or ICI units or ≤0.5 MIwb units) * Indicates significant departure from applicable biocriteria (>4 IBI or ICI units or >0.5 MIwb units). Underlined scores are in the poor or very poor range. B boat site H headwater site W wading site Biological Criteria (OAC 3745‐1‐01, Table 7‐1) Huron/Erie Lake Plain (HELP) Eastern Corn Bely Plains (ECBP) Index – Site Type EWH WWH MWH EWH WWH MWH IBI – Headwaters 50 28 20 50 40 24 IBI – Wading 50 32 22 50 40 24 IBI – Boat 48 34 20 48 42 24 MIwb – Wading 9.4 7.3 5.6 9.4 8.3 6.2 MIwb ‐ Boat 9.6 8.6 5.7 9.6 8.5 5.8 ICI 46 34 22 46 36 22

Page 16 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Components of an Ohio EPA Biological and Water Quality Survey What is a Biological and Water Quality Survey? A biological and water quality survey (biosurvey) estimates the biological, physical and chemical condition of waters within a specified sampling frame. The sampling frame may range from a relatively simple setting focusing on one or two small streams, one or two principal stressors, and a handful of sampling sites; or a much more complex effort including entire drainage basins, multiple and overlapping stressors, and tens of sites. Ohio EPA employs biological, chemical and physical monitoring to meet three major objectives: 1) determine the extent to which use designations assigned in the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS) are either attained or not attained; 2) determine if use designations assigned to a given water body are appropriate and attainable and to recommend designations for undesignated streams; and 3) determine if any changes in key ambient biological, chemical, or physical indicators have taken place over time, particularly before and after the implementation of point source pollution controls or best management practices. The data gathered by a biosurvey is processed, evaluated and synthesized in a biological and water quality report. Each biological and water quality study contains a summary of major findings and recommendations for revisions to WQS, future monitoring needs or other actions that may be needed to resolve existing impairment of designated uses. While the principal focus of a biosurvey is the status of aquatic life uses, the status of other uses such as recreation and water supply, as well as human health concerns are also addressed. The findings and conclusions of a biological and water quality study may factor into regulatory actions taken by Ohio EPA (for example, NPDES permits, Director’s Orders, the Ohio WQS [OAC 3745-1] and Water Quality Permit Support Documents [WQPSD]) and are eventually incorporated into State Water Quality Management Plans, the Ohio Nonpoint Source Assessment, and the biennial Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (305[b] and 303[d]). Hierarchy of Indicators A carefully conceived ambient monitoring approach, using cost-effective indicators consisting of ecological, chemical and toxicological measures, helps ensure that all relevant pollution sources are judged objectively on the basis of environmental results. Ohio EPA relies on a tiered approach in attempting to link the results of administrative activities with true environmental measures. This integrated approach includes a hierarchical continuum from administrative to true environmental indicators (Figure 2). The six levels of indicators include: 1) actions taken by regulatory agencies (permitting, enforcement, grants); 2) responses by the regulated community (treatment works, pollution prevention); 3) changes in discharged quantities (pollutant loadings); 4) changes in ambient conditions (water quality, habitat); 5) changes in uptake and/or assimilation (tissue contamination, biomarkers, wasteload allocation); and, 6) changes in health, ecology, or other effects (ecological condition, pathogens).

Page 17 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

The results of administrative activities (levels 1 and 2) can be linked to efforts to improve water quality (levels 3, 4 and 5) which should translate into the environmental results (level 6). Thus, the aggregate effect of billions of dollars spent on water pollution control since the early 1970s can now be determined with quantifiable measures of environmental condition. Superimposed on this hierarchy is the concept of stressor, exposure and response indicators. Stressor indicators generally include activities which have the potential to degrade the aquatic environment such as pollutant discharges (permitted and unpermitted), land use effects and habitat modifications. Exposure indicators are those which measure the effects of stressors and can include whole effluent toxicity tests, tissue residues and biomarkers, each of which provides evidence of biological exposure to a stressor or bioaccumulative agent. Response indicators are generally composite measures of the cumulative effects of stress and exposure and include the more direct measures of community and population response that are represented here by the biological indices which comprise Ohio’s biological criteria. Other response indicators could include target assemblages (rare, threatened, endangered, special status and declining species) or bacterial levels which serve as surrogates for the recreational uses. These indicators represent the essential technical elements for watershed-based management approaches. The key, however, is to use the different indicators within the roles which are most appropriate for each. Describing the causes and sources associated with observed impairments revealed by the biological criteria and linking this with pollution sources involves an interpretation of multiple lines of evidence including water chemistry data, sediment data, habitat data, effluent data, biomonitoring results, land use data and patterns within the biological data itself. Thus, the assignment of principal causes and sources of impairment represents the association of impairments (defined by response indicators) with stressor and exposure indicators. The principal reporting venue for this process on a watershed or subbasin scale is a biological and water quality report. These reports then provide the foundation for aggregated assessments such as the Integrated Report, the Ohio Nonpoint Source Assessment and other technical bulletins.

Page 18 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

LEVEL 1 Actions by U.S. NPDES Permit Issuance EPA and States Compliance/Enforcement Pretreatment Program Actual Funding

Administrative CSO Requirements Storm Water Permits 319 NPS Projects 404/401 Certification Stream/Riparian Protection LEVEL 2 Responses by the POTW Construction Regulated Local Limits Storm Water Controls Community BMPs for NPS Control Pollution Prevention Measures LEVEL 3 Changes in Point Source Loadings ‐ Effluent and Influent Discharge Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) NPDES Violations Quantities Toxic Release Inventory Spills and Other Releases Fish Kills Water Column Chemistry Environmental LEVEL 4 Changes in Ambient Sediment Chemistry Habitat Quality Conditions Flow Regime True LEVEL 5 Changes in Assimilative Capacity ‐ TMDL/WLA Uptake and/or Biomarkers Tissue Contamination Assimilation LEVEL 6 Changes in Health Biota (Biocriteria) and Ecology, or Bacterial Contamination Target Assemblages Other Effects (RT&E, Declining Species)

Figure 2. Hierarchy of administrative and environmental indicators which can be used for water quality management activities such as monitoring and assessment, reporting, and the evaluation of overall program effectiveness. This is patterned after a model developed by U.S. EPA.

Ohio Water Quality Standards: Designated Aquatic Life Use The Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS; OAC 3745-1) consist of designated uses and chemical, physical and biological criteria designed to represent measurable properties of the environment that are consistent with the goals specified by each use designation. Use designations consist of two broad groups — aquatic life and non-aquatic life uses. In applications of the Ohio WQS to the management of water resource issues in Ohio’s rivers and streams, the aquatic life use criteria frequently result in the most stringent protection and restoration requirements, hence their emphasis in biological and water quality reports. Also, an emphasis on protection for aquatic life generally results in water quality suitable for all uses. The five aquatic life uses currently defined in the Ohio WQS are: Warmwater Habitat (WWH) — this use designation defines the typical warmwater assemblage of aquatic organisms for Ohio rivers and streams; this use represents the principal restoration target for the majority of water resource management efforts in Ohio.

Page 19 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH) — this use designation is reserved for waters which support unusual and exceptional assemblages of aquatic organisms which are characterized by a high diversity of species, particularly those which are highly intolerant and/or rare, threatened, endangered or special status (declining species); this designation represents a protection goal for water resource management efforts dealing with Ohio’s best water resources. Coldwater Habitat (CWH) — this use is intended for waters that support assemblages of coldwater organisms or those which are sanctioned by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Wildlife and stocked with salmonids with the intent of providing a put-and-take fishery on a year-round basis. This use should not be confused with the Seasonal Salmonid Habitat (SSH) use which applies to the Lake Erie tributaries that support periodic runs of salmonids during the spring, summer, and/or fall. Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH) — this use applies to streams and rivers which have been subjected to extensive, maintained and essentially permanent hydromodifications such that the biocriteria for the WWH use are not attainable and where the activities have been sanctioned by state or federal law; the representative aquatic assemblages are generally composed of species which are tolerant to low dissolved oxygen, silt, nutrient enrichment and poor quality habitat. Limited Resource Water (LRW) — this use applies to small streams (usually less than three mi2 drainage area) and other water courses which have been irretrievably altered to the extent that no appreciable assemblage of aquatic life can be supported. Chemical, physical and/or biological criteria are generally assigned to each use designation in accordance with the broad goals defined by each. As such, the system of use designations employed in the Ohio WQS constitutes a tiered approach in that varying and graduated levels of protection are provided by each. This hierarchy is especially apparent for parameters such as dissolved oxygen, ammonia-nitrogen, temperature and the biological criteria. For other parameters such as heavy metals, the technology to construct an equally graduated set of criteria has been lacking, thus the same water quality criteria may apply to two or three different aquatic life use designations. Ohio Water Quality Standards: Non‐Aquatic Life Uses In addition to assessing the appropriateness and status of aquatic life uses, each biological and water quality survey also addresses non-aquatic life uses such as recreation, water supply and human health concerns as appropriate. The recreation uses most applicable to rivers and streams are the Primary Contact Recreation (PCR) and Secondary Contact Recreation (SCR) uses. All surface waters of the state are designated as primary contact recreation unless otherwise designated as bathing waters or secondary contact recreation. Primary contact waters are surface waters that, during the recreation season, are suitable for one or more full body contact recreation activities such as, but not limited to, wading, swimming, boating, water skiing, canoeing, kayaking and scuba diving. Secondary contact waters are surface waters that result in minimal exposure potential to water-borne pathogens because the waters are: rarely used for water-based recreation such as, but not limited to, wading; situated in remote, sparsely populated areas; have restricted access points; and have insufficient depth to provide full body immersion, thereby greatly limiting the potential for water-based recreation activities. The SCR designation applies only to water bodies specifically designated as such in the WQS. Recreational use designations only apply seasonally from May 1 through October 31. Recreational use designation attainment status is determined using bacterial indicators (E. coli) and the criteria associated with each recreation use is specified in the

Page 20 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Ohio WQS. The presence of indicator bacteria such as E. coli indicates that the water body is contaminated with fecal matter of warm-blooded origin, which could include birds and mammals, including humans. Attainment of recreation uses are evaluated based on a comparison of measured bacteria levels in the water body to the applicable criterion as reflected in OAC 3745-1-37, which are intended to minimize potential exposure to pathogenic organisms and thereby protect the health of recreational uses of the water. Water supply uses include Public Water Supply (PWS), Agricultural Water Supply (AWS) and Industrial Water Supply (IWS). The PWS designation applies within 500 yards of a potable (drinking) water supply or food processing industry intake. The Agricultural Water Supply (AWS) and Industrial Water Supply (IWS) use designations are usually applied to all waters unless it can be clearly shown that they are not applicable. A hypothetical example of this might be within an urban area where livestock watering or pasturing does not take place or could not be supported, thus a recommendation may be made that the AWS use not be applied to a particular water body. The limited number of applicable chemical criteria associated with these uses are specified in the Ohio WQS for each use and attainment status is based primarily on chemical-specific indicators. Ohio EPA also measures chemical concentrations in fish tissue to support Ohio’s sport fish consumption advisory program and to assess whether water quality is sufficient to support human health water quality goals intended by Ohio’s WQS. Mechanisms for Water Quality Impairment The following paragraphs present the varied causes of impairment that affect the resource quality of lotic systems in Ohio. While the various issues are presented under separate headings, it is important to remember that they are often interrelated and cumulative in terms of the detrimental impact that can result. Habitat and Flow Alterations Habitat alteration, such as channelization, negatively impacts biological communities directly by limiting the complexity of living spaces available to aquatic organisms. Consequently, fish and macroinvertebrate communities are not as diverse compared to unimpacted systems. Indirect impacts may include the removal of riparian trees and field tiling to facilitate drainage. Following a rain event, most of the water is quickly removed from tiled fields rather than filtering through the soil, recharging ground water, and reaching the stream at a lower volume and more sustained rate. As a result, baseflow of small streams can be reduced, causing them to go dry more frequently or to become intermittent. Urbanization impacts include removal of riparian trees, influx of storm water runoff by increasing the area of impervious surfaces, straightening and piping of stream channels and riparian vegetation removal. Tree shade is important because it limits the energy input from the sun, moderates water temperature and limits evaporation. Removal of the tree canopy further degrades conditions because it eliminates an important source of coarse organic matter essential for a balanced ecosystem. Riparian vegetation aids in nutrient uptake, may decrease runoff rate into streams and helps keep soil in place. Erosion impacts channelized streams more severely due to the lack of a riparian buffer zone to slow runoff, trap sediment and stabilize banks. Additionally, deep trapezoidal channels lack a functioning flood plain and therefore cannot expel sediment as would normally occur during flood events along natural watercourses. The confinement of flow within an artificially deep channel accelerates the movement of water downstream, exacerbating flooding of downstream properties.

Page 21 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Siltation and Sedimentation Whenever the natural flow regime is altered to facilitate drainage, increased amounts of sediment are likely to enter streams either by overland transport or increased bank erosion. The removal of wooded riparian areas accelerates the erosion process. Channelization excludes all but the highest flow events to confinement within the artificially high banks. As a result, former flood plain areas that allowed for the removal of sediment from the primary stream channel no longer serve this function. As water levels fall following a rain event, interstitial spaces between larger rocks fill with sand and silt and the diversity and quality of available habitat to support fish and macroinvertebrates is reduced. Silt can also clog the gills of both fish and macroinvertebrates, reduce visibility thereby excluding site feeding fish species and smother the nests of lithophilic fishes. Lithophilic spawning fish require clean substrates with interstitial voids in which to deposit eggs. Conversely, pioneering species benefit. They are generalists and best suited for exploiting disturbed and less heterogeneous habitats. The net result is a lower diversity of aquatic species compared with a typical warmwater stream with natural habitats. Excessive sedimentation can also adversely impact water quality, recreational value, aesthetic quality and drinking water. Nutrients absorbed to soil particles remain trapped in the watercourse. Likewise, bacteria, pathogens and pesticides which also attach to suspended or bedload sediments become concentrated in waterways where the channel is functionally isolated from the landscape. Community drinking water systems must address these issues with more expensive advanced treatment technologies. Nutrient Enrichment The assessment of the impact of nutrients on aquatic life uses a weight-of-evidence approach. The objective of the weight-of-evidence approach is to evaluate the trophic state of the stream. Like lakes, trophic status in streams can be described by position along the familiar oligotrophic-eutrophic continuum; however, trophic status in streams is additionally described by a continuum defined at one end by heterotrophy, and at the other by autotrophy (Dodds, 2007). In general, oligotrophic systems are described as having low nutrients, low algal biomass and high clarity. Conversely, eutrophic systems are rich in nutrients, have high algal biomass and have large dissolved oxygen (DO) swings. Mesotrophic systems have intermediate characteristics between oligotrophic and eutrophic systems. The transition from oligotrophy to eutrophy is often accompanied by a shift from a heterotrophic status to an autotrophic status; and the process is commonly referred to as eutrophication. The amount of dissolved oxygen produced during the day by autotrophs relative to the amount of oxygen consumed at night by the entire microbial community, informs position along both continuums. For the purposes of this evaluation, eutrophication will be defined as the process by which a stream becomes enriched with nutrients, resulting in high chlorophyll-a concentrations or wide diel DO swings. Therefore, the focus for identifying eutrophication requires effective monitoring of the trophic state, which is dictated by primary production and respiration. Ohio EPA considers the performance of the biology relative to the available habitat, diel (24-hour) range of dissolved oxygen, algal biomass and finally nutrient concentrations to perform this assessment. Ohio and other states have been developing nutrient reduction strategies in recent years to address cultural eutrophication (U.S. EPA, 2015; Miltner, 2010; Heiskary and Markus, 2003). Wide diel DO ranges

associated with eutrophication are caused by excessive photosynthesis (O2 production) during daylight hours and respiration at night. The most recent investigations by Ohio EPA have identified a diel DO range of 6.5 mg/L as a threshold generally protective of biological and stream quality; diel DO ranges greater than 6.5 mg/L are indicative of eutrophication in Ohio streams and are likely over-enriched (Ohio EPA, 2014). Chlorophyll concentrations from benthic algae (attached to bottom substrates) are measured as a proxy for algal community biomass in wadable streams and small rivers, while chlorophyll concentrations measured

Page 22 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

from sestonic algae (suspended in the water column) serve as a proxy for algal abundance in large rivers. Physical factors such as width-depth ratio, time of travel and longitudinal gradient may largely determine whether sestonic or benthic algae drive production and respiration. However, sestonic algae typically dominate streams defined as large rivers, and benthic algae typically dominate small streams. Miltner (2010) identified benthic chlorophyll levels that broadly demarcate enrichment status relative to Ohio. Streams with less than ~90 mg/m2 can be considered least disturbed for Ohio. Benthic chlorophyll levels between 90 ~ 183 mg/m2 are typical for Ohio streams with modest amounts of agriculture or wastewater loadings. Levels between 183-320 mg/m2 are typical of streams draining agricultural landscapes or that are effluent dominated. Chlorophyll levels exceeding 320 mg/m2 characterize over-enrichment or nuisance conditions. A review of studies on sestonic chlorophyll-a by Dodds (2006), which included some Midwestern streams, suggest that concentrations of 40-100 μg/l sestonic chlorophyll-a identify eutrophic conditions while concentrations >100 μg/l indicate hypertrophic conditions. Miltner (2018) identified essentially identical boundaries based on associations between chlorophyll concentrations and various water quality and biological indicators. Organic Enrichment and Low Dissolved Oxygen Relative to atmospheric oxygen, the amount of oxygen soluble in water is low and it decreases as temperature increases. This is one reason why tree shade is so important. The two main sources of oxygen in water are diffusion from the atmosphere and plant photosynthesis. Turbulence at the water surface is critical because it increases surface area and promotes diffusion. Drainage practices such as channelization eliminate turbulence produced by riffles, meanders and debris snags. Although plant photosynthesis produces oxygen by day, it is consumed by the reverse process of respiration at night. Oxygen is also consumed by bacteria that decay organic matter, so it can be easily depleted unless it is replenished from the air. Sources of organic matter include poorly treated wastewater, sewage bypasses and dead plants and algae. Dissolved oxygen criteria are established in the Ohio WQS to protect aquatic life. The minimum and average limits are tiered values related to the applicable aquatic life use designation of the stream (OAC 3745 -1-35, Table 35-1). Ammonia Ammonia enters streams as a component of fertilizer and manure run-off and wastewater effluent.

Ammonia gas (NH3) readily dissolves in water to form the compound ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH). In aquatic ecosystems, equilibrium is established as ammonia shifts from a gas to undissociated ammonium hydroxide to the dissociated ammonium ion (NH4+). Under normal conditions (neutral pH 7.0 and temperature 25° C), almost none of the total ammonia is present as gas, only 0.55 percent is present as ammonium hydroxide, and the rest is ammonium ion. Alkaline pH shifts the equation toward gaseous ammonia production, so the amount of ammonium hydroxide increases. This is important because while the ammonium ion is almost harmless to aquatic life, ammonium hydroxide is very toxic and can reduce growth and reproduction or cause mortality. Ammonia criteria are established in the Ohio WQS to protect aquatic life. The maximum and average limits are tiered values based on sample pH and temperature and vary based upon the aquatic life use designation that applies to the water body (OAC 3745-1-35, Tables 35-2 through 35-8). Metals Metals can be toxic to aquatic life and hazardous to human health. Although they are naturally occurring elements, many are extensively used in manufacturing and are byproducts of human activity. Certain metals like copper and zinc are essential in the human diet, but excessive levels are usually detrimental. Lead and mercury are of particular concern because they can trigger fish consumption advisories. Mercury

Page 23 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020 is used in the production of chlorine gas and caustic soda, in the manufacturing of batteries and fluorescent light bulbs and in the burning of fossil fuels. In the environment, it forms inorganic salts, but bacteria convert these to methyl-mercury and this organic form builds up in the tissues of fish. Extended exposure can damage the brain, kidneys and developing fetus. The Ohio Department of Health (ODH) issued a statewide mercury advisory in 1997 primarily for women of child-bearing age and children age 15 and under. They are advised to eat no more than one meal per week of fish (any species) from any Ohio water body unless there is a more or less restrictive advisory. Although the one-meal-per-week advice applies mainly to these sensitive populations, the general advisory recommends that everyone follow that advice. Lead is used in batteries, pipes and paints and is emitted from burning fossil fuels. It can affect the central nervous system and damage the kidneys and reproductive system. Copper is mined extensively and used to manufacture wire, sheet metal and pipes. Ingesting large amounts can cause liver and kidney damage. Zinc is a by-product of mining, steel production and coal burning and used in alloys such as brass and bronze. Ingesting large amounts can cause stomach cramps, nausea and vomiting. Water quality criteria for various metals are established in the Ohio WQS (Administrative Code 3745-1) to protect human health, wildlife and aquatic life from both acute and chronic exposures. Aquatic life criteria, which are contained in OAC 3745-1-35, vary for some of the metals based on water hardness (OAC 3745-1- 35, Table 35-9). Different human health and wildlife criteria apply to the Lake Erie (OAC 3745-1-33, Table 33-2) or Ohio River (OAC 3745-1-34, Table 34-1) drainage basins. The drainage basins also have Tier I criteria and Tier II values for additional metals not established elsewhere that are developed following the procedures outlined in OAC 3745-1-40 and 3745-1-42. Bacteria High concentrations of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in a lake or stream may indicate possible contamination of the water with human pathogens. People can be exposed to contaminated water while wading, swimming, fishing or boating. E. coli bacteria are present in large numbers in the feces and intestinal tracts of humans and other warm-blooded animals, such as mammals and birds. While E. coli bacteria are harmless in most cases, their presence indicates that the water has been contaminated with fecal material originating from a warm-blooded animal entering the water body either directly or from surface runoff. Indicator bacteria such as E. coli can potentially coincide with the presence of pathogenic organisms entering the water through the same pathways but are typically present in the environment in such small amounts that it is impractical to monitor them directly, hence the use of fecal bacteria such as E. coli as indicators. While indicator bacteria such as E. coli by themselves are usually not pathogenic, some strains of E. coli can cause serious illness. Although intestinal organisms eventually perish outside the body, some will remain virulent for a period of time while in the water and may be dangerous sources of infection. This is especially a problem if the fecal material contains pathogens or disease-producing bacteria and viruses. Reactions to exposure can range from an isolated illness such as skin rash, sore throat or ear infection to a more serious wide-spread epidemic. Some types of bacteria that are a concern include Escherichia, which cause diarrhea and urinary tract infections, Salmonella, which cause typhoid fever and gastroenteritis (food poisoning), and Shigella, which cause severe gastroenteritis or bacterial dysentery. Some types of viruses that are a concern include polio, hepatitis A, and encephalitis. Disease-causing microorganisms may also be transmitted through fecal contamination of surface waters and include organisms such as cryptosporidium and giardia. Since E. coli bacteria are associated with warm-blooded animals, there are both human and animal sources. Human sources, including effluent from sewage treatment plants or discharges by on-lot septic systems can present a continuous source. Bacterial contamination from combined sewer overflows are associated with

Page 24 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

wet weather events. Animal sources are usually more intermittent and are also associated with rainfall, except when domestic livestock have access to the water. Large livestock farms store manure in holding lagoons creating the potential for an accidental spill. Liquid manure applied as fertilizer is a runoff problem if not managed properly and it can seep into field tiles. Bacteria criteria for the recreational use are established in the Ohio WQS to protect human health during water recreation based upon the quantities of E. coli present in the water column. The criteria are seasonal, applying from May 1 through October 31 (OAC 3745-1-37, Table 37-2). The water quality standards also state that streams must be free of any public health nuisance associated with raw or poorly treated sewage during dry weather conditions (OAC 3745-1-04, Part F). Sediment Contamination Chemical quality of sediment is relevant because some pollutants can bind strongly to soil particles and are persistent in the environment. Some of these compounds accumulate in the aquatic food chain and may trigger fish consumption advisories, but others are simply a contact hazard because they can cause skin cancer and tumors. The physical and chemical nature of sediment is determined by local geology, land use and contribution from manmade sources. As some materials enter the water column, they are attracted to the surface electrical charges associated with suspended silt and clay particles. Others simply sink to the bottom due to their high specific gravity. Sediment layers form as suspended particles settle, accumulate and combine with other organic and inorganic materials. Sediment is the most physically, chemically and biologically reactive at the water interface because this is where it is affected by sunlight, current, wave action and benthic organisms. Assessment of the chemical nature of this layer can be used to predict ecological impact. Sediment data are evaluated using Ohio Sediment Reference Values (SRVs; Ohio EPA 2008, 2010), along with guidelines established in Development and Evaluation of Consensus‐Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems (MacDonald et.al., 2000), and Ecological Screening Levels (ESLs) (U.S. EPA, 2003). Ohio EPA's Sediment Reference Value system was derived from samples collected at ecoregional reference sites. SRVs are site-specific ecoregional-based metals concentrations and are used to identify contaminated stream reaches. The MacDonald guidelines are consensus-based using previously developed values. The system predicts that sediments below the threshold effect concentration (TEC) are absent of toxicity and those greater than the probable effect concentration (PEC) are toxic. ESL values, considered protective benchmarks, were derived by U.S. EPA Region 5 using a variety of sources and methods. Sediment samples collected by Ohio EPA are measured for a number of physical and chemical properties. Physical attributes analyzed include percent particle size distribution (sand ≥60µ, silt 5-59µ, clay ≤4µ), percent solids and percent organic carbon. Chemical attributes analyzed can include metals, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Materials and Methods All biological, chemical and physical habitat data collection, processing and analysis methods and procedures adhere to those specified in the Surface Water Field Sampling Manual for water column chemistry, bacteria and flows (Ohio EPA, 2015a), Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life, Volumes II - III (Ohio EPA, 1987a, 1987b, 1989, 2006b, 2015b), and the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI): Rationale, Methods and Application (Rankin, 1989). Determining Use Attainment Status Use attainment status, also referred to as condition status, is a term describing the degree to which environmental indicators are either above or below criteria specified by the Ohio WQS. Assessing aquatic

Page 25 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

use attainment status involves a primary reliance on Ohio EPA's biological criteria (OAC 3745-1-07; Table 7-1). These are confined to ambient assessments and apply to rivers and streams outside of mixing zones. Numerical biological criteria are based on multi-metric biological indices including the IBI and MIwb, indices measuring the response of the fish community, and the ICI, which indicates the response of the macroinvertebrate community. Three attainment status results are possible at each sampling location - full, partial or non-attainment. Full attainment means that all of the applicable indices meet the biocriteria. Partial attainment means that one or more of the applicable indices fails to meet the biocriteria. Non- attainment means that none of the applicable indices meet the biocriteria or one of the organism groups reflects poor or very poor performance. An aquatic life use attainment table is constructed based on the sampling results and is arranged from upstream to downstream and includes the sampling locations indicated by river mile, the applicable biological indices, the use attainment status (full, partial or non), the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) and a sampling location description. Habitat Assessment Physical habitat is evaluated using the QHEI developed by Ohio EPA for streams and rivers in Ohio (Rankin, 1989 and 1995; Ohio EPA, 2006a). Various attributes of the habitat are scored based on the overall importance of each to the maintenance of viable, diverse and functional aquatic faunas. The type(s) and quality of substrates, amount and quality of instream cover, channel morphology, extent and quality of riparian vegetation, pool, run and riffle development and quality, and gradient are some of the habitat characteristics used to determine the QHEI score which generally ranges from 20 to less than 100. The QHEI is used to evaluate the characteristics of a stream segment, as opposed to the characteristics of a single sampling site. As such, individual sites may have poorer physical habitat due to a localized disturbance yet still support aquatic communities closely resembling those sampled at adjacent sites with better habitat, provided water quality conditions are similar. QHEI scores from hundreds of segments around the state have indicated that values greater than 60 are generally conducive to the existence of warmwater faunas whereas scores less than 45 generally cannot support a warmwater assemblage consistent with the WWH biological criteria. Scores greater than 75 frequently reflect habitat quality sufficient to support exceptional warmwater faunas. Sediment and Surface Water Assessment Fine grain sediment samples are collected following the procedures outlined in Ohio EPA's sampling guidance manual, Appendix III (Ohio EPA, 2015a). They are shipped to Ohio EPA's Division of Environmental Services for evaluation. Sediment data is reported on a dry weight basis. Sediment evaluations were conducted using guidelines established in MacDonald et al. (2000), U.S. EPA (2003) and Ohio EPA (2008). Surface water samples are collected according to Ohio EPA's Surface Water Field Sampling Manual (Ohio EPA, 2015a) and delivered to Ohio EPA's Division of Environmental Services for analysis. Surface water samples are evaluated using comparisons to Ohio WQS criteria, reference conditions or published literature.

Page 26 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Recreation Use Assessment Recreational use assessments are made at select locations within the study area. Five or more samples are collected within a 90-day period during the recreation season. Most sampling occurs between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Sample locations are generally located toward the downstream end of each HUC-12 watershed. Recreational use assessments are based upon a comparison of the E. coli content measured in the surface water against both the applicable geometric mean criteria and statistical threshold values (STV) found in OAC 3745-1-37. Any location where either the geometric mean of the measured values is higher than the applicable geometric mean criterion or where more than 10 percent of the measured values collected at the site are greater than the applicable STV fail to support the recreational use. Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment Macroinvertebrates are collected from artificial substrates and from the natural habitats. The artificial substrate collection provides quantitative data and consists of a composite sample of five modified Hester- Dendy multiple-plate samplers colonized for six weeks. At the time of the artificial substrate collection, a qualitative multi-habitat composite sample is also collected. This sampling effort consisted of an inventory of all observed macroinvertebrate taxa from the natural habitats at each site with no attempt to quantify populations other than notations on the predominance of specific taxa or taxa groups within major macrohabitat types (for example, riffle, run, pool, margin). Detailed discussion of macroinvertebrate field and laboratory procedures is contained in Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume III, Standardized Biological Field Sampling and Laboratory Methods for Assessing Fish and Macroinvertebrate Communities (Ohio EPA, 2015b). Fish Community Assessment Fish are sampled using pulsed DC electrofishing methods. Fish are processed in the field, and each individual species is identified. Fish are counted, weighed and any external abnormalities are recorded. Discussion of the fish community assessment methodology used in this report is contained in Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume III, Standardized Biological Field Sampling and Laboratory Methods for Assessing Fish and Macroinvertebrate Communities (Ohio EPA, 2015b). Causal Associations Using the results, conclusions and recommendations of the biological and water quality report requires an understanding of the methodology used to determine the use attainment status and assignment of probable causes and sources of impairment. The identification of impairment in rivers and streams is straightforward — the numerical biological criteria are used to judge aquatic life use attainment and impairment (partial and non-attainment). The rationale for using the biological criteria, within a weight of evidence framework, has been extensively discussed elsewhere (Karr et al., 1986; Karr, 1991; Ohio EPA, 1987a; Ohio EPA, 1987b; Yoder, 1989; Miner and Borton, 1991; Yoder, 1991; Yoder and Rankin, 1995a). Describing the causes and sources associated with observed impairments relies on an interpretation of multiple lines of evidence including water chemistry data, sediment data, habitat data, effluent data, land use data and biological results (Yoder and Rankin, 1995a, 1995b and 1995c). Thus, the assignment of principal causes and sources of impairment in this report represent the association of impairments (based on response indicators) with stressor and exposure indicators. The reliability of the identification of probable causes and sources is increased where many such prior associations have been identified or have been experimentally or statistically linked together. The ultimate measure of success in water resource management is the restoration of lost or damaged ecosystem attributes including aquatic community structure and function.

Page 27 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Overview: Huron River Watershed Ohio EPA conducted a biological and water quality assessment in the Huron River basin during 2016 as part of Ohio’s statewide monitoring strategy. The Huron River basin is located within the 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 04100012 and includes 17 12-digit watershed assessment units (WAUs). Biology was evaluated in 24 streams at a total of 47 sites. Principal streams included the Huron River, West Branch Huron River and East Branch Huron River. Other significant streams included Rattlesnake Creek, Norwalk Creek, Cole Creek, Clayton Ditch, Seymour Creek, Frink Run, Slate Run, Holiday Lake Tributary and Marsh Run. Complementary water quality sampling was done at a total of 32 sites, including bacteria at 20. A total of five drinking water intakes and upground storage reservoirs were evaluated. Detailed inland lake assessments were done at Norwalk Memorial and Willard reservoirs. Facilities that treat and discharge waste streams to waters of the state are regulated either by an individual or general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. At the time of this report, a total of 43 facilities are regulated by individual permit in the basin. A complete list of these can be found in Appendix A. Most discharge either sanitary wastewater, industrial process water or industrial storm water. Public wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) that cover the service areas of Willard, Norwalk and Huron are the only facilities classified as majors because they are designed to treat more than one million gallons per day (MGD). There are very few non-storm water general permits issued in the basin, including one for a small sanitary system. Storm water general permits include, but are not limited to, small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits for Huron and Norwalk. Specific objectives of the evaluation were to:  evaluate fish and macroinvertebrate communities to determine aquatic life use status;  evaluate surface water intakes to determine public water supply use status;  evaluate bacteria levels to determine recreation use status;  verify existing beneficial uses and recommend appropriate changes;  recommend uses for undesignated waters;  compare present results with historical conditions;  evaluate physical habitat influences on stream biotic integrity;  evaluate surface water and sediment quality on stream biotic integrity;  evaluate the influences from point and nonpoint sources;  update fish tissue consumption advisories; and  measure phosphorus loads to Lake Erie and build a database to track reduction goals. The findings of this evaluation may factor into regulatory actions taken by Ohio EPA (for example, NPDES permits, Director’s Orders or the Ohio WQS [OAC 3745-1]) and may eventually be incorporated into State water quality management plans, the Ohio Nonpoint Source Assessment, total maximum daily load (TMDL) reports and the biennial water quality monitoring and assessment (305[b] and 303[d]) report.

Page 28 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Figure 3. Huron River Watershed, Ohio. Sites listed in table below.

Page 29 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table 2. Sampling locations in the Huron River watershed. STATION NAME RM Area HUC12 USGS Quad LAT. LON. SAMPLING Huron River (12‐001‐000) K01W01 Milan Wildlife Area (dst. East/West Branch) 14.65R 350 04100012‐06‐06 Kimball 41.2908 ‐82.6375 F2, FT, MQ, C, N, B 501030 US 250 (ust. Milan WWTP) 12.30 371 04100012‐06‐06 Milan 41.3017 ‐82.6069 F2, FT, MQ, C, N, B, Sn 501050 Adj. Mud Brook Rd. (dst. Milan WWTP) 11.85 383 04100012‐06‐06 Milan 41.3067 ‐82.6058 F2, FT, MQ, C, N, B 501040 Mason Rd. (ust. Huron Basin WWTP) 8.01 386 04100012‐06‐06 Milan 41.3350 ‐82.5772 CM, B, Sd K01W31 US 6 (dst. Huron Basin WWTP) 0.70 406 04100012‐06‐06 Huron 41.3900 ‐82.5533 CM, B, Sd Rattlesnake Creek (12‐001‐003) K01W34 Old State Rd. 2.37 8.3 04100012‐06‐05 Milan 41.2769 ‐82.5922 F, Mq K01W36 Shaw Mill Rd. (dst. W.Br. Rattlesnake Ck.) 0.23 17.7 04100012‐06‐05 Milan 41.2944 ‐82.6122 F, Mq, CM, B West Branch Rattlesnake Creek (12‐001‐004) 501080 Lais Rd. (dst. Norwalk WWTP) 1.38 3.4 04100012‐06‐05 Milan 41.2767 ‐82.6219 F, Mq, CM, N Village Creek (12‐001‐001) K01G19 Berlin St. 1.12 10.5 04100012‐06‐06 Milan 41.2963 ‐82.5946 F, Mq Mud Brook (12‐002‐000) K01W28 Scheid Rd. 3.01 4.8 04100012‐06‐06 Huron 41.3581 ‐82.5853 F, Mq East Branch Huron River (12‐100‐000) K01W22 Old State Rd. 24.67 7.8 04100012‐06‐01 Greenwich 41.0897 ‐82.5872 F, Mq K01W21 SR 162 20.96 10.7 04100012‐06‐01 Monroeville 41.1042 ‐82.6281 F, Mq, B K01W19 Geiger Rd. 13.66 32 04100012‐06‐04 Monroeville 41.1769 ‐82.6531 F2, MQ, C, B K01S11 Brown Rd. 6.85 37 04100012‐06‐04 Monroeville 41.2267 ‐82.6517 F2, FT, MQ, C, N, B K01S10 SR 61 (Norwalk WTP Intake) 6.13 83.9 04100012‐06‐04 Monroeville 41.2306 ‐82.6456 DW 501070 Schaefer Rd. 1.47 87 04100012‐06‐04 Kimball 41.2756 ‐82.6369 F2, FT, MQ, C, N, B Norwalk Creek (12‐103‐000) K01W23 Laylin Rd. 5.56 6.4 04100012‐06‐03 Norwalk 41.2344 ‐82.5664 F, Mq, C, DW 204705 Norwalk Memorial Reservoir 04100012‐06‐03 Norwalk 41.2344 ‐82.5903 DW, L, B, FT, Sd 204706 Norwalk Lower Reservoir 04100012‐06‐03 Norwalk 41.2389 ‐82.5881 DW K01P03 SR 61 0.13 20.8 04100012‐06‐03 Monroeville 41.2286 ‐82.6431 F2, MQ, C, N, B, Sn

Page 30 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

STATION NAME RM Area HUC12 USGS Quad LAT. LON. SAMPLING UT (0.38) to Norwalk Creek (12‐103‐001) K01G20 Ridge Rd. 1.62 8.3 04100012‐06‐03 Monroeville 41.2203 ‐82.6211 F, Mq Cole Creek (12‐101‐001) K01W20 New State Rd. 6.52 7.7 04100012‐06‐02 Norwalk 41.1647 ‐82.6133 F, Mq K01P04 SR 61 0.14 23.2 04100012‐06‐02 Monroeville 41.2281 ‐82.6425 F2, MQ, C, N, B West Branch Huron River (12‐200‐000) K01G10 Old State Rd. 47.47 10.8 04100012‐04‐02 Greenwich 41.0153 ‐82.5838 F, Mq K01W11 Baseline Rd. (ust. Plymouth WWTP) 42.23 18.5 04100012‐04‐02 Shelby 40.9950 ‐82.6517 F, Mq, CM, N, B K01P06 Skinner Rd. (dst. Plymouth WWTP) 38.40 27.2 04100012‐04‐02 Willard 41.0211 ‐82.6667 F2, MQ, CM, N, B K01G12 Green Bush Rd. 35.34 64 04100012‐04‐03 Willard 41.0455 ‐82.6580 F2, FT, MQ, C, B 303473 Willard WTP Intake 33.80 70.3 04100012‐04‐03 Willard 41.0640 ‐82.6540 DW 204708 Willard Upground Reservoir 04100012‐04‐03 Willard 41.0625 ‐82.6631 DW, L, B, FT, Sd K01W18 SR 162 29.18 88 04100012‐04‐05 Willard 41.1047 ‐82.6692 F2, FT, MQ, C, B K01P05 Bauman Rd. 22.73 120 04100012‐04‐05 Monroeville 41.1317 ‐82.7097 F2, FT, MQ, C, B K01W17 Snyder Rd. 16.59 124 04100012‐04‐05 Monroeville 41.1656 ‐82.7100 F2, FT, MQ, C, B K01K16 Terry Rd. 13.34 131 04100012‐04‐05 Monroeville 41.1919 ‐82.6882 F2, FT, MQ, C, N, B 303472 Monroeville WTP Intake 8.52 215.3 04100012‐05‐06 Monroeville 41.2420 ‐82.7010 DW 303354 Monroeville Upground Reservoir 04100012‐05‐06 Monroeville 41.2331 ‐82.7111 DW K01W25 River Rd. (ust. Monroeville WWTP) 7.60R 217 04100012‐05‐06 Monroeville 41.2456 ‐82.6914 F2, FT, MQ, CM, N, B K01S12 Lamereaux Rd. (dst. Monroeville WWTP) 3.67R 220 04100012‐05‐06 Kimball 41.2808 ‐82.6756 F2, FT, MQ, CM, N, B UT (48.05) to W.Br. Huron R. (12‐200‐008) a.k.a. Hale’s Ditch, a.k.a. Shiloh Ditch K01G09 Plymouth East Rd. (dst. Shiloh WWTP) 0.12 6.2 04100012‐04‐02 Greenwich 41.0096 ‐82.5761 F, Mq, CM, N Marsh Run (12‐210‐000) K01G13 Kenestrick Rd. 7.53 6.6 04100012‐04‐01 Shelby 40.9744 ‐82.7343 F, Mq K01K18 SR 61 0.20 31.2 04100012‐04‐01 Willard 41.0428 ‐82.6683 F2, MQ, C, N, B, Sn UT (3.12) to Marsh Run (12‐210‐001) K01G14 May Rd. 0.28 7.8 04100012‐04‐01 Willard 41.0186 ‐82.7071 F, Mq

Page 31 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

STATION NAME RM Area HUC12 USGS Quad LAT. LON. SAMPLING Walnut Creek (12‐200‐006) K01P13 Walnut Rd. 0.98 9.6 04100012‐04‐03 Willard 41.0750 ‐82.6425 F, Mq Holiday Lake Tributary (12‐200‐002) K01P10 SR 162 (dst. Holiday Lake spillway) 2.97 14.1 04100012‐04‐04 Willard 41.1053 ‐82.7292 F, Mq, C, N, B UT (2.80) to Holiday Lake Tributary (12‐200‐003) K01G22 SR 162 0.17 5.8 04100012‐04‐04 Willard 41.1055 ‐82.7304 F, Mq Jacobs Creek (12‐200‐004) K01P11 Egypt Rd. (dst. W.Br. Jacobs Ck./Willard) 0.62 1.9 04100012‐04‐04 Willard 41.0794 ‐82.7233 CM, N Slate Run (12‐206‐000) K01W16 Section Line Rd. 10.42 12.2 04100012‐05‐02 Flat Rock 41.1333 ‐82.7858 F, Mq K01S03 Townline Rd. 4.10R 38.4 04100012‐05‐02 Monroeville 41.1858 ‐82.7383 F2, MQ, C, N, B West Branch Mud Run (12‐208‐000) a.k.a. Shriner Ditch K01W14 TR 197 0.52 5.7 04100012‐05‐02 Centerton 41.1161 ‐82.8422 F, Mq East Branch Mud Run (12‐207‐000) K01W15 North Greenfield Rd. 1.38 15.1 04100012‐05‐01 Flat Rock 41.1275 ‐82.7681 F, Mq, C, B 303491 Daniels Rd. 6.41 5.9 04100012‐05‐01 Flat Rock F, Mq Frink Run (12‐203‐001) 303492 Section Line Rd. 7.15 9.3 04100012‐05‐03 Flat Rock F, Mq 303471 Dogtown Rd. (Bellevue WTP Intake) 4.80 25.4 04100012‐05‐03 Flat Rock 41.2162 ‐82.7651 DW 204709 Bellevue Upground Reservoir #5 04100012‐05‐03 Flat Rock 41.2144 ‐82.7764 DW K01P08 SR 99 0.09 29.8 04100012‐05‐03 Monroeville 41.2244 ‐82.7039 F2, MQ, C, N, B, Sn UT (5.83) to Frink Run (12‐203‐001) 303493 Pontiac Rd. 2.01 9.0 04100012‐05‐03 Flat Rock F, Mq Seymour Creek (12‐201‐000) K01W27 Lamereaux Rd. 0.13 16.4 04100012‐05‐04 Kimball 41.2806 ‐82.6783 F, Mq, C, N, B Megginson Creek (12‐202‐000) K01W24 Sand Hill Rd. 0.59 8.2 04100012‐05‐04 Bellevue 41.2589 ‐82.7644 F, Mq Clayton Ditch (12‐200‐001) K01G17 Strecker Rd. 4.09 7.9 04100012‐05‐05 Kimball 41.3230 ‐82.6787 F, Mq K01G16 Adj. Lovers Lane at mouth 0.01 16.3 04100012‐05‐05 Kimball 41.2869 ‐82.6435 F, Mq, C, N, B, Sn

Page 32 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Sample Type Key # Sites # Passes Stream Water Chemistry C 31 186 Inland Lake Assessment L 2 10 Macroinvertebrate quantitative MQ 19 Macroinvertebrate qualitative Mq 27 Fish 2 pass F2 19 38 Fish 1 pass F 28 28 Nutrient Site (chl. a, sonde) N 21 Drinking Water (atrazine, nitrate, DW 9 Fish Tissue FT 14 E. coli. B 30 150 Stream Water Chemistry with Metals M 10 Sentinel (flow) Sn 5 Sediment Sd 4 QHEI only Q

Page 33 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Study Area Description Location The Huron River watershed study evaluated 17 WAUs draining approximately 403 square miles. The watershed is located on the south shore of Lake Erie between Toledo and Cleveland, in Huron, Erie, Seneca, Richland and Crawford counties. The Huron River mainstem is 14.7 miles long, traveling from the confluence of its East and West branches north to Lake Erie. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a flow gage on the Huron River near Milan at RM 12.3. Land Use Land use within the watershed is dominated by row crop agriculture (71 percent) with the second most common use being deciduous forest (14 percent) (NLCD 2011). The installation of an extensive artificial drainage network has resulted in negative impacts to the watershed, including but not limited to, flow regime changes and streamside habitat loss. The Huron River watershed is largely rural with 10 villages and three cities (Huron, Norwalk and Willard). Norwalk is the largest of these three cities with a population of approximately 17,010 per the 2010 U.S. Census. Table 3. Land use in Ohio, Huron River Watershed, Ecoregions, Geology and Soils National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD 2011). The study area originates predominately Land Use Percent of Watershed in the Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) Cropland 71.08% ecoregion and flows north into the Hay/Pasture 2.10% Huron/Erie Lake Plains (HELP). The Deciduous Forest 14.48% Developed, Open Space 5.82% topography of the watershed was Development (Low Intensity) 3.13% Other Land Uses 3.39%

Page 34 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020 formed by glacial action, and the soils consist of both glacial till plains and lake plains, resulting in a high diversity of both the types and slopes of these soil types. The ECBP ecoregion is a rich agricultural area that covers approximately 70 percent of the watershed. It has light colored, loamy, well-drained soils formed from glacial deposits of the Wisconsinan age that were originally covered by natural beech forests. Today, extensive grain production occurs in this ecoregion. The ECBP ecoregion has clayey, high lime soils generally derived from glacial till. The HELP is dominated by poorly drained soils, namely hydrologic groups C, C/D and D (Figure 4). “The ecoregion consists of broad, nearly level lake plain crossed by beach ridges and low moraines. Most of the area was once covered by forested wetlands… but much of the region has been drained and cleared for cropland.” (Omernick and Galland 1988). Lake Erie’s influence on the climate substantially increases the growing season, and nursery, fruit and vegetable farms are important agricultural crops in this portion of Figure 4. Hydrologic soil groups (STATSGO). the HELP ecoregion. Urban and industrial land use is also more predominant in the lower Huron River watershed.

Hydrology The study area includes the mainstem of the Huron River, along with its tributary streams. Active maintenance programs and historical efforts to drain the region have resulted in numerous altered stream sections. Figure 5 depicts waterways currently under maintenance by county programs (in red). The lower Huron River is impacted by water levels in Lake Erie, termed the lacustuary, as far up as Mason Road.

Page 35 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

There are six reservoirs within the study area, including Bellevue #5, Willard and Monroeville, as well as Norwalk Memorial, Upper, and Lower, which are a series connected via control structures. Holiday Lakes subdivision is built around an in- stream impoundment of a tributary to the West Branch Huron River. Wastewater Discharge Overview A total of 43 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facilities discharge sanitary wastewater, industrial process water and/or industrial storm water into the Huron River watershed. Each facility is required to monitor their discharges according to sampling and monitoring conditions specified in their NPDES permit and report results to Ohio EPA in a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). Certain NPDES facilities are considered major dischargers based on the volume (more than one million gallons per day or MGD) and type of waste they discharge. All other individual NPDES permitted facilities are considered minor dischargers. All major NPDES facilities in the Figure 5. Drainage maintenance in the Huron River watershed, illustrated by red Huron River watershed, as well segments. as minor dischargers that were bracketed with biological monitoring sites, are listed in Table 4. Additional details on all NPDES facilities in this study area can be found in Appendix A. Through our website, Ohio EPA provides an interactive map with NPDES facility locations. Once a facility is selected within the interactive map, the user will have access to basic information about the facility, such as a links to the associated NPDES permit and compliance information through U.S. EPA’s website. The interactive map can be found at http://oepa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=25cf405adc3444139f4b410e69a2b bc9.

Page 36 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

General NPDES permits are a potential alternative for facilities that have a minimal effect on the environment, have similar operations and meet certain eligibility criteria. There are several different types of general permits, including, but not limited to, small sanitary sewer discharges, petroleum bulk storage and non-contact cooling water. A list of facilities covered under each type may be found at epa.ohio.gov/dsw/permits/NonStormgplist.aspx. There are also several types of general permits specific to storm water, including, but not limited to, small Municipal Separate Storm Systems (MS4s), construction sites, industries and marinas. A list of facilities covered under each type may be found at epa.ohio.gov/dsw/permits/gplist.aspx.

Table 4. Major NPDES Facilities and Minor Dischargers Bracketed with Biological Monitoring Sites Design Ohio EPA Permit Discharge Wastewater Type, Stream and River Number Facility Name (MGD) Treatment System Mile at Discharge County WAU 041000120402 – Town of Plymouth – West Branch Huron River 2PB00014 Plymouth STP 0.450 Sequencing Batch West Branch Richland Reactor Huron River (38.9) WAU 041000120404 – Holiday Lake West Branch Activated Sludge ‐ 2PD00005 Willard WPCP 4.5 Jacob's Creek Huron Extended Aeration (0.08) WAU 041000120506 ‐ Town of Monroeville ‐ West Branch Huron River 2PB00004 Monroeville 0.200 Oxidation Ditch West Branch Huron WWTP Huron River (7.45) WAU 041000120605 – City of Norwalk 2IV00061 Norwalk WTP 0.052 Settling Tank ‐ Sand Norwalk Creek Huron Filter Backwash (3.7) WAU 041000120606 – Mud Brook – Frontal Lake Erie 2PC00001 Huron Basin 2.0 Rotating Biological Huron River Erie WWTP Contactor (1.03)

Protected Lands As shown in Table 5, Milan Wildlife Area is the most significant natural area in the watershed at 296 acres. It provides significant undeveloped land along the confluence of the East and West Branches. Willard Marsh Wildlife Area is almost completely outside of the watershed. Veterans Memorial Lake Park is dominated by 3 reservoirs, which account for most of its acreage. It does not provide significant upland areas that can act as a connected floodplain. Table 5. Protected lands, natural areas and parks, not including active recreation facilities, Huron River watershed. Site Name Owner Description HUC 12 Acres Willard Marsh WA* Ohio DNR Wildlife Area Marsh Run 1,676 Veterans Memorial Lake Park Local Park Norwalk Creek 309 Milan WA Ohio DNR Wildlife Area Mud Brook – Frontal Lake Erie 296 Dupont Marsh NA Ohio DNR Natural Area Mud Brook – Frontal Lake Erie 114 Coupling Reserve County Nature Preserve Mud Brook – Frontal Lake Erie 56 *Only 213 acres are within the watershed.

Page 37 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Drinking Water Supply There are 16 public water systems in the project area, as shown in Table 6. Four are surface water systems that utilize streams sampled as a part of this project for part or all their water supply. There are 12 ground water systems, which are predominantly small systems, such as Agricultural Migrant Labor Camps (AMLC). Table 6. Public water systems in the study area (Ohio EPA, DDAGW, 2016). Water System Name PWS ID County Woody Ridge Golf Course OH1735312 Crawford Milan Village PWS OH2201212 Erie Coble Village MHP OH3900112 Huron North Fairfield Village PWS OH3901012 Huron John Stambaugh & Co. AMLC OH3934612 Huron Buurma Farms AMLC 1 OH3940212 Huron Starview Drive‐In OH3943112 Huron Wiers Farm AMLC 1 OH3943612 Huron Wiers Farm AMLC 2 OH3943712 Huron Buurma Farms AMLC 2 OH3946012 Huron Kekekist Ltd. AMLC OH3946312 Huron Wiers Farms AMLC 3/4 OH3946512 Huron Norwalk PWS (surface water) OH3901111 Huron Willard PWS (surface water) OH3901511 Huron Monroeville PWS (surface water) OH3900811 Huron Bellevue PWS (surface water) OH3900011 Huron

Page 38 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Aquatic Life Use Results and Discussion Water Chemistry Results Surface water chemistry samples were collected from the Huron River study area from March through October 2016 at 32 locations (Appendix G). Stations were established in free-flowing sections of the streams and samples were collected via bucket from bridge crossings or directly from the stream (Figure 7). Surface water samples were dispensed into appropriate containers, preserved and delivered to Ohio EPA’s Environmental Services laboratory. Collection and preservation was completed using appropriate methods, as outlined in Ohio EPA’s Surface Water Field Sampling Manual, July 31, 2015 (Ohio EPA 2015a). USGS gage data from the Huron River near the village of Milan was used to show flow trends in the watershed during the survey (Figure 6). Dates when chemistry and sediment samples were collected in the study area are noted on the graph. Samples collected outside of the index period shown below are not included in the analyses of this report but are available in the appendix tables. While the Milan gage represents a larger drainage area than most of the sites sampled, the graph is still instructive of the type of weather experienced during the field season, especially in comparison to the historic mean (normal flow). Water samples captured a variety of flow conditions in the study area during the field season.

1000 2016 Flow

Normal Flow

Chemistry Samples

Ambient Samples

Sediment Samples

Sonde Deployment 100

10 15‐Jun 29‐Jun 13‐Jul 27‐Jul 10‐Aug 24‐Aug 7‐Sep 21‐Sep 5‐Oct

Figure 6. Huron River near Milan, 2016 flow data with median flow statistic (1997 ‐ 2016), (USGS). Includes chemistry sampling events used in assessment.

A subset of the sites that were sampled for chemistry were also sampled with water quality sondes that monitor temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and specific conductance (conductivity). Temperature, DO and pH are influenced by diel (24-hour) patterns. These diel patterns have the greatest impact on streams during a critical condition that includes stable, low streamflow. Specific conductance is not influenced by the same diel triggers but is monitored to evaluate water quality exceedances and as an indicator of changes in streamflow. The water quality sondes collect readings hourly to monitor these parameters throughout the diel cycle. Grab readings differ because they only represent one point on the diel cycle. While they are effective at characterizing water quality parameters that change based on hydrologic regime or season, they can miss or not fully characterize parameters that exhibit diel patterns.

Page 39 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Critical conditions for temperature and dissolved oxygen are times when flows are low, temperatures are high and daylight is long. These are the times that streams are most sensitive to organic and nutrient enrichment. To capture these conditions, sondes are typically deployed during low-flow conditions from June to September. Two deployments occurred in the Huron River watershed. The first was from June 28- 30, 2016 and the second was from August 2-4, 2016 (shown in Figure 6). Summary plots of all data collected are included in Appendix J of this document. The plots show the trace of hourly readings taken for temperature, DO, pH and specific conductance.

Page 40 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Figure 7. Distribution of sampling locations, Huron River basin study area, 2016.

Surface water samples were analyzed for metals, nutrients, semi-volatile organic compounds, herbicides and suspended and dissolved solids. Instantaneous readings of temperature, pH, conductivity, DO concentration and DO percent saturation were measured in the field (Appendix G– water chemistry data).

Page 41 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Geometric mean nutrient values are reported in Table 9. Grab sample parameters which were in exceedance of the Ohio WQS criteria are reported in Table 7. Single sample DO levels were found below the minimum water quality criteria a total of six times at four sites during the sampling season. Single sample temperature measurements were found above the daily maximum criteria two times at two sites. Lack of overhead cover due to drainage maintenance projects and flow regime alterations from tile drainage impacts stream temperatures during summer months. The sampling station on Unnamed Tributary (UT) (48.05) to West Branch Huron River (a.k.a. Shiloh Ditch) has five exceedances of the chloride water quality criteria for the protection of human health. The water quality criteria maximum was exceeded five times and the average was also exceeded. However, with no drinking water intake within 500 yards of the sampling location, the observed levels do not result in an exceedance. Shiloh has a water treatment plant that has a ground water source and an ion exchange softener as part of their treatment. The brine — backwash water from the water treatment plant — is sent to the Shiloh WWTP, which has no monitoring requirements for chloride. Potential sources of chloride in the stream could be WWTP effluent, road salt storage/runoff, residential water conditioning salts and/or potassium chloride fertilizers. The data collected during the sonde deployments are sufficient to evaluate exceedances of the standards for the protection of aquatic life for: maximum daily temperature; minimum DO; 24-hour average DO; pH; and specific conductivity. Absolute minima or maxima exceedances are compared directly to hourly readings reported from the water quality sondes. The 24-hour average for DO is calculated as a rolling 24- hour average of the hourly data. A summary of the sonde exceedances is presented in Table 8. Temperature exceedances were the most commonly observed exceedance measured by sondes in the survey area. A total of 10 sites out of the 26 sampled had temperature exceedances. These sites all had one of two things or both in common: interstitial flows and shallow water with bedrock substrate. There are two primary causes for interstitial flows where they were observed —local geology and the dominance of subsurface drainage in upland agricultural areas, which reduces baseflow volume. The sites with shallow water overlying bedrock are often wider than streams of similar size in other circumstances, resulting in more sunlight exposure that warms the water. The root of these exceedances is tied to natural conditions in the basin (geology) but exacerbated by low flows that result from drainage practices. One site, Slate Run at Townline Rd (RM 4.1), had an exceedance of the maximum pH water quality criterion. The exceedance occurred for a one or two-hour period in the afternoon coinciding with the peak DO concentration. The signature of the pH exceedance is one that reflects the growth of algae in the stream. Four of the 26 sites had minimum DO exceedances observed, all during the second deployment period. These streams were all noted to have near zero or interstitial flows during the survey when the exceedances occurred. The low and interstitial flows observed in these streams reflect the local geology and dominance of subsurface drainage for upland agricultural production. The low and interstitial flow conditions result in reduced reaeration, helping to suppress the DO. Also, with the exception of Rattlesnake Creek (RM 2.37), the exceedances occurred in the early morning hours and are associated with the diel fluctuations of DO caused by algae. Table 7. Exceedances of Ohio WQS criteria (OAC 3745‐1) for chemical and physical parameters in grab samples in the Huron River watershed, 2016. Water parameters are assessed based on water quality criteria for the recommended Aquatic Life Use designations. Please refer to Beneficial Use Designations and Recommendations within this report for details about use recommendations.

Page 42 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Stream (Stream Code) use designation a

12‐digit Parameter (value) — (units are µg/L for metals, C° for temperature Station WAU b River Mile and mg/L for dissolved oxygen)d Huron River (12‐001‐000) EWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01W01 06‐06 14.65R none 501030 06‐06 12.3 none 501050 06‐06 11.85 none 501040 06‐06 8.01 none K01W31 06‐06 0.7 DO min: 3.44 Rattlesnake Creek (12‐001‐003) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01W34 06‐05 2.37 DO min: 1.51 K01W36 06‐05 0.23 none West Branch Rattlesnake Creek (12‐001‐004) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 501080 06‐05 1.38 none Village Creek (12‐001‐001) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01G19 06‐06 1.12 ‐ Mud Brook (12‐002‐000) MWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01W28 06‐06 3.01 ‐ East Branch Huron River (12‐100‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01W22 06‐01 24.67 ‐ K01W21 06‐01 20.96 ‐ K01W19 06‐04 13.66 none K01S11 06‐04 6.85 none K01S10 06‐04 6.13 none 501070 06‐04 1.47 none Norwalk Creek (12‐103‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS (PWS @ 0.11 and 4.02 (Norwalk)) K01W23 06‐03 5.56 none 204705 06‐03 ‐ 204706 06‐03 ‐ K01P03 06‐03 0.13 none UT (0.38) to Norwalk Creek (12‐103‐001) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01G20 06‐03 1.62 ‐ Cole Creek (12‐101‐001) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01W20 06‐02 6.52 ‐ K01P04 06‐02 0.14 none West Branch Huron River (12‐200‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS (PWS @ RM 8.52 (Monroeville) and 33.8 (Willard)) K01G10 04‐02 47.47 none K01W11 04‐02 42.23 none K01P06 04‐02 38.4 none K01G12 04‐03 35.34 none 303473 04‐03 33.8 none

K01W18 04‐05 29.18 none West Branch Huron River (12‐200‐000) EWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01P05 04‐05 22.73 none K01W17 04‐05 16.59 none K01K16 04‐05 13.34 none 303472 04‐06 8.52 none

K01W25 04‐06 7.60R Temp. max: 24.8 K01S12 04‐06 3.67R Temp. max: 25.7 UT (48.05) to W.Br. Huron R. (12‐200‐008) a.k.a. Hale’s Ditch, a.k.a. Shiloh Ditch WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS

Page 43 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Stream (Stream Code) use designation a

12‐digit Parameter (value) — (units are µg/L for metals, C° for temperature Station WAU b River Mile and mg/L for dissolved oxygen)d K01G09 04‐02 0.12 none Marsh Run (12‐210‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01G13 04‐01 7.53 ‐ K01K18 04‐01 0.2 none UT (3.12) to Marsh Run (12‐210‐001) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01G14 04‐01 0.28 ‐ Walnut Creek (12‐200‐006) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01P13 04‐03 0.98 ‐ Holiday Lake Tributary (12‐200‐002) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01P10 04‐04 2.97 none UT (2.80) to Holiday Lake Tributary (12‐200‐003) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01G22 04‐04 0.17 ‐ Jacobs Creek (12‐200‐004) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01P11 04‐04 0.62 none Slate Run (12‐206‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01W16 05‐02 10.42 ‐ K01S03 05‐02 4.10R none West Branch Mud Run (12‐208‐000) a.k.a. Shriner Ditch WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01W14 05‐02 0.52 ‐ East Branch Mud Run (12‐207‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01W15 05‐01 1.38 DO min: 3.4, 2.49, 2.71 303491 05‐01 6.41 ‐ Frink Run (12‐203‐001) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS (PWS @ RM 4.83 (Bellevue)) 303492 05‐03 7.15 ‐ 303471 05‐03 4.8 none K01P08 05‐03 0.09 none UT (5.83) to Frink Run (12‐203‐001) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS 303493 05‐03 2.01 ‐ Seymour Creek (12‐201‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01W27 05‐04 0.13 none Megginson Creek (12‐202‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01W24 05‐04 0.59 ‐ Clayton Ditch (12‐200‐001) MWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01G17 05‐05 4.09 ‐ Clayton Ditch (12‐200‐001) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01G16 05‐05 0.01 DO min: 2.27 a Use designations: Aquatic Life Habitat Water Supply Recreation MWH ‐ modified warmwater IWS ‐ industrial water supply PCR ‐ primary contact habitat WWH ‐ warmwater habitat AWS ‐ agricultural water supply SCR ‐ secondary contact LRW – limited resource water PWS‐ public water supply BWR ‐bathing water b Watershed Assessment Unit within HUC8 04100012 c Undesignated [WWH criteria apply to ‘undesignated’ surface waters.] d Use of “‐” indicates no chemistry data was collected at this site.

 Dissolved oxygen (DO) exceedances are less than of the outside mixing zone minimum DO criteria (EWH 5.0; WWH 4.0; MWH (HELP ecoregion) 2.5 mg/L) (OAC 3745‐1‐35, Table 35‐1).  Temperature exceedances are greater than of daily maximum temperature criteria (OAC 3745‐1‐35, Table 35‐11 G).  Reporting values ‐ DO, TDS: mg/L; Iron, Selenium: µg/L; Temperature: degrees centigrade.

Page 44 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table 8. Exceedances of Ohio Water Quality Standards criteria (OAC 3745‐1) for chemical and physical parameters derived from diel monitoring in the Huron River watershed, 2016. Criteria are assessed based on criteria for the recommended Aquatic Life Use Designations, please refer to Beneficial Use Designations and Recommendations within this report for details about use recommendations. Sondes were deployed at 26 sites, with the majority of sites being sampled twice. The first deployment was 6/28‐30/2016 and 46‐51 hours of data were collected at 24 sites. The second was 8/02‐04/2016 resulting in 46‐50 hours of data collection at 25 sites. One site, West Branch Huron River at St. Rte. 162 (RM 29.18), was only sampled during the first survey. Two sites, West Branch Huron River at Lamereaux Rd. (RM 3.67) and Seymour Creek at Lamereaux Rd. (RM 0.13), were only sampled during the second survey. Exceedances occurring during the first survey are identified in bold. Sonde water quality monitors record hourly readings for the duration of the deployment. Consequently, exceedances can be presented as both a measure of magnitude and duration. Rolling 24‐hour averages were calculated using the hourly readings for comparison against the average DO criteria. The duration is the count of consecutive hours that exceeded the criteria. The magnitude of an exceedance is presented as the most extreme value measured that exceeds the criteria. The duration is presented first followed by the magnitude in parenthesis on the table. Applicable water quality criteria include: temperaturea; average DOb; minimum DOc; pHd; and specific conductancee.

Stream (Stream Code) use designation a

12‐digit Parameter (value) — (units are µg/L for metals, C° for temperature Station WAU b River Mile and mg/L for dissolved oxygen) Huron River (12‐001‐000) EWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01W01 06‐06 14.65R Temp. max: 5 (30.8); 5 (30.9) 501030 06‐06 12.3 Temp. max: 4 (29.8); 4 (30.0) 501050 06‐06 11.85 Temp. max: 1 (29.5); 3 (29.7) Rattlesnake Creek (12‐001‐003) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01W34 06‐05 2.37 DO min: 9 (3.1); 22 (3.2); 13 (2.5) K01W36 06‐05 0.23 none East Branch Huron River (12‐100‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01S11 06‐04 6.85 none 501070 06‐04 1.47 Temp. max: 4 (30.9); 5 (31.3) Norwalk Creek (12‐103‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS (PWS @ 0.11 and 4.02 (Norwalk)) K01P03 06‐03 0.13 none Cole Creek (12‐101‐001) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01P04 06‐02 0.14 none West Branch Huron River (12‐200‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS (PWS @ RM 8.52 (Monroeville) and 33.8 (Willard)) K01G10 04‐02 47.47 none K01W11 04‐02 42.23 none K01P06 04‐02 38.4 none K01G12 04‐03 35.34 none K01W18 04‐05 29.18 none West Branch Huron River (12‐200‐000) EWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01P05 04‐05 22.73 none K01K16 04‐05 13.34 none K01W25 04‐06 7.60 Temp. max: 5 (30.3) K01S12 04‐06 3.67 Temp. max: 6 (32.0); 6 (32.4) Marsh Run (12‐210‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01K18 04‐01 0.2 none

Page 45 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Stream (Stream Code) use designation a

12‐digit Parameter (value) — (units are µg/L for metals, C° for temperature Station WAU b River Mile and mg/L for dissolved oxygen) Holiday Lake Tributary (12‐200‐002) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01P10 04‐04 2.97 none Jacobs Creek (12‐200‐004) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01P11 04‐04 0.62 none Slate Run (12‐206‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01S03 05‐02 4.10 Temp. max: 4 (31.2); 1 (30); 5 (31.8); 6 (33.3) pH: 2 (9.1); 1 (9.1) DO min: 6 (3.0); 7 (2.9) Frink Run (12‐203‐001) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS (PWS @ RM 4.83 (Bellevue)) K01P08 05‐03 0.09 Temp. max: 1 (29.5) DO min: 4 (3.8); 12 (3.4) Seymour Creek (12‐201‐000) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01W27 05‐04 0.13 Temp. max: 2 (29.8) DO min: 6 (3.5); 1 (3.3) Clayton Ditch (12‐200‐001) WWH – PCR – AWS – IWS K01G16 05‐05 0.01 none Notes: ECBP – Eastern Corn Belt Plains; HELP – Huron Erie Lake Plain. a The general Lake Erie basin daily maximum temperature criteria apply; See OAC 3745‐1‐35, Table 35‐11(G). b Applicable minimum 24‐hour average DO criterion ‐ WWH: 5.0 mg/L; EWH: 6.0 mg/L.. c Applicable minimum DO criterion ‐ WWH: 4.0 mg/L; EWH: 5.0 mg/L. d The criteria for pH is 6.5‐9.0 S.U. For EWH an additional requirement of “no change within that range attributable to human‐induced conditions” is expected. e The criteria for specific conductance is 2,400 µS/cm; based on the equivalence of a 1500 mg/L total dissolved solids criteria at 25 degrees centigrade.  Reporting values ‐ DO: mg/L; pH: S.U.; Temperature: degrees centigrade.

Weight of Evidence Nutrient Assessment Nutrients were measured at each water sampling location, including ammonia, nitrate+nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus and orthophosphate. Total phosphorus and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (ammonia + nitrate + nitrite) are presented in Table 9 as geometric means and summarized as risk categories based on Miltner (2010). These risk categories are not the means used to determine a causal association of nutrients to biological response. Therefore, in addition to nutrient monitoring, measurements were taken at a subset of locations to represent the algal biomass and associated dissolved oxygen production and consumption. The purpose of the nutrient monitoring summarized in this report is to consider the effect of nutrients on the biological conditions in the local streams. There is considerable concern in Lake Erie, which the Huron river is tributary to, about annual and spring phosphorus loads. There are separate efforts being undertaken aimed at addressing these issues. Chlorophyll concentrations from benthic algae (attached to bottom substrates) are measured as a proxy for algal community biomass in wadeable streams and small rivers, while chlorophyll concentrations measured from sestonic algae (suspended in the water column) serve as a proxy for algal abundance in large rivers. Physical factors such as width-depth ratio, time of travel and longitudinal gradient may largely determine whether sestonic or benthic algae drive production and respiration. However, sestonic algae typically dominate streams defined as large rivers, and benthic algae typically dominate small streams. Miltner (2010) identified benthic chlorophyll levels that broadly demarcate enrichment status relative to Ohio. Streams with less than 90 mg/m2 can be considered least disturbed and atypical for Ohio. Benthic chlorophyll levels between 90-183 mg/m2 are typical for Ohio streams with modest amounts of agriculture

Page 46 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

or wastewater loadings. Levels between 183-320 mg/m2 are typical of streams draining agricultural landscapes or that are effluent dominated. Chlorophyll levels exceeding 320 mg/m2 characterize over- enrichment or nuisance conditions. A review of studies on sestonic chlorophyll-a by Dodds (2006), which included some Midwestern streams, suggests that concentrations of 40-100 μg/L sestonic chlorophyll-a identify eutrophic conditions while concentrations >100 μg/L indicate hyper-eutrophic conditions. Ohio and other states have been developing nutrient reduction strategies in recent years to address cultural eutrophication (USEPA 2015, Ohio EPA 2014, Miltner 2010, Heiskary and Markus 2003). Wide diel (24-hour) DO ranges associated with eutrophication are caused by excessive photosynthesis (O2 production) during daylight hours and respiration (O2 consumption) at night. The most recent investigations by Ohio EPA have identified a diel DO range of 6.5 mg/L as a threshold generally protective of biological and stream quality; diel DO ranges greater than 6.5 mg/L are indicative of eutrophication in Ohio streams and are likely over-enriched (Ohio EPA 2014). Figure 8 shows a longitudinal representation of the nutrient assessment data collected on the West Branch Huron River and Huron River mainstem. Total phosphorus geometric means were generally in the low risk category except for two sites on the West Branch at RM 47.47 and 38.40. These sites are near the wastewater discharges from the Shiloh (via Shiloh Ditch) and Plymouth wastewater discharges, respectively. On the Huron River mainstem there are increases in the seasonal total phosphorus geometric means at RM 12.30, downstream of the confluence with Rattlesnake Creek (Norwalk WWTP), and again at RM 11.85, downstream of the Milan WWTP. However, the values remain in the low risk category. All DIN season geometric means were in the low risk category but again there are slight increases downstream of the wastewater discharges. The diel range of DO was above the threshold of 6.5 mg/L at two sites — the West Branch at RM 22.73 and the mainstem at RM 14.65. The benthic chlorophyll-a data generally indicated low benthic algal biomass with only one site on the West Branch at RM 29.18 having a value that was elevated into the moderate range. Sestonic algae was low throughout the survey area. Figure 9 is a representation of the nutrient assessment data collected on tributaries throughout the Huron River study area. Total phosphorus generally fell into the low risk category. Two exceptions are on Shiloh Ditch and Jacobs Creek, downstream of the Shiloh and Willard WWTPs, respectively. DIN was also generally in the low risk category. Two exceptions are on Rattlesnake Creek and Jacobs Creek, downstream of the Norwalk and Willard WWTPs, respectively. Three of the sites — on the tributaries of Marsh Run, Slate Run and Seymour Creek — had diel DO ranges above the threshold of 6.5 mg/L. These tributaries all had low algal biomass based on low observed benthic chlorophyll values. Benthic chlorophyll indicated moderate algal biomass at two sites on Jacobs Creek and Shiloh Ditch, both having total phosphorus that was elevated into the moderate risk category.

Page 47 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Figure 8. Longitudinal representation of diel DO, benthic/sestonic chlorophyll‐a, TP and DIN used to evaluate the impact of nutrients on the mainstem Huron River and West Branch Huron River. Relevant benchmarks for chlorophyll‐a and nutrient concentrations (Dodds 2006, Miltner 2010, Ohio EPA 2014) are presented within their respective plots. Boxes on DO plots are shaded if the diel range exceeds the benchmark of 6.5 mg/L (Miltner 2010). The diel DO and chlorophyll data were collected from Aug. 3 – 4, 2016; except for the west branch sites at RM 3.67 and 29.18, and the mainstem site at RM 11.85, which were collected June 29 – 30, 2016. Chemistry grab samples are from the period of June 15 – Oct. 15, 2016.

Page 48 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Figure 9. Representation of diel DO, benthic/sestonic chlorophyll‐a, TP and DIN used to evaluate the impact of nutrients on tributaries to the Huron River. Benchmarks for chlorophyll‐a and nutrients (Dodds 2006, Miltner 2010, Ohio EPA 2014) are presented within their respective plots. Boxes on DO plots are shaded if the diel range exceeds the benchmark of 6.5 mg/L. The DO and chlorophyll data were collected on two surveys from June 28 – 30, 2016 and Aug. 2 – 3, 2016. Chemistry grab samples are from the period of June 15 – Oct. 15, 2016.

Page 49 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table 9. Nutrient sampling results in the Huron River, summer (June 15 – October 15) 2016. The seasonal geometric mean for each site was used to assign a site to a risk category based on Miltner, 2010. Please note the risk categories do not directly translate to Cause/Source determinations for Aquatic Life Use impairment. Rather, this data serves as one of many lines of evidence in the Cause/Source determination‐process. However, this information does give one a general sense of how individual site‐nutrient levels compares to statewide data. DIN Stream (Stream Code) Total Phosphorus (Ammonia + Nitrate + Nitrite) Drainage Samples Geometric Samples Geometric Risk Station RM AUa Area (mi2) (#) Mean (#) Mean Categoryb Huron River (12‐001‐000) K01W01 14.65 06 06 350.0 7 0.04 7 0.20 L 501030 12.30 06 06 371.0 11 0.07 11 1.74 L 501050 11.00 06 06 383.0 7 0.09 7 1.86 L 501040 8.01 06 06 386.0 5 0.06 5 0.75 L K01W31 0.70 06 06 406.0 5 0.14 5 0.50 M Rattlesnake Creek (12‐001‐003) K01W34 2.37 06 05 8.3 6 0.07 7 0.31 L K01W36 0.23 06 05 17.7 7 0.12 7 8.93 H West Branch Rattlesnake Creek (12‐001‐004) 501080 1.38 06 05 3.4 5 0.22 5 15.97 H Village Creek (12‐001‐001) K01G19 1.12 06 06 10.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Mud Brook (12‐002‐000) K01W28 3.01 06 06 4.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ East Branch Huron River (12‐100‐000) K01W22 24.67 06 01 7.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ K01G21 19.11 06 01 16.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ K01W19 13.66 06 04 32.0 6 0.04 6 0.27 L K01S11 6.85 06 04 37.0 7 0.05 7 0.31 L K01S10 6.13 06 04 83.9 5 0.04 5 0.25 L 501070 1.47 06 04 87.0 6 0.03 7 0.19 L Norwalk Creek (12‐103‐000) K01W23 5.56 06 03 6.4 5 0.14 5 0.90 M K01P03 0.13 06 03 20.8 7 0.06 7 0.37 L UT (0.38) to Norwalk Creek (12‐103‐001) K01G20 1.62 06 03 8.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Cole Creek (12‐101‐001) K01W20 6.52 06 02 7.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ K01P04 0.14 06 02 23.2 7 0.03 7 0.27 L West Branch Huron River (12‐200‐000) K01G10 47.47 04 02 10.8 2 0.17 2 0.86 M K01W11 42.23 04 02 18.5 7 0.10 8 0.93 L K01P06 38.4 04 02 27.2 7 0.20 8 1.17 M K01G12 35.34 04 03 64.0 7 0.11 8 0.75 L 303473 33.8 04 03 70.3 6 0.12 6 0.63 L K01W18 29.18 04 05 88.0 7 0.06 7 0.46 L K01P05 22.73 04 05 120.0 7 0.10 8 0.76 L K01W17 16.59 04 05 124.0 6 0.05 6 0.55 L K01K16 13.34 04 05 131.0 7 0.06 7 0.50 L 303472 8.52 05 06 215.3 5 0.05 5 0.29 L

Page 50 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

DIN Stream (Stream Code) Total Phosphorus (Ammonia + Nitrate + Nitrite) Drainage Samples Geometric Samples Geometric Risk Station RM AUa Area (mi2) (#) Mean (#) Mean Categoryb K01W25 7.60R 05 06 217.0 6 0.05 7 0.16 L K01S12 3.67R 05 06 220.0 6 0.05 6 0.24 L UT (48.05) to W.Br. Huron R. (12‐200‐008) a.k.a. Hale’s Ditch, a.k.a. Shiloh Ditch K01G09 0.12 04 02 6.2 7 0.27 8 1.39 M Marsh Run (12‐210‐000) K01G13 7.53 04 01 6.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ K01K18 0.20 04 01 31.2 7 0.09 8 0.39 L UT (3.12) to Marsh Run (12‐210‐001) K01G14 0.28 04 01 7.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Walnut Creek (12‐200‐006) K01P13 0.98 04 03 9.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Holiday Lake Tributary (12‐200‐002) K01P10 2.97 04 04 14.1 7 0.11 8 0.53 L UT (2.80) to Holiday Lake Tributary (12‐200‐003) K01G22 0.17 04 04 5.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Jacobs Creek (12‐200‐004) K01P11 0.62 04 04 1.9 7 0.26 8 8.99 H Slate Run (12‐206‐000) K01W16 10.42 05 02 12.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ K01S03 4.10 05 02 38.4 7 0.11 7 0.14 L West Branch Mud Run (12‐208‐000) a.k.a. Shriner Ditch K01W14 0.52 05 02 5.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ East Branch Mud Run (12‐207‐000) 303491 6.42 05 01 5.9 6 0.10 6 0.44 L K01W15 1.38 05 01 15.1 6 0.10 6 0.44 L Frink Run (12‐203‐001) 303492 7.15 05 03 9.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 303471 4.80 05 03 25.4 5 0.13 5 0.35 L K01P08 0.09 05 03 29.8 7 0.03 7 0.17 L UT (5.83) to Frink Run (12‐203‐001) 303493 2.01 05 03 9.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Seymour Creek (12‐201‐000) K01W27 0.13 05 04 16.4 6 0.04 6 0.22 L Megginson Creek (12‐202‐000) K01W24 0.59 05 04 8.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Clayton Ditch (12‐200‐001) K01G17 4.09 05 05 7.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ K01G16 0.01 05 05 16.3 7 0.03 7 0.35 L a Numbers in this column are the last four digits of this assessment units HUC12. The first eight digits are 04100012. b Risk categories are L, M and H for low, medium and high, respectively based on Miltner, 2010. Sediment Chemistry Sediment samples were collected following the Sediment Sampling Guide and Methodologies, 3rd Edition (Ohio EPA-DSW, 2012). The goal is to collect a representative sample that is composed of more than 30 percent silt and clay particles. These fine-grained particles are much more physically, chemically and biologically reactive because they hold more interstitial water and have unbalanced electrical charges that can attract contaminants.

Page 51 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Most of the streams of the Huron River basin contain little in the way of fine-grained sediment in large enough volumes to have much of an ecological impact. Fine particles are predominantly washed downstream at higher flows. Exceptions to this include impounded segments, isolated eddies and in the headwaters where feeder streams are channelized. Two sediment samples were collected. Samples were collected in the Huron River at Mason Road (501040) and the Huron River at U.S. Route 6 (K01W31). Sediment samples were analyzed for percent solids, TOC, metals, total phosphorus, mercury and s-VOCs (PAHs). Sediment sample results were evaluated using Tier I procedures for aquatic life described in the Guidance on Evaluating Sediment Contaminant Results (Ohio EPA, 2010). Numeric Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) that are used include Ohio Sediment Reference Values (SRVs) for metals contained in the Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance (Ohio EPA-DERR, 2008) and toxicity values in the Development and Evaluation of Consensus‐based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems (MacDonald et. al., 2000). When contaminants are at concentrations above the SQGs appropriate treatment options should be explored to remediate the problem or consideration should be given to investigate if bioavailability affects toxicity. This would likely require completion of further studies. Heavy metals and PAHs are common contaminants in urban areas because of vehicular emissions, asphalt pavement and their use in industrial processes. For example, mercury is used in the production of chlorine gas and caustic soda and in the manufacture of batteries and compact fluorescent light bulbs. It is also common in the atmosphere from coal burned to produce electricity. Besides urban storm water runoff and atmospheric deposition, other likely sources include municipal and industrial wastewater and combined sewer overflows in municipal sewage collection systems. All results for sediment metals were below the SRV for all detected parameters. No metals exceedances of the PEC were observed. Detections were reported for bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate at both sampling locations. Both results were “B” qualified as estimated due to detection in the sample and the lab blank. In addition, bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate is commonly found in many plastic products including PVC. Physical Habitat Results Physiography and Ecoregions Arising in the glaciated Till Plains of northern Richland and south-central Huron counties, the Huron River basin collects its headwaters from a combination of Wisconsin-aged end moraines (Defiance and Ft. Wayne), ground moraine and to a limited extent inter-morainal lacustrine deposits (for example, Marsh Run subbasin south of Willard, a.k.a. Willard Marsh). Affiliated waters coalesce to form and feed the main tributaries of the basin, the East and West Branches. These principal drainages proceed northward, roughly in parallel, entering the lake plain southwest of Norwalk, before converging to form the Huron River mainstem, near Milan. The mainstem continues north for approximately 15 miles before discharging to Lake Erie at the city of Huron. Draining two of Ohio’s five ecoregions, the Huron River is a trans-boundary system. Well over 70 percent of the watershed is contained within the ECBP ecoregion, including, with few exceptions, the East and West Branches and most of their respective tributaries. The northern and northwestern limits of the basin are located within the HELP ecoregion. Streams that are either contained entirely within this area or are located near the ecoregion boundary and show a predominance of HELP features include the entire length of the Huron River mainstem, minor direct mainstem tributaries (Mud Brook, Rattlesnake Creek and Village Creek) and lower West Branch tributaries draining portions of south-central Erie and northwestern Huron counties (Seymore Creek, Megginson Creek and Clayton Ditch). Although the lowest segments of the

Page 52 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

East and West Branches are technically situated within the HELP, these subbasins arise from and course through a heavily glaciated landscape, and thus serve as a reverse valley train of sorts, exporting great quantities of coarse glacial alluvium (till and outwash) well into the HELP. As a result, these outlets in many ways retain the form and function of Till Plains streams despite penetrating the HELP ecoregion. In general terms the ECBP is characterized by flat to gently rolling topography, primarily represented by ground moraine, with areas of higher relief defined by dissected end or recessional moraines, kames, outwash terraces and related landforms of glacial origin. Soils here are primarily derived from moderate- to high-lime glacial drift. Natural drainage can vary significantly, but soils are typically well to moderately well drained. The degree of hydromodification within the ECBP required to meet social or economic needs varies greatly. This variation is based on subregional or local factors that may have necessitated drainage or other hydrological modification greater than commonly needed or observed throughout the region. However, the combination of naturally adequate drainage and moderate relief generally tended to obviate the need for extensive hydrological manipulation. By comparison, the HELP ecoregion is characterized by a broad and nearly level lake plain, giving way to extensive lacustrine deposits of laminated clays, sand and related still-water deposits in the heart of the region (Pavey et al. 1999, Omernik 1986, Omernik and Gallant 1987). Local relief is very low, with relic beach ridges providing nominal elevation above the plain. Soils are poorly drained and derived mainly from a mix of lacustrine deposits (clayey silts and sand) and lake-planed moraine. Given the low relief and the dominance of clayey soils, stream gradients are typically very low and adjacent uplands are naturally poorly drained. To facilitate human habitation, agriculture and other economic land uses, extensive drainage activities have been undertaken within this region as early as the 1850s (ditching, dredging, field tiling, etc.). Over the following 160 years, most of the stream networks draining the HELP have been, to varying degrees, directly channelized or otherwise hydrologically modified to efficiently receive and convey surface and subsurface drainage (Trautman 1981). The scale, pervasive nature, and continued maintenance of these drainage improvements, coupled with the prevalence of clayey soils and low stream power, have rendered many of the associated waterways permanently debilitated in terms of riverine macrohabitat and associated ambient biological potential. In recognition of the innate physical limitations of this region and its corresponding absence of least impacted wading and headwater reference conditions, biocriteria for the HELP were derived from the upper 10% (90th percentile) of all HELP data collected between 1979 and 1986 (Ohio EPA 1987b). The above descriptions of the ECBP and HELP ecoregions are generalized and do not necessarily capture or adequately describe the diverse conditions within the Huron River study area. Although the basin does physically encompass portions of both the ECBP and HELP ecoregions, much of the mainstem and its tributaries lie on or near the boundaries or are contained within the least typical or least representative portions of these regions. As a result, otherwise well-documented distinctions between the two regions regarding land form, land use, drainage, stream characteristics and associated ambient biological potential or demonstrated performance are not necessarily as sharp as they would otherwise be in the heart of either the ECBP or HELP. In addition to the transitional nature of much of the watershed, divergence from the ecoregional norm also appeared a result of the convergence of multiple physiographic subsections within the Huron River watershed. Within the Till Plains region, three distinct subregions are represented: Central Ohio Clayey Till; Berea Headlands Till; and Galion Glaciate Plateau (Ohio DNR 1998). Although a detailed description and discussion of these subsections are beyond the scope of this report, important characteristics of each of these areas likely influenced, either directly or indirectly, macrohabitat quality and thus ambient potential of associated rivers and streams.

Page 53 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

A prime example of highly atypical physiography within the ECBP are provided by Wisconsin-aged lacustrine deposits within the headwaters of the West Branch. Inter-morainal proglacial lakes gave rise to large wetland complexes through which headwaters and selected upper tributaries of the West Branch flow. Given the naturally poor drainage attending these areas, associated waters have been subjected to extensive hydromodification, akin to that which typifies rivers and streams of the HELP. Waters of the Huron River study area so affected include, but are not limited to, the upper West Branch and tributaries (Shiloh Ditch) and the Marsh Run subbasin (Marsh Run and tributaries), the latter draining the intensively cultivated muck soils near Celeryville. Conversely, the outlets of the East and West Branches and the upper five miles of the Huron mainstem are within the HELP ecoregion, but substrate composition, gradient and channel form and function are more akin to what is commonly encountered within the ECBP. As discussed previously, these are true boundary or transitional waters. Given their relatively large size, many important characteristics of the ecoregion from which they arise (ECBP) are exported to the receiving region (HELP), resulting in macrohabitat complexity far greater that the HELP alone would predict. Macrohabitat Quality Discussion of the influence of physical habitat and riparian conditions on ambient biological performance, or potential, of the Huron River study area will take two basic forms: longitudinal (upstream to downstream, for larger water bodies) and aggregate assessments. The discussion of tributaries will either be treated in the aggregate, or, if sufficiently large, tributaries or subbasins will be broken out separately for discussion. In addition to the use of a standardized habitat measurement (QHEI), analysis will also consider or describe consequential regional, subregional and local factors (physiography, geology, drainage practices, land use and soils, etc.). For rivers, streams or segments draining an area greater than 20 square miles, mean QHEI values equal to or greater than 60 generally indicate a level of macrohabitat quality sufficient to support an assemblage of aquatic organisms fully consistent with the typical WWH aquatic life use designation. Average or aggregated values at or greater than 75 are generally considered adequate to support fully exceptional (EWH) communities (Rankin 1989 and Rankin 1995). Values between 55 and 45 indicate that 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 (for example, 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. For waters draining less than 20 square miles (headwaters), associated habitat narratives and aquatic life potential, as measured and appraised by the QHEI, vary slightly from those established for larger waters (Ohio EPA 2009). Exceptional conditions are generally indicated by QHEI values greater than 70. Macrohabitat quality ranked as good or otherwise associated with WWH communities, ranges between 70 and 55. QHEI scores below this range down to 43 are considered fair, indicating limiting factors are present and will likely exert a negative influence upon aquatic communities. Values below 43 demark macrohabitat in the poor to very poor range. The accrual of multiple high-influence negative features typical of waters so characterized indicates significant habitat deficit and an associated higher probability of habitat-related aquatic life use impairment, again, in the absence of compensatory features. In total, the 2016 assessment of the Huron River study area included 46 sampling stations, deployed among 24 water bodies, yielding a cumulative assessment of approximately 152 linear stream miles. Most streams draining an area greater than five square miles were evaluated. This effort included the entire length of the East and West Branches and their associated tributaries. Biological monitoring on the Huron River

Page 54 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

mainstem, however, was limited to the upper five miles, from its formation at the confluence of the East and West Branches, near Milan, down to approximately RM 11.0, near the I-80/90 turnpike. The lower limit of the mainstem sampling effort marked the point at which the Huron River transitions from a moderate gradient, free-flowing river, to a low energy lake-affected channel. Given the absence of reliable biological measurements for water so described, the lower 10 miles were left unassessed in terms of biocriteria. A matrix of QHEI scores and macrohabitat features, by station and ecoregion, are presented in Table 10. Performance of the QHEI, by stream, subbasin or basin-wide aggregation are presented in Figure 10 and Figure 11.

Page 55 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table 10. A matrix of QHEI scores and macrohabitat features of river and streams contained within the Huron River study area, 2016.

Page 56 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Page 57 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

60

50 EWH

40 WWH IBI 30

20 MWH

10 100

80 EWH

60 WWH Habitat Limits

QHEI 40

20 n=3 n=5 n=11 n=19 n=5 n=3 0 Huron River Minor Huron R. West Branch W. Br. Huron R. East Branch E. Br. Huron R. Tributaries Huron River Tributaries Huron River Tributaries

Figure 10. Performance of the IBI and QHEI for the Huron River study area, 2016: mainstem and tributaries. Horizontal dashed lines and shaded area indicate sundry QHEI benchmarks (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a) and tiered aquatic life use biocriteria.

Page 58 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Headwaters (<20 sq. miles) Wading (>20 sq. miles) 60 Huron River (HELP) Minor Huron R. Tribs. (HELP) W. Br. Huron River (ECBP) W. Br. Hu ron R. Tribs. (ECBP) 50 E. Br. Huron River (HELP/ECBP) EWH - Statewide E. Br. Huron R. Tribs. (ECBP)

40 Ap plicable b iocrit erion an d a rea of ECBP WWH - HW/Wade no nsig nifican t d ep arture (E WH an d WWH) ba sed u pon Ec oregion (HEL P a nd ECBP )

IBI E. Br. Mud Run (RM 6.4) W. Br. Huron R. (RM 47.5) an d stream size [He adwat ers (HD) a nd Wading (Wade)] 30 HELP WWH - HW/Wade Applicable MWH headwater biocriterion, HELP ECBP MWH HW an d ECBP ec oregions 20 HELP MWH HW Values so id en tified depart ed signif ica nt ly Mud Brook (MWH, H ELP) from a pp lica ble bioc rite rio n Upper Clayton Ditch (WWH, HELP) QHEI benchmarks for associated aqutaic life uses (EWH, WWH, MWH, LRW) 10 100

80 HW/Wading EWH Benchmarks

HW/Wading WWH Benchmarks 60

HW/Wading - Habitat Limits QHEI 40

20

0 1 10 100 1000 Drainage Area (miles2)

Figure 11. Distributions of IBI and QHEI scores from the Huron River study area, by stream size (drainage area). Figures display the results from both the ECBP and HELP ecoregions (Odesnik 1987 and Omernik and Gallant 1988). Vertical lines demark headwaters (<20 miles2) and wading (≥20 miles2) sites. Horizontal dashed lines and shaded areas indicate sundry QHEI benchmarks (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a) and tiered use biocriteria. Fair to poor QHEI values are outlined in red. Note concentration of subpar QHEIs from West Branch Huron tributaries.

At the basin scale, QHEI values from the study area ranged between 38.5 and 89.5, with a mean score of 61.3 (+28.28, two SD). Narratively, these values correspond to poor and exceptional, respectively, with typical conditions described as good, or otherwise compatible with the basic WWH use designation. The distribution of QHEI values showed that macrohabitat quality ranged widely throughout the study area. Twenty-eight percent of monitoring stations yielded QHEI values less than 50.0, representing 13 sites, streams or stream reaches that are potentially habitat constrained. Deficient macrohabitat was, however, not uniformly distributed within the Huron basin and instead was concentrated, by and large, in small headwaters, primarily within the West Branch Huron River catchment. Habitat deficiencies common to most of these streams included: channelization; ephemeral discharge; fair to poor channel development; riparian encroachment; and heavy to moderate siltation. Many of these deficits stemmed from or were otherwise attendant to hydromodification, although natural limiting factors were present at selected sites.

Page 59 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

It is important to note that only five of these 13 sites represented poor conditions (generally QHEI<45). The remainder, although subpar, were within the fair range or middling in nature. As the predictive power of the QHEI is greatest where multiple observation are made on a single water body, the results described above do not necessarily indicate the exclusion of WWH communities. Instead, these data describe the prevailing conditions at these sites as being modified through human agency or naturally limited, or both. Associated macrohabitat deficits may negatively influence the competency of these streams to consistently support diverse aquatic communities, particularly in the absence of mitigating or compensatory factors (for example, strong ground water influence, proximity to larger waters or non-representative sampling). Outside of the habitat limits identified above, most non-headwaters were found to contain good to exceptional macrohabitat. In general, these sites contained a full suite of positive channel, substrate and riparian features that typically included well-developed riffle and run complexes (particularly on larger waters), pools of adequate depth, vegetated riparian and coarse substrates generally unburdened with excessive clayey silts. Except for water bodies contained entirely within the HELP ecoregion, dominant substrates were largely of glacial origin (sand, gravel, cobble and boulder). With few exceptions, native bedrock emerged as an additional dominant substrate type through the lower reaches of larger streams and the outlets of associated lower tributaries. Here, these streams have cut down to bedrock, over which a mix of native rock and coarse glacial alluvium has been deposited. Taken together, near and instream conditions described above were found consistent with WWH aquatic communities and with selected segments or reaches competent to support EWH assemblages. Fish Community Results A total of 60,858 fish comprising 59 species and five hybrids were collected from the Huron River watershed between July and August 2016. The survey effort included 47 monitoring stations (65 fish sampling events) distributed among 24 water bodies, evaluating 152.0 cumulative linear stream miles. Fish species classified as rare, threatened, endangered or otherwise recognized for special conservation status by the Ohio DNR (2017) were absent from the study area. Other intolerant, rare, declining or otherwise ecologically important species included: American brook lamprey, black redhorse, mimic shiner, rosyface shiner, stonecat madtom and bigeye chub (Ohio EPA 1987b and 1996b). Although not presently imperiled, species so defined have experienced a significant reduction in their historical distributions statewide or have been found to be sensitive to a wide range of environmental disturbances, or both. As such, they are generally associated with good water quality and intact riverine habitats in Ohio. New records for the Huron watershed included round goby, an exotic invasive species. A total of 136 individuals were collected from two locations on the Huron River mainstem and a single location on the Mud Brook, a direct tributary to the lower mainstem. Round goby were first collected from the upper great lakes in 1990, with the first Ohio specimens taken from Lake Erie in 1994 (Fuller et al. 1999). Subsequently, this species has experienced a population explosion and is now commonly taken throughout much of Lake Erie and from the lower reaches of most tributaries. Previous Ohio EPA surveys of the Huron River basin in 2002 and 1998 did not indicate the presence of this species. Based upon size, as measured by drainage area, the waters that together comprised the Huron River study area may be divided into three standardized stream classes: headwaters (<20 miles2); wadable streams (20-200 miles2); and small rivers (>200-1000 miles2). In minimally disturbed settings, species composition, structure and functional organization of lotic warm-water fish communities exhibit strong longitudinal zonation. From headwaters to larger lowland drainages, assemblages are regulated by a range of environmental factors (for example, gradient, temperature, discharge, valley type, productivity and the load, use, transport and storage of organic carbon). As postulated by Vannote et al. (1980), together, these Page 60 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020 factors are responsible for, among other community characteristics, successive species replacement and net accrual of taxa with increasing drainage. Deviation from this expected pattern or ecological continuum may be indicative of chronic stress, disturbance or consequential shifts in productivity. Headwaters of the Huron River were found to support 44 species. Numerically dominant fish were: creek chub (25.1 percent); central stoneroller (20.9 percent); white sucker (11.9 percent); striped shiner (8.9 percent); Johnny darter (7.0 percent); and bluntnose minnow (6.4 percent). Together these taxa represented nearly 80 percent of all fish collected within this stream class. Three of the six dominant taxa (creek chub, white sucker, bluntnose minnow) were environmentally tolerant, and species so described accounted for just under half of all fish collected within headwaters. Intolerant or environmentally sensitive fish were generally not well represented within the headwaters, constituting less than five percent of the catch. Due to unacceptable high natural variation, biomass estimates are not made from headwater streams (Ohio EPA 1987b). Forty-four species were observed from wading streams. In terms of numerical abundance, dominant species included: central stoneroller (23.6 percent); creek chub (13.1 percent); white sucker (7.9 percent); striped shiner/rainbow dater (about six percent each); and sand shiner/greenside darter/mottled sculpin (about four percent each). Together these taxa represented 75 percent of all fish collected from this stream class. Although tolerant species (creek chub and white sucker) were well represented within the dominant group, three sensitive species (rainbow darter, greenside darter and sand shiner) and a cool-water associate (mottled sculpin) were among the dominants. Compared against the headwaters, 27 percent of fish taken from the wading stream class were sensitive, representing a five-fold increase. A similar comparison found the proportion of tolerant species reduced by more than half, to 30 percent. In terms of biomass, principal species included: white sucker (21.3 percent); golden redhorse (11.0 percent); creek chub (10.8 percent); Northern hog sucker/central stoneroller (9.4-9.6 percent); black redhorse (7.9 percent); and rockbass/ smallmouth bass (5.1-5.4 percent). Although tolerant species constituted a large proportion of aggregated biomass (41 percent), four of the eight dominant species were environmentally sensitive. Together, sensitive species accounted for 37 percent of total fish biomass taken from wadable streams. Forty-nine species were taken from the largest waters within the Huron River basin (small rivers). The most abundant species within this stream class were: central stoneroller (18 percent); striped shiner (15.8 percent); greenside darter (8.8 percent); bigeye chub (6.8 percent); spotfin shiner (5.2 percent); rainbow darter/rosyface shiner (about five percent each). Tolerant species were absent from the dominant group and accounted for only eight percent of the stream class total. Compared against the results from wadable streams, this represented a significant decline. Four of the seven dominant taxa were sensitive, with the aggregate proportion rising to 42.5 percent. In terms of biomass, dominant species were: common carp (22.5 percent); black redhorse (19 percent); Northern hog sucker (11.9 percent); channel catfish (6.9 percent); smallmouth bass/central stoneroller (about five percent each); and rockbass (4.2 percent). Common carp was the sole representative of tolerant taxa among dominant species. Even when aggregated, tolerant species did not exceed 30 percent of total biomass for the small rivers class. Four of the seven dominant species, including highly intolerant black redhorse, were environmentally sensitive. Aggregated biomass estimates for these larger waters found 44.3 percent sensitive species. Several general observations emerge for the gross descriptions given above. First among these includes blurred distinctions between headwaters and wading stream classes. Each of these supported 44 species, and, in terms of numerical abundance, most of the dominant species were shared (for example, central stoneroller, white sucker, creek chub and striped shiner). Although the species richness for each class were

Page 61 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020 identical, composition did vary, but not greatly, with 82 percent absolute agreement. The differences in species composition were a result of both the loss and accrual of selected fish taxa with increasing drainage area. Regarding all stream classes, the proportion of environmentally tolerant and environmentally sensitive species consistently decreased and increased, respectively, with increasing stream size. This pattern was evident in the distribution of biomass as well, where those data were collected. Both the similarities between the headwaters and wading streams and the marked longitudinal improvement of selected proportional metrics for all waters suggested widespread stress or disturbance within the headwaters, and an associated lessening of that stress with increasing downstream distance. This interpretation is supported by direct field observations and measures of macrohabitat quality, both of which found most headwaters streams in various stages of recovery from prior hydromodification. Furthermore, similar observations and measures found that habitat quality, by and large, improved longitudinally (Figure 10 and Figure 11). Macrohabitat deficits related to hydromodification may serve to limit ambient biological performance directly through habitat loss, or indirectly by limiting the efficient assimilation of background pollutant loads (for example, phosphorus, nitrogen, organic carbon and sediment). A final and intriguing observation must be noted. The proportion of central stoneroller, Ohio’s only native herbivorous fish, was found to be nearly constant. Approximately 20 percent of the catch from each stream class (headwaters, wading streams and small rivers) was concentrated in this species. Although a full vetting and detailed investigation of this observation is well beyond the scope of this report, it is worth noting for no other reason than to stimulate future research or study, as the constancy of this obligate herbivore may reflect standing benthic productivity for all waters within the Huron River basin or possibly reflect a broader phenomenon.

Page 62 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table 11. Sampling stations, descriptive statistics, fish community indices and narratives, Huron River study area, 2016. Stream Drainage Relative Relative River Area Cumulative Number Weight Station ID Milea (miles2) Species (No./0.3km) (kg/0.3km) b QHEI IBI MIwbb Narrativec Huron River (12‐001‐000) K01W01 14.65W,R 350 34 542.4 46.7 87.0 53 9.8 Exceptional 501030 12.3W 371 40 843.7 34.3 79.3 53 9.7 Exceptional 501050 11.8W 383 42 869.3 24.7 76.0 55 10.2 Exceptional Village Creek (12‐001‐001) K01G19 1.12 10.5 14 1,522.0 ‐ 67.0 44 ‐ Good Rattlesnake Creek (12‐001‐003) K01W34 2.37H 8.3 18 1,912.0 ‐ 68.0 50 ‐ Exceptional K01W36 0.23H 17.7 22 736.0 ‐ 59.3 52 ‐ Exceptional West Branch Rattlesnake Creek (12‐001‐004) 501080 1.38H 3.4 13 1,174.0 ‐ 67.0 36 ‐ Marginally Good Mud Brook (12‐002‐000) K01W28 3.01H 4.8 12 670.0 ‐ 41.5 28 ‐ Fair East Branch Huron River (12‐100‐000) K01W22 24.67H 7.8 15 3,427.5 ‐ 45.0 38 ‐ Marginally Good K01G21 19.11H 16.7 19 1,258.5 ‐ 68.0 44 ‐ Good K01W19 13.66W 32 25 1,269.7 27.6 77.5 39 8.4 Marginally Good‐Good K01S11 6.85W 37 24 1,228.5 26.6 69.5 52 9.6 Exceptional 501070 1.47W 87 31 1,793.0 28.6 68.8 52 9.9 Exceptional Cole Creek (12‐101‐000) K01W20 6.52H 7.8 16 1,830.0 ‐ 60.3 44 ‐ Good K01P04 0.14W 23.2 26 1,033.5 12.0 62.3 45 8.1 Good‐Marginally Good Norwalk Creek (12‐103‐000) K01P03 0.13W 20.8 22 742.5 4.9 54.8 48 8.4 Very Good‐Good Trib. To Norwalk Creek (RM 0.38) (12‐103‐001) K01G20 1.62H 8.3 12 1,582.0 ‐ 69.3 44 ‐ Good West Branch Huron River (12‐200‐000) K01G10 47.47H 10.8 14 1,156.5 ‐ 54.5 30 ‐ Fair K01W11 42.23H 18.5 15 1,161.0 19.4 62.5 42 ‐ Good K01P06 38.4W 27.2 18 1,137.5 19.6 70.0 39 8.0 Marginally Good K01G12 35.34W 64 25 1,941.0 42.7 80.5 43 9.7 Good‐Exceptional K01W18 29.18W 88 24 1,365.0 32.0 89.5 52 9.7 Exceptional K01P05 22.73W 120 28 609.7 25.0 72.4 48 9.7 Very Good‐Exceptional K01W17 16.59W 124 28 625.5 20.4 61.25 51 9.3 Exceptional‐Very Good K01K16 13.34W 131 28 815.2 29.8 77.5 52 9.8 Exceptional

Page 63 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Stream Drainage Relative Relative River Area Cumulative Number Weight Station ID Milea (miles2) Species (No./0.3km) (kg/0.3km) b QHEI IBI MIwbb Narrativec K01W25 7.6W,R 217 38 1,788.0 74.9 71.8 55 10.3 Exceptional K01S12 3.7W,R 220 19 982.5 7.1 56.5 46 9.1 Very Good 501090 0.4W 262 29 1,777.5 29.2 79.5 52 10.1 Exceptional Clayton Ditch (12‐200‐001) K01G17 4.09H 7.9 6 50.0 ‐ 38.5 26 ‐ Poor K01G16 0.01H 16.3 13 712.0 ‐ 73.8 36 ‐ Marginally Good Holiday Lake Outlet (12‐200‐002) K01P10 2.97H 14.1 19 723.0 ‐ 82.0 38 ‐ Marginally Good Trib. to Holiday Lake Outlet at RM 2.8 (12‐200‐003) K01G22 0.17H 5.8 14 1,046.0 ‐ 61.0 36 ‐ Marginally Good Walnut Creek (12‐200‐006) K01P13 0.98W 9.6 17 2,307.0 ‐ 50.8 48 ‐ Very Good Shiloh Ditch (12‐200‐008) K01G09 0.12H 6.2 11 2,290.0 ‐ 41.5 36 ‐ Marginally Good Seymore Creek (12‐201‐000) K01W27 0.13H 16.4 14 2,430.0 ‐ 50.5 38 ‐ Marginally Good Megginson Creek (12‐202‐000) K01W24 0.59H 8.2 13 3,956.2 ‐ 44.0 36 ‐ Marginally Good Frink Run (12‐203‐000) 303492 7.15H 9.3 15 3,490.0 ‐ 41.8 38 ‐ Marginally Good K01P08 0.09 29.8 21 2,276.0 13.8 44.3 41 7.8 Good‐Marginally Good Trib. To Frink Run (RM 5.83) (12‐203‐001) 303493 2.01W 9 13 1,314.0 ‐ 40.8 38 ‐ Marginally Good Slate Run (12‐206‐000) K01W16 10.42H 12.2 19 2,631.0 ‐ 47.0 44 ‐ Good K01S03 4.1W,R 38.4 18 2,672.2 9.7 49.9 41 8.7 Good East Branch Mud Run (12‐207‐000) 303491 6.42H 5.9 10 1,838.0 ‐ 42.0 32 ‐ Fair K01W15 1.38H 15.1 16 4,820.6 ‐ 48.8 38 ‐ Marginally Good West Branch Mud Run (12‐208‐000) K01W14 0.52H 5.7 15 3,300.0 ‐ 47.5 44 ‐ Good Marsh Run (12‐210‐000) K01G13 7.53H 6.6 11 1,846.0 ‐ 60.3 36 ‐ Marginally Good K01K18 0.2W 31.2 24 993.7 30.1 63.5 36 8.4 Marginally Good‐Good

Page 64 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Stream Drainage Relative Relative River Area Cumulative Number Weight Station ID Milea (miles2) Species (No./0.3km) (kg/0.3km) b QHEI IBI MIwbb Narrativec Trib. To Marsh Run (RM 3.12) (12‐210‐001) K01G14 0.28H 7.8 19 2,348.0 ‐ 49.0 46 ‐ Very Good a River Mile represents point of record for the station ID. b Biomass not estimated for streams draining <20 mi2 (headwaters), thus MIwb is not applicable to water so identified. c Index scores and associated narratives based upon recommended or existing aquatic life use designation. H Headwater site (draining ≤20 miles2). W Wading site (non‐boat site draining >20 miles2).

Page 65 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016

Macroinvertebrate Community Results Macroinvertebrate communities were evaluated at 47 stations in the Huron River study area in 2016. Qualitative sampling was conducted from all sampling locations and quantitative Hester-Dendy artificial substrate samples were collected from 15 locations. A summary of the macroinvertebrate data is presented in Table 12 and site-specific data can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C. Overall, 34 (72 percent) of the collections met the Warmwater Habitat (WWH) invertebrate community index (ICI) bicriterion or the narrative equivalent. The Huron River mainstem, along with significant reaches of the East and West Branches of the Huron River, at least marginally met the Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH) bicriterion at 13 stations. Contiguous reaches of at least marginal EWH macroinvertebrate attainment were documented on the lower 38.4 miles of West Branch Huron River, the lower 13.6 miles of the East Branch and entire surveyed reach on the Huron River mainstem from RM 14.65 to RM 11.85.

Page 66 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table 12. Summary of macroinvertebrate data collected from artificial substrates (quantitative sampling) and natural substrates (qualitative sampling) in the Huron River study area, June to September 2016. River miles (RM) and drainage areas (Dr. Ar.) are the point of record.

EPT Sensitive Dr. Qual Density CW Predominant Organisms on the Natural Substrates Narrative Station RM Ql./ Taxa ICI Ar. Taxa Qt./Ql Taxa With Tolerance Category(ies) Evaluation Total Ql./Total Huron River (12‐001‐000) Midges (F), hydropsychid caddisflies (MI,F), K01W01 14.65 350 60 20/25 22/28 420/M 0 54 heptageniid mayflies (F) 501030 12.3 371 48 19/24 19/25 1251/M 0 Midges (F) 54 501050 11.85 383 60 18/26 18/27 2169/M 0 Midges (F) 54 Rattlesnake Creek (12‐001‐003) K01W34 2.37 8.3 42 6 6 L 1 Midges (F,MT), caenid mayflies (F) Marg. Good K01W36 0.23 17.7 44 5 6 M 0 Midges (F) Marg. Good W. Br. Rattlesnake Creek (12‐001‐004) 501080 1.38 3.4 25 4 0 L 0 Midges (F) Fair Village Creek (12‐001‐001) K01G19 1.12 10.5 37 8 5 L 2 Midges (F) Marg. Good Mud Brook (12‐002‐000) K01W28 3.01 4.8 26 3 0 L 1 Midges (F) High Fair E. Br. Huron River 12‐100‐000 K01W22 24.67 7.8 39 3 3 M 0 Midges (F), caenid mayflies (F) Fair K01G21 19.11 16.7 44 3 4 M 1 Midges (F) Fair K01W19 13.66 32 53 11/13 5/10 894/M 1 Hydropsychid caddisflies (F), midges (F) 46 Elmid beetles (F), midges (F), heptageniid mayflies K01S11 6.85 37 44 15/17 12/14 416/M 0 48 (MI,F) E. Br. Huron River (12‐100‐000) Midges (F), hydropsychid caddisflies (F), heptageniid 501070 1.47 87 55 18/23 19/26 893/M 0 54 mayflies(MI,F) Norwalk Creek (12‐103‐000) Midges (F), caenid mayflies (F), heptageniid mayflies K01P03 0.13 20.8 48 14/17 10/15 291/M 0 48 (MI,F) Trib. to Norwalk Creek (RM 0.38) (12‐103‐001) K01G20 1.62 8.3 62 11 9 H 1 Midges (F), isopods (T) Good Cole Creek (12‐101‐000)

Page 67 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

EPT Sensitive Dr. Qual Density CW Predominant Organisms on the Natural Substrates Narrative Station RM Ql./ Taxa ICI Ar. Taxa Qt./Ql Taxa With Tolerance Category(ies) Evaluation Total Ql./Total K01W20 6.52 7.7 32 8 3 M 0 Midges (F) Marg. Good K01P04 0.14 23.2 48 13/16 9/13 1274/M 3 Midges (F) 54 W. Br. Huron River (12‐200‐000) K01G10 47.47 10.8 57 5 3 M 0 Midges (F) Marg. Good K01W11 42.23 18.5 51 13 11 M 1 Midges (F,T), caddisflies Good K01P06 38.4 27.2 47 16/19 11/15 1878/M 0 Elmid beetles (MI,F), midges (F) 46 Midges (F), hydropsychid caddisflies (F), caenid K01G12 35.34 64 28 2/5 3/5 2598/H 0 36 mayflies (F) K01W18 29.18 88 53 12/15 10/12 1004/H 0 Hydropsychid caddisflies (F), damselflies (F,T) 42 K01P05 22.73 120 57 16/20 14/19 1877/M 0 Midges (F), baetid mayflies (F) 46 K01W17 16.59 124 49 18 17 M 0 Midges (F), caenid mayflies (F) Very Good K01K16 13.34 131 68 21/26 23/28 471/M 0 Midges (F), mayflies (MI,F) 54 Midges (F), hydropsychid caddisflies (MI,F), K01W25 7.6 217 63 21/27 20/26 1091/M 0 52 heptageniid mayflies (MI,F) Midges (F), hydropsychid caddisflies (F), caenid K01S12 3.67 220 68 24 26 M 0 Exceptional mayflies (F) Midges (F), hydropsychid caddisflies (F), mayflies 501090 0.38 262 66 20 20 M 0 Exceptional (MI,F) Shiloh Ditch (12‐200‐008) K01G09 0.12 6.2 55 7 3 M 1 Midges (F) Marg. Good Marsh Run (12‐210‐000) K01G13 7.53 6.6 44 10 6 N/A 0 Midges (F) Marg. Good K01K18 0.2 31.2 32 5/8 1/3 1687/H 0 Hydropsycid caddisflies (F), midges (F) 38 Trib. to Marsh Run (RM 3.12) (12‐210‐001) K01G14 0.28 7.8 48 6 4 M 1 Midges (F) Marg. Good Walnut Creek (12‐200‐006) K01P13 0.98 9.6 68 11 4 H 0 Midges (F) Good Holiday Lake Tributary (12‐200‐002) K01P10 2.97 14.1 48 8 2 M 0 Midges (F), amphipods (F), caddisflies (MI,F) Marg. Good

Page 68 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

EPT Sensitive Dr. Qual Density CW Predominant Organisms on the Natural Substrates Narrative Station RM Ql./ Taxa ICI Ar. Taxa Qt./Ql Taxa With Tolerance Category(ies) Evaluation Total Ql./Total Trib. to Holiday Lake Tributary (RM 2.8) (12‐200‐003) K01G22 0.17 5.8 32 4 1 M 0 Midges (F,T) Fair Slate Run (12‐206‐000) K01W16 10.42 12.2 36 5 2 M 0 Midges (F), heptageniid mayflies (F) Marg. Good K01S03 4.1 38.4 28 3 0 M 0 Midges (F,T), caenid mayflies (F) Fair West Branch Mud Run (12‐208‐000) K01W14 0.52 5.7 39 7 2 M 0 Midges (F) Marg. Good East Branch Mud Run (12‐207‐000) 303491 6.42 5.9 27 2 0 M 0 Midges (F,T) Poor K01W15 1.38 15.1 32 6 1 L 0 Midges (F) Marg. Good Frink Run (12‐203‐000) 303492 7.15 9.3 30 4 0 M 0 Midges (F,T) Fair K01P08 0.09 29.8 31 4 1 L 0 Midges(F,T), heptageniid mayflies(F) Fair Trib. to Frink Run (RM 5.83) (12‐203‐001) 303493 2.01 9 47 5 1 M 0 Midges (F,T) Fair Seymore Creek (12‐201‐000) K01W27 0.13 16.4 26 4 1 L 0 Midges (F,T) Fair Megginson Creek (12‐202‐000) K01W24 0.59 8.2 45 4 1 M 0 Midges (F,T), caenid mayflies (F) Fair Clayton Ditch (12‐200‐001) K01G17 4.09 7.9 45 4 0 M 0 Midges (F,T), damselflies (T), beetles (F), snails (MT) High Fair K01G16 0.01 16.3 40 11 7 L 0 Midges (F) Good

Ql Qualitative sample collected from the natural substrates. Sensitive Taxa Taxa listed on the Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxa List as MI (moderately intolerant) or I (intolerant). Qt Quantitative sample collected on Hester‐Dendy artificial substrates, density is expressed in organisms per square foot. Qualitative sample relative density L=Low, M=Moderate, H=High. CW Cold Water. Tolerance Categories VT=Very Tolerant, T=Tolerant, MT=Moderately Tolerant, F=Facultative, MI=Moderately Intolerant, I=Intolerant

Page 69 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Aquatic Life Use Discussion Table 13. Summary of ALU attainment status for sampling sites in the Huron River basin 2016. The index of biotic integrity (IBI), modified index of well‐being (MIWB) and invertebrate community index (ICI) scores are based on the performance of the biological community. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI) is based on the ability of the stream habitat to support a biological community. Suspected causes and sources of impairment are noted if full attainment of the ALU was not met.

Drain. Assessment River Attain. Station Location Area IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Cause(s) Source(s) Unit Milea Statusd (mi2) Huron River (12‐001‐000) – HELP – Recommended EWH K01W01 Dst. E/W Branches 04100012‐06‐06 14.65W 350 53 9.8 54 87.0 FULL Dst. U.S. Rte. 250 501030 04100012‐06‐06 12.3W 371 53 9.7 54 79.3 FULL @ Gage Adj. Mud Brook Rd. 501050 04100012‐06‐06 11.85W 383 55 10.2 54 76.0 FULL (dst. Milan) Rattlesnake Creek (12‐001‐003 ) – HELP – WWH K01W34 Old State Rd. 04100012‐06‐05 2.37H 8.3 50 ‐ MGns 68.0 FULL K01W36 Shaw Mill Rd. 04100012‐06‐05 0.23H 17.7 52 ‐ MGns 59.3 FULL West Branch Rattlesnake Creek (12‐001‐004) – HELP – WWH Lais Rd. (dst. Nutrient/eutrophication Municipal point 501080 04100012‐06‐05 1.38H 3.4 36 ‐ F* 67.0 PARTIAL Norwalk) biological indicators source discharge Village Creek (12‐001‐001) – HELP – WWH K01G19 Berlin St. 04100012‐06‐06 1.12H 10.5 44 ‐ MGns 67.0 FULL Mud Brook (12‐002‐000) – HELP – Recommended MWH‐C K01W28 Scheid Rd. 04100012‐06‐06 3.01H 4.8 28 ‐ HF 41.5 FULL East Branch Huron River (12‐100‐000) ECBP – WWH Nutrient/eutrophication Agriculture K01W22 Old State Rd. 04100012‐06‐01 24.67H 7.8 38ns ‐ F* 45.0 PARTIAL biological indicators Unknown toxicity Unknown Nutrient/eutrophication Hanville Corners Agriculture K01G21 04100012‐06‐01 19.11H 16.7 44 ‐ F* 68.0 PARTIAL biological indicators Rd. Unknown toxicity Unknown K01W19 Geiger Rd. 04100012‐06‐04 13.66W 32 39ns 8.4 46 77.5 FULL K01S11 Brown Rd. 04100012‐06‐04 6.85W 37 52 9.6 48 69.5 FULL

Page 70 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Drain. Assessment River Attain. Station Location Area IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Cause(s) Source(s) Unit Milea Statusd (mi2) HELP – WWH 501070 Schaefer Rd. 04100012‐06‐04 1.47W 87 52 9.9 54 68.8 FULL Norwalk Creek (12‐103‐000) – ECBP – WWH K01P03 St. Rte. 61 04100012‐06‐03 0.13W 20.8 48 8.4 48 54.8 FULL Trib. to Norwalk Creek (RM 0.38) (12‐103‐001) – ECBP – WWH K01G20 Ridge Rd. 04100012‐06‐03 1.62H 8.3 44 ‐ G 69.3 FULL Cole Creek (12‐101‐000) – ECBP – WWH K01W20 New State Rd. 04100012‐06‐02 6.52H 7.7 44 ‐ MGns 60.3 FULL K01P04 St. Rte. 61 04100012‐06‐02 0.14W 23.2 45 8.1ns 54 62.3 FULL West Branch Huron River (12‐200‐000) ECBP – WWH Direct habitat K01G10 Old State Rd. 04100012‐04‐02 47.47H 10.8 30* ‐ MGns 54.5 PARTIAL Channelization alterations K01W11 Base Line Rd. 04100012‐04‐02 42.23H 18.5 42 ‐ G 62.5 FULL K01P06 Skinner Rd. 04100012‐04‐02 38.4W 27.2 39ns 8.0ns 46 70.0 FULL K01G12 Green Bush Rd. 04100012‐04‐03 35.34W 64 43 9.7 36 80.5 FULL K01W18 St. Rte. 162 04100012‐04‐05 29.18W 88 52 9.7 42 89.5 FULL ECBP – Recommended EWH K01P05 Bauman Rd. 04100012‐04‐05 22.73W 120 48ns 9.7 46 72.4 FULL K01W17 Snyder Rd. 04100012‐04‐05 16.59W 124 51 9.3ns VGns 66.9 FULL K01K16 Terry Rd. 04100012‐04‐05 13.34W 131 52 9.8 54 77.5 FULL K01W25 River Rd. 04100012‐05‐06 7.6W 217 55 10.3 52 71.8 FULL K01S12 Lamereaux Rd. 04100012‐05‐06 3.67W 220 46ns 9.1ns E 56.5 FULL 501090 Lovers Lane Rd. 04100012‐05‐06 0.38W 262 52 10.1 E 79.5 FULL Trib. to West Branch Huron River (RM 48.05) (a.k.a. Shiloh Ditch) (12‐200‐008) – ECBP – Recommended WWH K01G09 Plymouth E Rd. 04100012‐04‐02 0.12H 6.2 36ns ‐ MGns 41.5 FULL Marsh Run (12‐210‐000) – ECBP – WWH K01G13 Kenestrick Rd. 04100012‐04‐01 7.53H 6.6 36ns ‐ MGns 60.3 FULL K01K18 St. Rte. 61 04100012‐04‐01 0.2W 31.2 36ns 8.4 38 63.5 FULL Trib. to Marsh Run (RM 3.12) (12‐210‐001) – ECBP – Recommended WWH K01G14 May Rd. 04100012‐04‐01 0.28H 7.8 50 ‐ MGns 49.0 FULL Walnut Creek (12‐200‐006) – ECBP – WWH K01P13 Walnut Rd. 04100012‐04‐03 0.98H 9.6 50 ‐ G 50.8 FULL Holiday Lake Tributary (12‐200‐002) – ECBP – WWH Page 71 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Drain. Assessment River Attain. Station Location Area IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Cause(s) Source(s) Unit Milea Statusd (mi2) K01P10 St. Rte. 162 04100012‐04‐04 2.97H 14.1 38ns ‐ MGns 82.0 FULL Trib. to Holiday Lake Tributary (RM 2.80) (12‐200‐003) – ECBP – WWH Direct habitat Dam or K01G22 St. Rte. 162 04100012‐04‐04 0.17H 5.8 36ns ‐ F* 61.0 PARTIAL alterations Impoundment Slate Run (12‐206‐000) – ECBP – WWH K01W16 Section Line Rd. 04100012‐05‐02 10.42H 12.2 44 ‐ MGns 47.0 FULL Natural sources K01S03 Townline Rd. 04100012‐05‐02 4.1W 38.4 41 8.7 F* 49.9 PARTIAL Intermittence Agriculture West Branch Mud Run (12‐208‐000) – ECBP – WWH K01W14 TR 197 04100012‐05‐02 0.52H 5.7 44 ‐ MGns 47.5 FULL East Branch Mud Run (12‐207‐000) – ECBP – WWH Natural sources 303491 Daniels Rd. 04100012‐05‐01 6.42H 5.9 32* ‐ P* 42.0 NON Intermittence Agriculture K01W15 N. Greenfield Rd. 04100012‐05‐01 1.38H 15.1 38ns ‐ MGns 48.8 FULL Frink Run (12‐203‐000) – ECBP – WWH Channelization Intermittence Agriculture 303492 Section Line Rd. 04100012‐05‐03 7.15H 9.3 38ns ‐ F* 29.0 PARTIAL Direct habitat Channelization alterations Agriculture K01P08 St. Rte. 99 04100012‐05‐03 0.09W 29.8 41 7.8ns F* 44.3 PARTIAL Intermittence Natural sources Trib. to Frink Run (RM 5.38) (12‐203‐001) – ECBP – Recommended WWH Pontiac Section 303493 04100012‐05‐03 2.01H 9.0 38ns ‐ F* 40.8 PARTIAL Intermittence Natural sources Line Rd. Seymore Creek (12‐201‐000) – ECBP – WWH K01W27 Peru Center Rd. 04100012‐05‐04 0.7H 16.4 38ns ‐ F* 50.5 PARTIAL Intermittence Natural sources Megginson Creek (12‐202‐000) – HELP – WWH Channelization Intermittence Agriculture K01W24 Sand Hill Rd. 04100012‐05‐04 0.59H 8.2 36 ‐ F* 44.0 PARTIAL Direct habitat Channelization alterations Agriculture

Page 72 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Drain. Assessment River Attain. Station Location Area IBI MIwbb ICIc QHEI Cause(s) Source(s) Unit Milea Statusd (mi2) Clayton Ditch (12‐200‐001) HELP – Recommended MWH‐C K01G17 Strecker Rd. 04100012‐05‐05 4.09H 7.9 26 ‐ HF 38.5 FULL HELP – WWH K01G16 Mouth 04100012‐05‐05 0.01H 16.3 36 ‐ G 73.8 FULL a River mile represents point of record for the station ID b MIwb is not applicable to headwater streams with drainage areas <20 mi2 c A narrative evaluation was used when quantitative data was either unreliable or not available (VP=very poor; P=poor; LF=low fair; F=fair; HF=high fair; MG=marginally good; G=good; VG=very good; E=exceptional) d Attainment status is given for the recommended use if a change is proposed ns Non‐significant departure from biocriteria (≤4 IBI or ICI units or ≤0.5 MIwb units) * Indicates significant departure from applicable biocriteria (>4 IBI or ICI units or >0.5 MIwb units). Underlined scores are in the poor or very poor range. B boat site H headwater site W wading site

Biological Criteria (OAC 3745‐1‐01, Table 7‐1) Huron/Erie Lake Plain (HELP) Eastern Corn Bely Plains (ECBP) Index – Site Type EWH WWH MWH EWH WWH MWH IBI – Headwaters 50 28 20 50 40 24 IBI – Wading 50 32 22 50 40 24 IBI – Boat 48 34 20 48 42 24 MIwb – Wading 9.4 7.3 5.6 9.4 8.3 6.2 MIwb ‐ Boat 9.6 8.6 5.7 9.6 8.5 5.8 ICI 46 34 22 46 36 22

Page 73 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Huron River and Direct Minor Tributaries Excluding its major tributaries, East and West Branches, the principal drainage network of the Huron River mainstem consists of five named streams: Huron River mainstem, Village Creek, Mud Brook, Rattlesnake Creek and West Branch Rattlesnake Creek. Eight stations were monitored among these waters — three sites on the upper mainstem (between RMs 14.65 and 11.85), three sites within the Rattlesnake Creek subbasin (Rattlesnake mainstem, between RMs 2.37 and 0.23, and West Branch Rattlesnake at RM 1.38) and single stations on Mud Brook and Village Creek, at RMs 3.01 and 1.12 respectively. Huron River and Direct Minor Tributary Habitat QHEI from the three sites on the upper mainstem ranged between 76.0 and 87.0, with a reach average of 80.8. As measured by the QHEI, all sites were found to contain a full suite of positive habitat features, fully consistent with exceptional aquatic communities. It is important to note that this observation is limited to the upper four to five miles of the mainstem, and does not apply to the lower, lake affected, segment. QHEI values from the direct minor tributaries ranged between 68.0 and 41.5, with a group mean of 60.6. As a group, these data indicated near and instream conditions fully consistent with the WWH aquatic communities. Deficient macrohabitat was limited to a single observation evaluated in 2016 on Mud Brook, the lowest Huron River tributary. Here high and moderate influence attributes were dominant, with ratios against positive attributes reaching 1.0 and 3.0, respectively. Mid-summer evaluation of Mud Brook found little discernable surface discharge, poor channel development and hardpan and detritus as dominant substrates. The stream was obviously channelized at some point in the past to drain the surrounding uplands, which at time of sampling appeared largely hydric. Although unsubstantiated, the artificiality of Mud Brook gave the impression that the system was wholly artificial, at least locally, with the channel being cut into the landscape to lower the water table. Based upon the estimated age of adjacent woody vegetation, Mud Brook appeared to have been modified or initially incised about 50-80 years ago. Given its current form and the absence of any significant channel recovery, Mud Brook appeared an ideal candidate for MWH designation. Despite their location within the HELP ecoregion, macrohabitat quality observed on the upper Huron River mainstem and more significantly from nearly all minor tributaries was significantly higher than the ecoregion would predict. Regarding Rattlesnake Creek and Village Creek, the generally high-quality conditions appeared due to the transitional nature of the area, as these streams arise very near the ECBP and HELP boundary. Factors associated with the convergence of the physiographic subsections may have also contributed to this novelty. The unusually high-quality conditions found on the upper mainstem is attributed to both the transitional factors and the export of glacial bedload to the HELP from the ECBP. In contrast, Mud Brook is wholly contained within the HELP and, as such, channel form and function were found to be very typical of the region. Huron River and Direct Minor Tributary Fish As measured by the IBI and MIwb, community performance and accompanying narratives ranged from exceptional (IBI=55 and MIwb=10.3) to poor-fair (IBI=28 and MIwb=9.7), with a subbasin average characterized as very good-exceptional (IBI=46.4/ MIwb=9.9, ± two standard deviations [SDs], 19.39 IBI units and 0.529 MIwb units, respectively). Summarized index scores and descriptive community statistics, by station, are presented in Table 11. Longitudinal and categorical performance of the IBI, MIwb and other relevant indicators are presented in Figure 12. Raw index scores, index metrics and catch summaries by station may be found in Appendix Tables D and E.

Page 74 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

The performance of the IBI and MIwb through the upper five miles of the Huron River mainstem easily met the existing WWH biocriteria. All three monitoring stations were found to support exceptional fish assemblages, showing a high degree of structural evenness and functional organization, high species richness and a low incidence of disease or other physical anomalies. In terms of biomass and numerical abundance, environmentally sensitive species were very well represented, and tolerant or facultative taxa remained at or below expected levels. In every instance, community performance appeared commensurate with habitat potential, indicating that pollutant or waste loads from permitted and diffuse sources were safely assimilated, at least at site or reach scales. Given the very strong performance of the IBI and MIwb at all three sites on the upper Huron River, this segment appears to be an ideal candidate for aquatic life use redesignation, from the existing WWH use to EWH. This recommendation is limited to the free-flowing portions of the upper river. Retention of the existing WWH use is recommended for the lower, lake affected, 10 miles. The performance of the IBI from all minor direct tributaries met or exceeded the prescribed WWH biocriteria. This is not to say that species composition among these waters was similar, as conditions were found to vary widely. Village Creek yielded an IBI of 44 (good) and supported a classic cool-water brook assemblage. Species indicative of this type of habitat included American brook lamprey, redside dace and mottled sculpin. Although a nonnative species, nine young-of-the-year (YOY) rainbow trout were also taken. The presence of YOY trout most likely represented successful reproduction from lake-run rainbow trout (steelhead) stocked in selected Lake Erie tributaries by Ohio DNR. Although this instance of minor reproductive success is likely of little consequence to Ohio’s steelhead program, it was, along with the native brook species identified above, indicative of good stream habitat, particularly high-quality substrates, and strong ground water inflow. Both monitoring stations on Rattlesnake Creek were found to contain exceptional fish communities, yielding IBI scores of 50 and 52 at RMs 2.37 and 0.23 respectively. Upper Rattlesnake Creek (RM 2.37) supported a cool-water brook fauna, akin to that described for Village Creek, including YOY rainbow trout. The fish assemblage in lower Rattlesnake Creek (RM 0.23) reflected a transition from cool-water brook habitat to a high quality, warmwater habitat. Species richness here was high (22 taxa), exceeding the 75th percentile for HELP headwaters. Environmentally sensitive fish were well represented, with eight species taken accounting for 15.5 percent of the catch. The suite of sensitive species included three highly intolerant taxa (bigeye chub, rosyface shiner and stonecat madtom).

Page 75 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

HELP (free flowing) HELP (lake affected) 60

50 Wading EWH Crtierion - Statewide

40 Norwalk WWTP (via Rattlesnake Cr.)

IBI 30 Wading WWH Criterion - HELP Milan WWTP (via Village Cr.) E.Br.Huron R. Rattlsnake Cr. 20 W.Br.Huron R. Village Creek Mud Brook Huron River 10 12

10 Wading EWH Crtierion - Statewide 8 Wading WWH Criterion - HELP 6

MIwb Milan WWTP 4 Norwalk WWTP (via Rattlesnake Cr.) 2

0 100 Norwalk WWTP (via Rattlesnake Cr.)

80 EWH Benchmark

WWH Benchmark 60 Habitat Limits

QHEI 40

20 Milan WWTP (via Village Cr.)

0 15 14 13 12 11 10 0 River Mile Figure 12. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb and the QHEI, Huron River mainstem and tributaries, 2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the WWH and EWH biocriteria and areas of non‐significant departure for IBI and MIwb. Arrows identify significant direct points of discharge for NPDES‐permitted entities or confluence(s) of direct tributary. Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a). The lower lake affected segment of the Huron River is represented by rectangular area of greyscale hatch marks. The entire length of the Huron River mainstem and minor tributaries are contained within the HELP ecoregion (Omernik 1987, Omernik and Gallant 1988).

Despite adequate macrohabitat (QHEI=67), community performance on the West Branch Rattlesnake Creek (a Rattlesnake Creek tributary) was markedly reduced in comparison with its receiving stream and surrounding tributaries. Although the IBI met the minimum biocriteria, performance here was characterized as marginally good (IBI=36). The proportion of environmentally sensitive species was very low (less than one percent), while the proportion of tolerant and ecological generalists was more than 70 percent, and of these, nearly 50 percent of all fish collected were concentrated in a single species: creek

Page 76 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

chub. Based upon direct field observations, the stream appeared to labor under the effects of urban- suburban hydrology (flashiness and pollutants in urban runoff). West Branch Rattlesnake Creek receives treated effluent from the Norwalk WWTP, about one mile upstream from the monitoring station. The stream offered no obvious visual or olfactory evidence of significant water quality problems (solids, septic conditions or an inordinate amount of flotsam and jetsam, all commonly associated with heavy sanitary sewer overflow/combined sewer overflow (SSO/CSO) activity). Arising in the typical or most representative portion of the HELP ecoregion, Mud Brook stood apart from other mainstem tributaries. In fact, in terms of both macrohabitat quality and community performance, Mud Brook ranked among the lowest performing water bodies within the entire Huron River study area. Affected by previous hydromodification, the stream was highly artificial, deeply incised and monotonous in form. Dominant substrates were a mix of clay hardpan and organic fines. Composition of fish community was found equally depauperate, clearly reflecting poor quality macrohabitat and associated secondary and tertiary water quality effects. No sensitive species were observed, and tolerant, facultative species accounted for nearly 70 percent of all fish taken. Additional evidence of disturbance included an over- abundance of exotic species, as 91 round goby were taken. Combined with the proportion of goldfish, an additional highly tolerant exotic, nearly a third of the assemblage was composed of non-native taxa. As measured by the IBI, community performance for Mud Brook was characterized as fair-poor (IBI=28). Despite this subpar result, the IBI coincides with the minimum HELP WWH biocriterion for headwaters. To account for the overall lower biological potential of this region, the HELP WWH criteria were derived from lower 10th percentile from reference data, the 25th percentile being employed to that purpose for the remaining four Ohio ecoregions (Ohio EPA 1987b). The practical result of this is that the HELP biocriteria are considerably lower than those of any of the other regions within the state. Huron River and Direct Minor Tributary Macroinvertebrates Three sub-watersheds included in the survey area that flow directly into the Huron River mainstem were Rattlesnake Creek, Village Creek and Mud Brook. The West Branch Rattlesnake Creek at RM 1.38 was affected by treated wastewater from the Norwalk WWTP and limited habitat. Facultative hydropsychid caddisflies were numerous and no sensitive taxa were collected. Sampling reflected at least moderate enrichment. Sand with embedded rubble likely had some affect but it appeared that additional nutrients were the principle factor that resulted in a fair macroinvertebrate community condition. Marginally good macroinvertebrate assemblages were documented in Rattlesnake Creek at RMS 2.37 and 0.23. Modest numbers of EPT and sensitive taxa were present (five to six taxa). Village Creek at RM 1.12 supported a marginally good macroinvertebrate community. Sampling results suggested acceptable water quality, but overall diversity was likely limited by historical channelization, slow current velocity and a predominance of sandy substrate. Mud Brook was even more affected by earlier channel modification. The watercourse is low gradient but has a treed riparian. A consequence of historical channel modification is that lake plain sediments are trapped within the banks and produce a homogeneous habitat. A low density and diversity of macroinvertebrate taxa and fair narrative evaluation were the result. Mud Brook is currently listed in the Ohio WQS as Mud Creek, with an unverified WWH ALU. Given a lack of stream energy due to low gradient and historical channelization, the stream has persisted in a state that significantly limits the development of a typical WWH stream fauna. Should MWH use be applied to Mud Brook, the macroinvertebrate community would be consistent with the use.

Page 77 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

The free-flowing portion of the Huron River supported exceptional macroinvertebrate communities at three sites beginning downstream from the joining of the East and West branches (RM 14.65) to downstream from the Milan WWTP (RM 11.85). An ICI score of 54 was recorded at each site and diverse EPT and sensitive taxa assemblages were present. There was no discernable impact related to the Milan WWTP. East Branch Huron River Components of the drainage network of the East Branch Huron River evaluated in 2016 consist of four water bodies: East Branch mainstem; Norwalk Creek; unnamed Norwalk Creek tributary; and Cole Creek. Nine sampling stations were allocated among these waters — five sites on the East Branch (between RMs 24.7 and 1.5), two sites on Cole Creek (between RMs 6.5 and 0.1) and two sites within the Norwalk Creek subbasin (Norwalk Creek, at RM 0.13 and its unnamed tributary at RM 1.62). Taken together, this sampling effort provided for the assessment of 36 stream miles of the East Branch watershed. East Branch Huron River Habitat Aggregated QHEI scores on the East Branch mainstem ranged between 45.0 and 77.5 (fair/poor to exceptional), with a mean score of 65.76 (good). Although these data suggested a wide range of conditions, deficient or constrained macrohabitat on the East Branch was limited to the uppermost headwaters, evaluated at RM 24.67 (Old State Rd.). Here the stream bore strong evidence of past rheopalustrine wetland conditions: functional low gradient; three species of aquatic macrophytes; relic wetland fish species (mud minnow); and an abundance organic fines in depositional areas. Although not identified as being associated with post glacial still-water deposits per se, there is little doubt that the upper reaches of the East Branch were originally palustrine or rheopalustrine in nature, at least locally. Given the naturally poor drainage of such areas, the East Branch at RM 24.67 was hydromodified at some point in the distant past. Macrohabitat deficit observed at this site appeared a result of the combined effects of natural or background factors (rheopalustrine habitat) and hydromodification. It is important to note that selected sites downstream from the headwaters were also found to contain relic palustrine characteristics, but in form or function were not as dominant as those observed at RM 24.67. Similarly, these sites also appeared to have been hydromodified in the past, but natural recovery appeared further advanced, perhaps due to differences in stream power, local physiography or maintenance history. As such, remaining East Branch mainstem stations were found to contain a compliment of positive channel, substrate and riparian features consistent with the WWH aquatic communities, with selected locations reaching very good to exceptional levels. East Branch tributaries evaluated in 2016 were concentrated in the lower six miles of the mainstem. QHEI values from these ranged between 54.8 and 69.3 (high-fair to very good), yielding a group mean of 61.6 (good). Taken together these data suggest that near and instream conditions were minimally consistent with the WWH aquatic communities, and aquatic life use impairment derived solely from macrohabitat limitations was not likely, particularly in light of compensatory effects of ground water, as described below. Upper Cole Creek (RM 6.52) was found to be ephemeral, in that portions of the streambed were without surface water by mid-summer. However, conditions here were not truly intermittent, rather, they were interstitial, meaning extant wetted portions of the channel (pools and deeper glides) were fed and refreshed by ground water. Unlike intermittent streams, which tend toward septic conditions during the dry season, interstitial waters remain viable, even during extended dry periods when surface discharge is reduced or eliminated. Resident aquatic community find suitable living space in the wetted hyporheic zone

Page 78 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

(beneath or within the streambed) or residual pools, or both, provided they are of adequate depth. The influence of ground water on this segment was inferred by several field observations, including: decidedly cool temperature of residual pools; the presence of vertebrate associates of cool-water (mottled sculpin and plethodontid salamanders); and the absence of septic or otherwise obviously stressful conditions within pooled areas (absences of black substrates or septic odors and a profusion of fish). Despite ample evidence of past hydromodification through lower Cole Creek and within the Norwalk Creek subbasin, considerable physical recovery has occurred within the confines of the broader, artificial channels. In addition to the reestablishment of basic macrohabitat features, ground water augmentation provided additional benefits regarding the WWH potential of these streams. The contribution of ground water was inferred by the presence of mottled sculpin (cool-water associate) at modified sites. East Branch Huron River Fish Performance of community indices (IBI and MIwb) and accompanying narratives ranged from exceptional (IBI=52 and MIwb=9.9) to marginally good (IBI=38 and MIwb=8.1), with average scores characterized as good-very good (IBI=44.5/MIwb=8.9, ± two SDs, 10.51 IBI units and 1.621 MIwb units). Summarized index scores and descriptive community statistics, by station, are presented in Table 11. Longitudinal and categorical performance of the IBI, MIwb and other relevant indicators are presented in Figure 13. All stations monitored in the East Branch subbasin (mainstem and tributaries) were found to support fish communities fully consistent with the prescribed biocriteria. Resulting from a combination of historical hydromodification and natural conditions, habitat limitations were identified on the upper East Branch and selected tributaries. However, these physical constraints were mitigated by the positive effects of ground water. In fact, all headwater tributaries and nearly the entire length of the East Branch appeared to benefit from ground water inflow, as sites consistently supported significant numbers of cool or cold-water associates (for example, mottled sculpin). Furthermore, yearling rainbow trout, redside dace, mud minnow and American brook lamprey, all additional cool/cold-water species, were taken either singularly or in combination from sites on the East Branch or its tributaries, or both.

Page 79 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

ECBP Ecoregion 60 Headwaters Wading Norwalk PWS Dam 50 EWH Crtieria - Satewide 40 ECBP WWH Crtieria IBI 30 Norwalk CSOs via Norwalk Creek E. Br. Huron River 20 Cole Creek Norwalk Creek 10 12 Norwalk PWS Dam 10 Wading EWH Crtierion- Satewide

8 ECBP WWH Crtieria 6 HELP WWH Crtieria MIwb 4 Norwalk CSOs via Norwalk Creek 2

0 100 Norwalk PWS Dam 80

60 EWH Benchmarks WWH Benchmarks QHEI 40 Habitat Limits Norwalk CSOs via Norwalk Creek 20

0 25 20 15 10 5 0 River Mile Figure 13. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb and the QHEI, East Branch Huron River, 2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the WWH and EWH biocriteria and areas of non‐significant departure for IBI and MIwb. Arrows identify significant direct points of discharge for NPDES‐permitted entities or confluence(s) of direct tributary. Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a). The entire length of the East Branch mainstem and tributaries are contained within the ECBP ecoregion (Omernik 1987, Omernik and Gallant 1988). East Branch Huron River Macroinvertebrates Four streams were sampled in the East Branch Huron River watershed. Norwalk Creek and Cole Creek were two sub-watersheds that flow into the East Branch Huron River. Norwalk Creek near the confluence with the East Branch Huron River produced an ICI score in the exceptional range (ICI= 48) along with14 EPT and 10 sensitive taxa. The unnamed tributary to Norwalk Creek at RM 1.62 produced similar 11 EPT and nine sensitive taxa. Qualitative sampling yielded 62 total taxa which may be the consequence of nutrient enrichment. Increased primary productivity spurred by nutrient inputs has been shown to

Page 80 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

increase facultative and pollution-tolerant taxa diversity thereby raising the number of total taxa in qualitative samples. Cole Creek was nearly intermittent when qualitative sampling was conducted, but nonetheless produced marginally good macroinvertebrate assemblage at RM 6.52. Increased drainage area and resultant water flow permitted the development of an improved community at RM 0.14. The biota suggested that nutrient parameters were at acceptable levels and quantitative sampling generated an ICI score in the exceptional range (ICI=54). The headwaters of the East Branch Huron River were affected by diffuse sources related to agricultural activities in the adjacent uplands. Both RM 24.67 and 19.11 supported fair macroinvertebrate assemblages. The uppermost site was a channelized ditch with a predominance of soft silty organic substrate. Pooled portions contained an abundance of Elodea sp. and degrading organic matter. Good margin habitat was available along with some larger rubble that should have supported a higher number of EPT taxa than the three taxa collected. The collection of just a single mayfly taxon (Caenis sp.) from each location suggests possible selectively toxic compounds in runoff from agricultural fields proximal to the upper watershed. There is growing concern that neonicotinoid insecticides, which have come into widespread use over the last six to eight years, may have detrimental effects on aquatic insects (Hladik and Kolpin 2016, and Roessink et al. 2013). These insecticides have emerged as a major concern as to their effects on bees and other pollinators. Monitoring their occurrence in Ohio waters seems prudent and may explain certain situations where macroinvertebrate assemblages do not appear to be a diverse as the available habitat and water quality should allow. The fair community present at RM 19.11 underperformed expectations of the WWH use even though sufficient habitat and flow conditions were present. Possible sources of impairment included enrichment and issues related to D.O. levels. As with the upstream site, mayfly diversity was inordinately low given the available habitat and suggests the introduction of a selectively toxic compound(s) prior to sampling. The remaining three sites, RMs 13.66, 6.85 and 1.47, supported macroinvertebrate assemblages that yielded ICI values in the exceptional range. EPT and sensitive taxa from the natural substrates increased along with drainage area size. Accumulations of silt and sand likely had some effect on the community at RMs 13.66 and 6.85 as field impressions of the collected organisms, while consistent with the ALU, were not of the exceptional quality expressed by the ICI scores. West Branch Huron River The West Branch watershed is the largest subcomponent of the Huron River system, draining more than 60 percent of the study area. Sampling efforts here included the West Branch mainstem and 13 direct and indirect tributaries. Specific tributaries or subbasins evaluated in 2016 were Marsh Run, Shiloh Ditch, Walnut Creek, Holiday Lake outlet, Slate Run, Frink Run, Seymore Creek and Clayton Ditch. In total, 30 stations were monitored in the West Branch watershed, 11 on the mainstem and 19 between and among the tributaries and subbasins identified above, resulting in the cumulative assessment of 101 linear stream miles. The West Branch mainstem and nearly all tributaries evaluated as part of this survey are located within or functionally dominated by the ECBP ecoregion. Exceptions to this were Clayton Ditch, the lowest direct West Branch tributary, and Seymore and Megginson Creek, drainages forming the northwestern boundary of the West Branch watershed. These three streams were ascribed to the HELP, as they either arose well within the ecoregion (Clayton Ditch) or are situated within the transitional area, between ECBP and HELP (Seymore and Megginson Creek).

Page 81 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

West Branch Huron River Habitat Aggregated QHEI scores from the West Branch mainstem ranged between 54.5 and 89.5, with a mean score of 71.1 (±20.2, two SDs). These values correspond to narrative ratings of fair and exceptional, respectively, with typical conditions described as very good. As measured by the QHEI, the overwhelming majority of the West Branch Huron River appeared compatible with the WWH use designation. In fact, nearly a quarter of the monitoring stations contained a suite of positive macrohabitat features consistent with exceptional aquatic communities (EWH). Macrohabitat deficits on the West Branch were identified at two of the 11 mainstem sites: uppermost headwaters, at RM 47.47 (Old State Rd., QHEI=54.5) and a station near the mouth, at RM 3.67 (Lamereaux Rd., QHEI=56.5). Conditions observed at these locations and their primary causes were distinct and unrelated. Furthermore, the predicted effects on the capacity of these stream reaches to support WWH communities varied as well. Along with many of its tributaries, the upper limits of the West Branch have been subjected to extensive hydromodification in the past. In this respect the headwaters of the West Branch were, in form and function, akin or otherwise very similar to small nearby tributaries, which were themselves hydromodified in the past (Shiloh Ditch). Conditions here were not profoundly degraded, rather, macrohabitat quality was characterized narratively as high-fair. However, given the site’s position among similarly modified tributaries of a comparable size, the aggregate condition or central tendency of the collective headwaters, including the upper mainstem, were found potentially limiting. It is interesting to note the similarities were not limited to the headwaters, as macrohabitat quality at RM 47.47 was comparable to many small West Branch tributaries located throughout the subbasin (Figure 14). In contrast, the fair conditions identified at RM 3.67 were entirely natural in origin. Here the West Branch Huron River flows through a narrow valley, bounded by high shale bluffs. The river has cut down to bedrock, over which coarse alluvium (glacial and native rock) has been irregularly deposited. Due to the resistant nature of bedrock, erosive forces are dissipated through lateral scour, resulting in an overabundance of shallow glide habitat and a scarcity of well-defined pools, particularly the type commonly associated with the cut bank (outside bend). Habitat limitations associated with bedrock- dominated streams are well documented in Ohio, commonly resulting in an overly wide and shallow wetted channel that serves to limit ambient biological performance at the reach or segment scale. However, the conditions documented at this location were anomalous, as good to excellent habitat was identified up and downstream from this site. As stated previously, the predictive power of the QHEI is the strongest in aggregated observations (Rankin 1989). As the central tendency of the West Branch mainstem is good-very good, subpar conditions identified at RM 3.67 would not necessarily predict use impairment derived solely from deficient macrohabitat, as the reach in question functions as a biological sink, with the community subsidized from, or positively influenced by, better and more productive habitats up and downstream. This is not to say that local habitat effects would be absent from the fish community, but instead, these effects should not be sufficient to render the reach impaired.

Page 82 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

100 Headwaters Stations Wading Stations W. Br. Huron River (mainstem) 90 Clayton Ditch Holiday Lake Outlet and Trib. 80 Walnut Creek EWH Benchmark Shiloh Ditch Seymore Creek and Tribs. 70 Frink Run and Trib. W. Br. Huron River (RM 47.5) Slate Run and Tribs.

QHEI WWH Benchmark 60 Marsh Run and Trib.

50 Habitat Limits 40

30 110100 Drainage Area (miles2)

Figure 14. Scatter plot of QHEI from the West Branch Huron watershed (mainstem and tributaries), 2016. Vertical dashed line represents the boundary between headwaters and wading methods, based upon drainage area (miles2). Horizontal dashed lines represent various QHEI performance benchmarks. Note concentration of lower QHEI scores within headwater tributaries, including results from the uppermost West Branch Huron station (RM 47.47).

Taken together, QHEI scores from the West Branch tributaries ranged between 38.5 and 82.0, with a mean score of 51.4 (±22.8, two SDs). These values correspond to narrative ratings of very poor and exceptional, respectively, with typical conditions described as fair. Of the 19 monitoring stations dispersed among these waters, more than 70 percent yielded QHEI scores less than 55.0, and 60 percent were found below 50.0. Hydromodification, riparian encroachment and ephemerality were among the primary factors responsible for subpar conditions. Only 20 percent of monitoring stations on the West Branch tributaries met or exceeded the WWH QHEI benchmark. Best quality stream habitats were found on the Holiday Lake outlet (and tributary), lower Clayton Ditch (RM 0.01) and the Marsh Run mainstem (RMs 7.53 and 0.2). QHEI scores from these locations ranged between 60.3 and 82.0. Except for lower Clayton Ditch, which appeared unmodified, the Holiday Lake outlet and Marsh Run showed abundant evidence of past channel modification. The better habitat scores observed on these streams reflected a high degree of physical recovery, and as such, aquatic life use impairment derived solely from deficient macrohabitat did not appear likely on these waters. Conditions on lower Frink Run (RM 0.09), Seymore Creek and lower Slate Run (RM 4.1) are worth noting, as deficient macrohabitat at these sites appeared largely a natural phenomenon. Here, QHEI scores ranged between 41.8 and 50.5. As observed on the lower mainstem, these sites have eroded down to bedrock, resulting in limited channel development and the dominance of shallow glide habitats. As the summer progressed these streams were also found intermittent or interstitial. The combined effects of diminished surface discharge and channel monotony associated with bedrock substrates may serve to naturally limit biological performance for these waters. Upper Clayton Ditch (RM 4.09), upper Frink Run (RM 7.15) and the Marsh Run tributary were very obviously hydromodified and appeared to be maintained as such in support of local drainage needs. Highly artificial in nature, these streams were deeply incised, trapezoidal in cross-section and generally without Page 83 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

significant riparian vegetation. Arising within the HELP or draining the boundary area between the HELP and ECBP, upper Clayton Ditch and upper Frink Run were modified in a manner consistent with poorly drained uplands. Although situated well within the ECBP, the unnamed Marsh Run tributary dissects and drains the peaty, muck soils of the former Willard Marsh near Celeryville. Derived from post-glacial lacustrine deposits, once drained, this area proved ideal for intensive horticulture (USDA 1988). Although not verified, the Marsh Run tributary appeared wholly artificial, at least locally, the channel being cut deep into the landscape to drain the former marsh. Reflecting these drainage practices, QHEI scores from these streams were among the lowest observed within the Huron River basin, ranging between 38.5 and 49.0. Conditions on upper Clayton Ditch were particularly sparse habitat-wise (QHEI 38.5, very poor), making this stream reach an ideal candidate for MWH designation. Although not as severe, habitat deficits on upper Frink Run and the Marsh Run tributary appeared potentially limiting, particularly in the absence of mitigating or compensatory features. Shiloh Ditch, East Branch Mud Run (RMs 6.42 and 1.38) and Megginson Creek were clearly channel- modified in the past and have yet to fully recover or otherwise reestablish a full suite of WWH features. Perhaps inadequate stream power has protracted recovery, as these streams did not appear to have been formally maintained as functional drainageways. QHEI scores from these streams were similar to those observed on other modified West Branch tributaries in that they never exceeded a score of 50.0. The physical deficits on Megginson Creek and both East Branch Mud Run sites were compounded by intermittent or interstitial flow. In the absence of mitigating or compensatory features, macrohabitat quality of these streams may prove limiting. The remaining four West Branch tributary sites, West Branch Mud Run, upper Slate Run (RM 10.42), Frink Run tributary and Walnut Creek, were either unmodified or sufficiently recovered that gross field indicators of prior channelization were obscured. Despite this, QHEI scores ranged between 40.8 (poor) and 50.8 (fair). Factors contributing to observed habitat deficits were not related to local hydromodification, per se, and instead included ephemeral surface flow, sedimentation and riparian encroachment. By mid-summer the West Branch Mud Run, upper Slate Run and the Frink Run tributary were reduced to a collection of pools, separated by large stretches of dry stream bed. It was the absence of water-dependent channel features (riffles, runs, glides) that pushed the QHEI scores down on these streams. However, West Branch Mud and upper Slate appeared to maintain good contact with ground water, as deeper pools were decidedly cooler than ambient temperatures and offered no evidence of septic conditions (odors, black solids or stained substrates, macrofaunal mortality). The dry weather hydrology here was not truly intermittent, rather, it was interstitial in nature, meaning extant wetted portions of the channel were fed and refreshed by ground water or hyporheic flow. Unlike truly intermittent streams, which either tend toward septic conditions as water levels fall below critical levels during the dry season or are desiccated completely, interstitial waters remain viable, even if surface discharge is reduced or eliminated. The resident aquatic community find suitable habitat in the wetted hyporheic zone (beneath or within the streambed) or residual pools, or both, provided the pools are of adequate depth. Despite low QHEI scores, the combination of adequate pool depth and the positive compensatory influence of ground water reduced the likelihood of habitat-derived use impairment on these waters. Alternatively, the contribution of ground water to the Frink Run tributary appeared less pronounced. Although septic conditions were not observed, the stream appeared to be waning at the time of evaluation, and as such the limiting effects of ephemerality may have been more consequential than that observed on West Branch Mud Run and upper Slate Run.

Page 84 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Walnut Creek stood apart from the remaining West Branch tributaries in that it retained perennial flow. Situated within an active pasture with unrestricted cattle access, macrohabitat deficits at this location were of the type commonly associated with livestock. Although unmodified, the riparian area was nearly free of woody vegetation. Cattle access to all points on the stream resulted in bank slippage and erosion (false banks) and undoubtably contributed to moderate sedimentation observed in depositional areas. Without the benefit of shading and with a steady source of nutrients, this segment of Walnut Creek supported an overabundant growth of algae and aquatic macrophytes, approaching nuisance conditions. The combined effects of stimulated productivity and the habitat deficits described above appeared sufficient to impair or at least adversely affect the resident aquatic community. However, the contribution of ground water to this reach appeared to mitigate these factors. As such, use impairment on Walnut Creek derived solely from deficient macrohabitat did not appear likely. West Branch Huron River Fish Performance of community indices (IBI and MIwb) and accompanying narratives from the West Branch Huron River subbasin ranged from exceptional (IBI=55 and MIwb=10.3) to poor-fair (IBI=26 and MIwb=7.8), with a subbasin average characterized as good-very good (IBI=41.3 and MIwb=9.2, ± two SDs, 14.16 IBI units and 1.64 MIwb units). Summarized index scores and descriptive community statistics, by station, are presented in Table 11. Longitudinal and categorical performance of the IBI, MIwb and other relevant indicators are presented in (Figure 15). Eighty-eight percent of the assessed waters within the West Branch subbasin were found to support fish assemblages consistent with the prescribed biocriteria. These included nearly the entire length of the West Branch mainstem and most tributaries. Conditions through the lower 23 river miles of the mainstem are particularly noteworthy, as stations deployed to this reach consistently supported exceptional fish assemblages. IBI and MIwb scores through this segment did not simply meet the minimum WWH criteria, but instead performed well in excess of the criteria in almost every instance. Given the very strong performance of these biometrics, the lower 23 miles of the West Branch are a good candidate for redesignation from the existing WWH use to EWH. Despite habitat limitations identified for most West Branch tributaries, 17 of the 19 stations supported fish assemblages minimally consistent the WWH biocriteria. Community performance greater than habitat measures alone would predict appeared a result of several factors. The most widespread and consequential of these was the compensatory influence of ground water, which was generally, but not always, indicated by the presence of cool/cold water fish taxa. Fish species so identified included mottled sculpin and a single YOY rainbow trout, the latter being collected from the mouth of Clayton Ditch. Either significant departure from the WWH biocriteria or community performance narratively described as poor were limited to three headwater locations: West Branch Huron River headwaters (RM 47.47); upper Clayton Ditch (RM 4.09); and upper East Branch Mud Run (RM 6.42). Subpar conditions at these locations were attributed to a range of factors centered around deficient physical habitat. To varying degrees, all labored under the effects of hydromodification (channel and riparian modifications and related drainage practices), but the hydrology appeared controlling. Like most West Branch tributaries, the upper West Branch mainstem was previously ditched. Despite the considerable period of time that has elapsed since the initial riparian and channel modifications, the upper West Branch has yet to fully recover or reestablish a basic suite of channel, substrate and riparian features consistent with WWH communities. The absence of adequate recovery may be related to low stream power or possibly informal maintenance activities, or both. While reasonably rich species-wise, the fish Page 85 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

ECBP Ecoregion 60 Headwaters Wading Plymouth WWTP Willard WWTP (via Holiday Lake and outlet) b 50 a EWH Crtieria - Satewide 40 ECBP WWH Crtieria IBI 30 Monroevill e WWTP W. Br. Huron River Seymore Creek Clayton Ditch Frink Run 20 Holiday Lake Outlet Slate Run a - Willard Lowhead dam Shiloh Ditch Marsh Run b - Monroeville Lowhead dam 10 12 b 10 a EWH Crtieria - Satewide 8 ECBP WWH Crtieria 6 MIwb Monroevill e WWTP 4 Plymouth WWTP Willard WWTP 2 (vi a Holiday Lake and outlet) 0 100 Plymouth WWTP a 80 b EWH Benchmarks 60

WWH Benchmarks QHEI 40 Habitat Limits Willard WWTP Monroevill e WWTP 20 (vi a Holiday Lake and outlet)

0 50 40 30 20 10 0 River Mile

Figure 15. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb and the QHEI, West Branch Huron River, 2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the WWH and EWH biocriteria and areas of non‐significant departure for IBI and MIwb. Arrows identify significant direct points of discharge for NPDES‐permitted entities or confluence(s) of direct tributary. Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a). The entire length of the West Branch mainstem and most tributaries are contained within the ECBP ecoregion (Omernik 1987, Omernik and Gallant 1988). Exceptions to this include Clayton Ditch and Seymore Creek, both of which are located within the HELP. assemblage was dominated by environmentally tolerant and pioneering taxa (both more than 70 percent), and sensitive species were absent. Departure of the IBI from the prescribed biocriterion was significant, but conditions here were not profoundly degraded (IBI=30, fair). The middling nature of the fish community appeared a product of limited habitat (channel modification and riparian encroachment). Although the upper West Branch was found flowing in late June, the dominance of pioneering species may

Page 86 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020 indicate episodic intermittency as an additional limiting factor. The loss of aqueous habitat through periodic drought would preclude the establishment of a well-organized resident fish community and instead permit only an ecologically improvised assemblage, relegated to a state of near perpetual recovery. Upper Clayton Ditch is actively maintained as an open ditch by county authorities, as provided for in Ohio drainage law (Office of the Erie County Engineer, annual report, 2016). In terms of physical habitat and ambient biology, upper Clayton Ditch was among the lowest performing stream segments in the Huron River study area. Highly artificial in nature, upper Clayton Ditch was deeply incised, trapezoidal in cross- section and generally without significant riparian vegetation. Narratively, the performance of both the QHEI and IBI were within the poor range, achieving scores of 38.5 and 26.0, respectively. Despite the poor habitat and poor biological narratives, the IBI did not significantly depart from the artificially low HELP biocriteria. However, given its channel history, standing as an actively maintained drainageway and undesignated status within the Ohio WQS, upper Clayton Ditch appears a strong candidate for MWH designation. Upper East Branch Mud Run was affected by a combination of historical hydromodification and incipient intermittency. The stream was obviously channelized in the past but did not appear to have been actively maintained, at least as of late. Channel development was monotonous and associated substrates were largely hardpan and detritus (accumulation of sticks, twigs and woody debris over clay), with significant siltation observed in depositional areas. In addition to these physical deficits, upper East Branch Mud Run appeared to be approaching intermittent conditions when evaluated in early July. Composition of the fish assemblage reflected habitat deficits, as the community was dominated by tolerant, facultative species. Of the 10 species taken at this location, six were tolerant, and together they accounted for more than 70 percent of the all fish collected. Conversely, the proportion of environmentally sensitive fish was very low (1.3 percent) and was represented by a single species. Although not a dominant component of the assemblage, the proportion of pioneers (35 percent) did exceed background expectations (Ohio EPA 1987b). The combination of low species richness, dominance of tolerant and ecological generalists and a high proportion of pioneering species yielded an IBI that departed significantly from the prescribed biocriterion. Conditions here appeared consistent with limited macrohabitat and possible intermittent discharge.

Page 87 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

West Branch Huron River Basin Macroinvertebrates The West Branch Huron River basin includes the mainstem and intersecting tributaries from the headwaters to the confluence the East Branch Huron River. Twenty-nine sites on sixteen streams were sampled in 2016. The West Branch Huron River at RM 47.47 offered a limited habitat with silty substrates and eroded banks. Nonetheless, macroinvertebrate sampling conducted at the site indicated that water quality was within acceptable limits and reflected a marginally good community condition. In total, 57 taxa were collected with five EPT and three sensitive taxa. The macroinvertebrate community downstream from the Plymouth WWTP (RM 38.40) was in exceptional condition. Sampling produced an ICI score of 46 and yielded 16 EPT taxa and 11 sensitive taxa from the natural substrates. A decline of 10 points ICI score downstream from Marsh Run (RM 35.34) still met WWH expectations but was significant, particularly when associated with a reduction in EPT taxa observed on the natural substrates. Sixteen EPT taxa were recorded at RM 38.4; just two taxa were collected from RM 35.34. Possible causes for the decline in community condition include increased siltation and periodic toxicity originating from agricultural and horticultural areas near Celeryville, adjacent to Marsh Run. A similar macroinvertebrate assemblage was collected in Marsh Run near the confluence with the West Branch. The subsequent sites on the West Branch Huron River upstream from the confluence of Slate Run (RM 29.18 to RM 13.3) supported macroinvertebrate assemblages that reflected very good to exceptional condition. Three West Branch Huron River sites downstream from the confluence of Slate Run supported exceptional macroinvertebrate communities with at least 20 EPT taxa in keeping with the diverse habitat within this reach. Shiloh Ditch was sampled near the mouth at RM 0.12. The 2005 TMDL recommended a MWH ALU based on 2002 sampling but the stream is currently designated as a WWH. In 2016, the macroinvertebrate assemblage marginally met WWH expectations. Marsh Run at RM 7.53 produced a marginally good result with 10 EPT and 6 sensitive taxa. Artificial substrates were collected at RM 0.2 and yielded an ICI score in the good range (ICI=38). One concerning aspect of the Marsh Run sampling was the absence of certain taxa that are normally collected given the habitat features that these sites possessed. No heptageniid mayflies, dragonfly nymphs or crayfish were recorded at RM 7.53. A limited number of mayflies were collected from the artificial substrates at RM 0.2, but no crayfish were recorded. The unnamed tributary (RM 3.12) to Marsh Run was a deeply incised sand/gravel substrate ditch which drains the area around Celeryville. The community was predominated by tolerant and facultative taxa, but sustained ground water-derived flow benefited the macroinvertebrate community overall; resulting in the collection of a marginally good assemblage. Walnut Creek at RM 0.98 had an open canopy, and silty shallow streambed with extensive bank erosion. Pooled areas had a thick layer of dark silt (likely decayed algae/plant material). The Walnut Creek macroinvertebrate community was in good condition, but significant enrichment was indicated by the high density of midges and flatworms observed. The Holiday Lake tributary produced a modestly improved macroinvertebrate result in 2016 compared to sampling conducted in 1998 and marginally met ecoregional expectations. The community reflected Page 88 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

enrichment but it appeared that D.O. concentrations were within acceptable limits. Macroinvertebrate sampling of the unnamed tributary (RM 2.80) to Holiday Lake tributary was performed in a silty, channelized, impounded reach. While there were no overt signs of water quality impairment, limited habitat precluded definitive assessment. Similar EPT and sensitive taxa results in 1998 were assessed as reflecting a fair community condition. The 2016 results were consistent with that evaluation. Beginning with Slate Run and progressing downstream, nearly all sites on tributaries to the lower portion of West Branch were intermittent or had, at best, interstitial flow. The West Branch Mud Run was the only tributary stream in the HUC which supported macroinvertebrate assemblages that at least marginally met WWH expectations. The remaining streams had one or more sites in the fair-to-poor range due to intermittence, enrichment or channel modification. Slate Run at RM 10.42 was intermittent when sampling was conducted. Just five EPT and two sensitive taxa were collected. Nevertheless, the macroinvertebrate community was rated as marginally good. The collected assemblage did not suggest water quality impact and the lack of excessive algae on sun-exposed substrates reflected acceptable nutrient levels. The macroinvertebrate community demonstrated a decline and was in fair condition at RM 4.1. The site was intermittent and sun-exposed areas were coated with a thick layer of degrading organic material. It remains to be seen if intermittent conditions encountered in 2016 will continue to be the rule rather than the exception, particularly given modern drainage management practices where agriculture is the predominant land use. Qualitative macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted on the East Branch Mud Run at RMs 6.42 and 1.38. The macroinvertebrate community was in poor condition at RM 6.42. The site was intermittent and likely subject to low D.O. in the remaining pools. Septic, black odorous silt filled the spaces amongst larger substrates, apparently resulting from the deposition of decaying leaves and algae. Community condition was modestly improved at RM 1.38 and rated marginally good. Flow was nearly intermittent but nutrient levels seemed to be at acceptable levels. Frink Run was pooled at RM 7.15 and intermittent at RM 0.09. Fair macroinvertebrate communities were present at both sites. The community at the upper site appeared to be impacted by a combination of poor habitat and water quality impacts. Agricultural practices may be having some chronic toxic effects on macroinvertebrate diversity, but additional evidence is needed to substantiate or reject this hypothesis. The lower site, at RM 0.09, did not appear to be excessively enriched and benefited from shading of the stream bed which limited primary productivity. The number of EPT and sensitive taxa was reduced in 2016 compared to a sample collected in 1998, likely due to stream intermittence encountered in 2016 at RM 0.09. Nutrient inputs had a significant impact on the unnamed tributary (RM 5.83) to Frink Run. The stream consisted of a series of nearly intermittent small pools. Sections with open canopy were full of filamentous algae and contained a thick layer of degrading anoxic sediment. It was likely that overnight D.O. values approached zero. Qualitative sampling yielded five EPT and one sensitive taxon and merited a fair rating. Seymour Creek was sampled at RM 0.7 and consisted of a series of intermittent pools within a narrow gorge. The fair community represented in the qualitative sampling of available habitats reflected the natural features rather than having suffered significant anthropogenic impacts. Meggison Creek was intermittent when macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted in late July 2016. A layer of sandy silt was present overlaying larger substrates. Away from the bridge crossing at Sand Hill

Page 89 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Road, much of the stream was enveloped by overhanging vegetation. It appeared that historical channelization and tiling at least in part contributed to the fair macroinvertebrate community at RM 0.59. Four EPT and just a single sensitive taxon were collected from the natural substrates. Clayton Ditch at RM 4.09 was a channelized grass-lined watercourse. The community appeared to be limited by a combination of marginal habitat and enrichment. Just four EPT taxa and no sensitive taxa were collected. The macroinvertebrate assemblage was evaluated to be in the low fair range. Low D.O. levels were a concern given the quantity of plant material decomposing in stream channel. An improved habitat and assimilation of upstream nutrients were evident near the confluence with the West Branch Huron River at RM 0.01. Eleven EPT and seven sensitive taxa were collected at the downstream site. Aquatic Life Trends: 1984‐2016 A review of historical monitoring data provides an excellent opportunity to evaluate the environmental conditions of the Huron River basin through time. Prior to the 2016 survey, systematic water quality investigations of the study area date back to 1998. An abbreviated follow-up survey undertaken in 2002 focused on clarifying use impairments identified in 1998 survey, but this effort was limited in scope. Similarly, monitoring and assessment activities performed prior to 1998 were largely piece meal in nature, supporting various quality management activities, including, but not limited to, stream regionalization, NPDES permitting, use attainability analysis and reference site monitoring. To serve the purposes of this report, trends assessments are centered on comparisons between fish assemblages from monitoring stations with a high degree of actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years. Associated water quality data, pollutant loadings, macrohabitat quality, land use practices, hydrology and other lines of evidence were examined as possible explanatory variables. To succinctly summarize and evaluate conditions between field years, analysis of trends will take three basic forms: 1) aggregated annual trends, examining performance of selected measures and indexes from comparable data through time including, as needed, basic non-parametric analysis, to discern gross statistical differences between and among field years; 2) longitudinal comparison of indexes and other biometrics relative to the principal associated stressors or pollution sources; and 3) where stream-specific data are limited to a few sampling stations or water bodies, trends assessment will take the form of a narrative, as these data do not lend themselves to statistical treatment, aggregation or longitudinal presentation. A great deal of site overlap exists between the survey years, particularly between 2016 and 1998, and together with older data provided an excellent opportunity to evaluate meaningful changes, or lack thereof, in the environmental conditions of the Huron River watershed through the period of record. Aggregate Fish Community Performance Within the Huron River watershed, 12 to 14 monitoring stations on eight water bodies aligned or were identified as being common to various Ohio EPA surveys conducted between 1984 and 2016. River and streams so described included the upper Huron River mainstem, large segments of the principal tributaries (West and East branches) and selected minor tributaries throughout the watershed. These data were binned by year or in the case of results from the 1980s, a range of years, and served to describe the overall trajectory of the watershed over the past 30 plus years. Sample size was sacrificed to some extent to capture the very oldest survey data available, that in most instances predates important state and federal pollution abatement/control initiatives [for example, adoption of Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs), capital improvements to POTWs (constructions grants and loans) and the broad adoption of agricultural conservation practices]. Similar aggregations were made for the East Branch and West Branch

Page 90 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Huron River subbasin, the main difference being aggregated trends included 2016 and 1998 results only. For these waters, including aligned data from 2002 and the 1980s would have yielded an unacceptably small sample size. By limiting aggregated trends assessment to 2016 and 1998, significantly more comparable streams and stations were included. Aggregated community performance and summary statistics for each of the field years are provided in Figure 16. These data clearly portray the positive trajectory of the fish assemblages within the Huron River study area through time. Among the selected basin-wide stations employed to this purpose, results from the mid-1980s found nearly half impaired, with the lower end of the distribution well within the poor range at that time. Results from 1998 survey indicated considerable improvement, as nearly 75 percent of these sites supported fish community consistent with the minimum biocriteria, and of these, just under half exceeded it. The most recent results (2016) found the subset of sites to support a mix of WWH and EWH communities. Although aggregated trends analysis for the East and West branches did not include data prior to 1998, it yielded similar findings, namely considerable improvement through time. Between 1998 and 2016, the East and West branches recruited fish assemblages fully consistent with WWH biocriteria. In fact, conditions have so improved that much of the West Branch Huron River presently supports fully exceptional communities. A similar high degree of recovery was evident at selected locations on the East Branch. Non-parametric testing of these data indicated strong and statistically significant differences (at p<0.05) between most field years, within the watershed as a whole, and within the two major subbasins (Table 14).

Page 91 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

60 Huron River Basin E. Br. Huron River Basin W. Br. Huron River Basin 2016-1980s 2016-1998 2016-1998

50

40 IBI 30

20

n=8 n=8 10 n=12 n=14 n=14 n=19 n=20 2016 1998 1987-84 2016 1998 2016 1998

Figure 16. Performance of the IBI for the Huron River basin (mainstem and selected tributaries), East Branch subbasin, and West Branch subbasin, through time. Data aggregation based upon a high degree of actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years. Horizontal greyscale bars represent the generic WWH biocriteria and areas of non‐significant departure for the IBI.

Table 14. Wilcoxon‐Mann‐Whitney Rank Sum tests for IBI scores from the Huron River (basin) and East and West Branch Huron River subbasins, through time. At p<0.05, significant differences in IBI scores between years are highlighted (bold). East Branch West Branch Huron River Huron River Huron River 2016 1998 1998 1984‐87 2016 1984‐87 2016 1998 2016 1998 Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Count 12 14 14 14 12 14 8 8 19 20 Median 47 38.5 39.5 36 47 36 44.5 39 43 39.5 Median Difference 7.5 3.5 11 5.5 3.5 Sum of Group 1 ranks 209.5 244 234 89 458 Sum of Group 2 ranks 141.5 162 117 47 322 Group1 U 131.5 139 156 53 268 Group2 U 36.5 57 12 11 112 P Value 0.01537 0.06165 0.000228 0.0307 0.02906 Longitudinal Fish Community Trends: 1984‐2016 Unlike the aggregate assessment, where only sites, reaches or streams common to multiple survey years were compared, all relevant fish community data collected by Ohio EPA over the past 32 years were compiled for a longitudinal assessment. The great advantage of this approach is that the spatial relationships of the survey data are conserved. This allows relational variables and other relevant features of the study area (for example, permitted entities, ecoregion, use designations, sampling method, associated biocriteria, impoundments and tributaries) to be displayed not only concurrently, but with the additional benefit of adequate spatial accuracy, resulting in figures that are simultaneously information dense, yet easily comprehended. Furthermore, small or circumscribed data typically excluded from the aggregate analysis due to sample size constraints may help describe changes in local conditions when

Page 92 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

plotted longitudinally. Longitudinal performance of the community indices, biometrics and other measures from the principal rivers and streams of the study area, through time, are presented in Figure 17 through Figure 23. Consistent with the gross trends described thus far, longitudinal performance of fish community indexes and various biometrics portrayed significant recovery since the initial surveys of the 1980s. Improvements were incremental and cumulative, reflecting, in most instances, the net accrual of species, increased numerical abundances and biomass, improved structural evenness, reductions in the proportion of tolerant taxa and improved proportions of positive functional groups (for example, lithophiles, specialist insectivores, top carnivores). These changes correspond with improving aquatic use attainment statistics for the principal drainages of the Huron basin. For example, an examination of historical data found aquatic life use impairment on the West Branch Huron River peaked at 45 percent of assessed miles. The 2016 survey found only 5.8 percent of assessed miles impaired, and these were limited to the upper most reaches. Similar trends were observed on the East Branch as well. Although the most significant improvements were observed largely through the lower seven miles, improvements were noted in the headwaters as well, including recovery from a localized fish kill in 2002, tentatively attributed to an illicit release of DDT, as degradation products were identified in subsequent sediment samples. Historical sampling from the upper five miles of Huron River mainstem never identified significant use impairment, but conditions have none-the-less improved incrementally through each reporting cycle beginning in the mid-1980s. Over the intervening 30 plus years, conditions have so improved that the upper mainstem presently supports an exceptional fish assemblage, and in fact, has done so since 1998. Most of the minor Huron basin tributaries evaluated in 2016 were previously sampled in either 2002 or 1998, with limited data dating to the mid-1980s. Just under half of the tributaries common to both historical sampling and the 2016 effort were found stable through time, and generally supported fish assemblages consistent with their respective aquatic life use designation. Streams so described included: Walnut Creek; upper Slate Run; West Branch Mud Run; Frink Run (subbasin); Seymore Creek; lower Clayton Ditch; Norwalk Creek tributary; and Cole Creek. Improved conditions were identified at nearly half of minor tributaries or reaches thereof. Recovered streams included: Shiloh Ditch; Marsh Run (subbasin); Holiday Lake outlet (and tributary); lower Slate Run; East Branch Mud Run; Megginson Creek; and Norwalk Creek. Declines were limited to two stations on two separate streams, West Branch Rattlesnake Creek and upper Clayton Ditch, the latter a result of ditch maintenance activities by county authorities. As it receives treated wastewater from the Norwalk WWTP, the Rattlesnake Creek subbasin warrants brief separate discussion. Initially surveyed in 1984, both mainstem and the West Branch Rattlesnake Creek were reevaluated in 1998 and 2016. Results from the 1984 survey found all stations to support poor communities, characterized by very low species richness, low numerical abundance and little-to-no functional organization. Selected sites were revisited in 1998 and were found to support communities that met or exceeded the prescribed WWH biocriteria. Much improved IBI scores reflected significant increases in species richness and numerical abundance and improved functional organization. In most instances these positive conditions persisted through the following 18 years. An exception to this was found on the West Branch Rattlesnake Creek at RM 1.38(downstream Norwalk WWTP), where the IBI declined 10 units, from 46 to 36, between 1998 and 2016. Although the decline was significant, the IBI here did not fall below the minimum WWH biocriterion.

Page 93 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

60 HELP (free flowing)HELP (free flowing) HELP (lake affected) 2016 50 EWH Crtierion - Statewide 2002 1998 40 1984 Milan WWTP (via Village Cr.) IBI 30 WWH Criterion - HELP Norwalk WWTP (via Rattlesnake Cr.) 20 Note: Coho lowhead dam removed 2003 (RM 14.7) 10 12 Norwalk WWTP (via Rattlesnake Cr.) 10 EWH Crtierion - Statewide 8 WWH Criterion - HELP 6

MIwb Milan WWTP (via Village Cr.) 4 Note: Coho lowhead dam removed 2 2003 (RM 14.7) 0 100 Norwalk WWTP (via Rattlesnake Cr.) 80 EWH Benchmark 60 WWH Benchmark

QHEI 40 Habitat Limits

Note: Coho lowhead dam removed Milan WWTP (via Village Cr.) 20 2003 (RM 14.7)

0 15 14 13 12 11 10 0 River Mile

Figure 17. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb and the QHEI on the Huron River mainstem, 1984‐2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the WWH and EWH biocriteria and areas of non‐significant departure for IBI and MIwb. Arrows identify significant direct points of discharge for NPDES‐permitted entities, confluence(s) of direct tributary or temporal activity (dam removal in 2003). Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a). The lower lake affected segment of the Huron River is represented by rectangular area of greyscale hatch marks.

Page 94 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Figure 18. Longitudinal performance of selected biometrics, Huron River mainstem, 1984‐2016. Arrows identify significant points of discharge for NPDES‐permitted entities, confluence(s) of direct tributary or temporal activity (dam removal). The lower, lake affected segment of the Huron River is represented by rectangular area of greyscale hatch marks. 60 Rattlsnake Creek- HELP - WWH 60 W. Br. Rattlsnake Creek- HELP - WWH 2016 Norwalk WWTP 50 50 2016 1998 EWH EWH 1998 40 1984 40 1984 IBI IBI 30 30 WWH WWH 20 Norwalk WWTP 20 (via W. Br. Rattlesnake Creek) 10 10 100 100 Norwalk WWTP 80 80 EWH Benchmark EWH Benchmark

60 WWH Benchmark 60 WWH Benchmark Habitat Limits QHEI QHEI 40 Habitat Limits 40 20 Norwalk WWTP 20 (via W. Br. Rattlesnake Creek) 0 0 25 25 Norwalk WWTP 20 20 15 15 Norwalk WWTP 10 10 (via W. Br. Rattlesnake Creek)

Sp. Rich.(No.) Sp. 5 Rich.(No.) Sp. 5 0 0 25 4 Norwalk WWTP 20 Norwalk WWTP (via W. Br. Rattlesnake Creek) 3 15 2 10 1 Sen. Sp (%)SpSen. Sen. Sp. (%) 5 0 0 2000 2000 Norwalk WWTP 1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500 Norwalk WWTP (via W. Br. Rattlesnake Cr.) Rel.No (No./0.3km) Rel.No (No./0.3km) Rel.No 0 0 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 River Mile River Mile Figure 19. Longitudinal performance of the IBI and selected biometrics from Rattlesnake Creek (left column) and West Branch Rattlesnake Creek (right column), 1984‐2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the statewide EWH and WWH HELP biocriteria for the IBI. Arrows identify either Norwalk WWTP discharge or confluence of West Branch Rattlesnake Creek

Page 95 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

(receiving stream) on Rattlesnake Creek. Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a).

ECBP Ecoregion 60 Headwaters Wading Norwalk PWS Dam 50 EWH Crtieria - Satewide 40 ECBP WWH Crtieria IBI 30 2016 2002 Norwalk Creek - RM 6.28) 20 Cole Creek - RM 6.35 1998 (Norwalk CSOs & Reservoir) 1984 10 12 Norwalk PWS Dam 10 EWH Crtierion- Satewide 8 ECBP WWH Crtieria 6 MIwb 4 Norwalk Creek - RM 6.28) Cole Creek - RM 6.35 2 (Norwalk CSOs & Reservoir) 0 100 Norwalk PWS Dam 80 EWH Benchmark

60 WWH Benchmark Habitat Limits QHEI 40

Norwalk Creek - RM 6.28) 20 Cole Creek - RM 6.35 (Norwalk CSOs & Reservoir) 0 25 20 15 10 5 0 River Mile . Figure 20. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb and the QHEI on the East BranchHuron River mainstem, 1984‐2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the WWH and EWH biocriteria and areas of non‐significant departure for IBI and MIwb. Arrows identify significant direct points of discharge for NPDES‐permitted entities, confluence(s) of direct tributary or temporal activity (dam removal in 2003). Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a).

Page 96 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

35

30 2016 2002 Norwalk PWS Dam 25 1998 1984 20 Norwalk Creek - RM 6.28) Cole Creek - RM 6.35 15 (Norwalk CSOs & Reservoir)

Species Richness Richness Species(No.) 10 50

40 Norwalk PWS Dam

30

20

10 Sen. Species (%) Norwalk Creek - RM 6.28) Cole Creek - RM 6.35 (Norwalk CSOs & Reservoir) 0 80 Norwalk Creek - RM 6.28) 70 Cole Creek - RM 6.35 (Norwalk CSOs & Res.) 60 50 40 Norwalk PWS Dam 30 20 Tol. Species (%) Species Tol. 10 0 4000 3500 Norwalk Creek - RM 6.28) Cole Creek - RM 6.35 (Norwalk CSOs & Reservoir) 3000 2500 Norwalk PWS Dam 2000 1500 1000

Rel. No. (No./0.3km) No. Rel. 500 0 60 Norwalk Creek - RM 6.28) Cole Creek - RM 6.35 50 (Norwalk CSOs & Reservoir) 40 Norwalk PWS Dam 30 20

Rel Wt. (kg/0.3km)10 0 25 20 15 10 5 0 River Mile Figure 21. Longitudinal performance of selected biometrics, East Branch Huron River, 1984‐2016. Arrows identify significant points of discharge for NPDES‐permitted entities and confluence(s) of direct tributaries.

Page 97 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

ECBP Ecoregion 60 Headwaters Wading b 50 EWH Crtieria - Satewide a 40 ECBP WWH Crtieria IBI Holiday Lake Frink Run 30 (Reservoir & Wllard WWTP) Marsh Run Slate Run 20 Plymouth WWTP Monroevill e WWTP 10 12 b 2016 a 10 2002 1998 EWH Crtieria - Satewide 8 1987 ECBP WWH Crtieria 1984 6 MIwb Holiday Lake 4 Marsh Run (Reservoir & Willard WWTP) Monroevill e WWTP Slate Run 2 a - Willard Lowhead Dam Plymouth WWTP b - Monroeville Lowhead Dam Frink Run 0 100

a 80 b

EWH Benchmarks 60 WWH Benchmarks

QHEI 40 Marsh Run Frink Run Habitat Limits Holiday Lake (Reservoir & Willard WWTP) Slate Run 20 Plymouth WWTP Monroeville WWTP 0 50 40 30 20 10 0 River Mile Figure 22. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb and the QHEI on the West Branch Huron River, 1984‐2016. Greyscale horizontal bars represent the WWH and EWH biocriteria and areas of non‐significant departure for IBI and MIwb. Arrows identify discharge for significant NPDES‐permitted entities or confluence(s) of direct tributaries. Horizontal dashed lines indicate EWH and WWH benchmarks and scores typical of significantly deficient or otherwise potentially limiting macrohabitat (Rankin 1989, Rankin 1995 and Ohio EPA 2006a).

Page 98 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

40 b 35 Holiday Lake Marsh Run (Reservoir & Wllard WWTP) 30 a 25 Plymouth WWTP 20 Slate Run 15 Frink Run Monroeville WWTP

Species Richness (No.) 10 70 Holiday Lake 60 (Reservoir & Wllard WWTP) b 50 a 40 Plymouth WWTP 30 20 Monroeville WWTP

Sen.Species(%) 10 Slate Run Frink Run 0 Marsh Run 80 Marsh Run 70 Holiday Lake Monroeville WWTP 60 (Reservoir & Wllard WWTP) 50 Slate Run

40 Frink Run 30 a 20

Tol. Species(%) b 10 Plymouth WWTP 0 2500 Marsh Run Monroeville WWTP 2000 a Plymouth WWTP Holiday Lake Slate Run b 1500 (Reservoir & Wllard WWTP)

1000 Willard Lowhead Dam

500

Rel. No. (No./0.3km) No. Rel. Frink Run 0 100 a - Willard Lowhead Dam Monroeville WWTP 2016 80 b - Monroeville Lowhead Dam 2002 Plymouth WWTP b 1998 Slate Run 60 Marsh Run 1987 Holiday Lake 1984 a 40 (Reservoir & Wllard WWTP)

20 Rel. Wt. (kg/0.3km) Frink Run 0 50 40 30 20 10 0 River Mile Figure 23. Longitudinal performance of selected biometrics, West Branch Huron River, 1984‐2016. Arrows identify significant points of discharge for NPDES‐permitted entities and confluence(s) of direct tributaries.

Page 99 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Multiple factors are associated with or coincidental to the broad improvements documented throughout the Huron River study area in 2016. Wide ranging in nature, although not equally consequential at all positions within the watershed or for all water bodies, a constellation of factors, together, appeared to explain the current, largely recovered, conditions. Said actions, initiatives or factors included: various governmental regulatory actions resulting in improved water quality; widespread adoption of soil conservation practices on agricultural lands; flow regime of the Huron basin (high flow, drought or normal); and, to a limited extent, recovery from local temporal events (fish kill). Where information or data are available, these categories are briefly summarized below. Macroinvertebrate Community Trends: 1998‐2016 The 2005 Huron River TMDL report utilized macroinvertebrate community results from surveys conducted in 1998 and 2002. The report provides as the basis for delineation of trends in macroinvertebrate community condition. Analysis of macroinvertebrate data often calls for comparing ICI scores from one year with narrative evaluations for another. An effort to devise a way to standardize comparison of macroinvertebrate data has resulted in the development of a predictive Invertebrate Community Index

(pICI) that uses a combination of attributes derived from taxa collected from the natural substrates1 (Ohio EPA 2015b). The pICI reflects a range of ecological condition from very poor to exceptional. Generally, sites in the study area with pICI scores between 30 and 40 met WWH expectations and exceptional macroinvertebrate communities yielded pICI scores above 40. There are 37 sites that are part of the 2015 survey for which ICI scoring or narrative evaluations were included in the 2015 TMDL report. Comparison of the 2015 and 1998-2002 evaluations and number of EPT taxa for the Huron River mainstem, East Branch Huron River and associated tributaries are presented in Table 15. West Branch Huron River results are included in Table 16. Huron River macroinvertebrate community condition represented using the pICI, is depicted in Figure 24. Collections in 1998, 2002 and 2016 documented consistently very good to excellent macroinvertebrate assemblages. Even though the result from RM 2.37 on Rattlesnake Creek marginally met ecoregional expectations, a decline in community condition was apparent compared to results from 1998. It is likely that low water levels encountered during 2016 played a large part to limit the number of EPT and sensitive taxa. Diffuse sources and habitat constraints along with the nutrient load from the Norwalk WWTP were identified in the 2005 TMDL report as causative factors affecting the West Branch Rattlesnake Creek and results from 2016 were little changed. Norwalk Creek near the confluence with the East Branch Huron River demonstrated incremental improvement in macroinvertebrate community condition compared to results from 1998 as reported in the 2005 TMDL. The site rated good in 1998 but produced an ICI score in the exceptional range (ICI= 48) in 2016. Additionally, both EPT and sensitive taxa diversity demonstrated increases in 2016. The unnamed

1 The pICI is formed by a nonlinear combination of total taxa richness (TR), EPT taxa richness (EPT), percent of taxa listed as tolerant (PTOL), percent of taxa listed as predators (PPRED), and drainage area (DA). The equation is: 21.110+0.108TR+2.103*EPT-0.050*EPT2-0.003*PCTOL2-0.115*PCPRED+1.016*DA. The pICI is used to make a continuous variable based on presence/absence data collected at all sites, as a mix of rank data (i.e., from narratives) and continuous data (ICI scores) and is not amenable to statistical analysis. Narrative assessments of qualitative data and ICI scores derived from quantitative data remain the gold standard for assessing aquatic life use status. (Ohio EPA 2015c.) Page 100 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

tributary to Norwalk Creek at RM 1.62 produced similar good numbers of EPT and sensitive taxa in collections from 2002 and 2016. Cole Creek qualitative sampling results from 2016 were consistent with the WWH ALU and were similar to 1998 sampling results.

Huron River 60

50

40

PICI 30

2016 20 2002 1998 10

0 15 14 13 12 11 10 River Mile

Figure 24. Longitudinal profiles of pICI scores for the Huron River by sampling year. Note that pICI scores are used solely to permit comparison of sites with a mix of narrative evaluation and ICI scores and not as an alternative determinant of aquatic life use attainment.

In 1998, sampling at RM 24.67 of the East Branch Huron River produced an ICI in the very good range (ICI=44) but was a year in which above-average precipitation and flow permitted the use of artificial substrates and provided dilution of diffuse pollutants. In 2002, a poor macroinvertebrate assemblage was credited to intermittent flow and a die-off of extensive algal mats in the open channel. A fair community demonstrated modest improvement in 2016 at RM 24.67 (Figure 25). In 2002, a toxic spill was suspected as the cause of the poor condition of the macroinvertebrate community at RM 19.11. The community performed modestly better in 2016 and was rated in fair condition. The West Branch Huron River upstream from the Plymouth WWTP (RM 42.23) met WWH expectations but qualitative sampling produced lower numbers of EPT and sensitive taxa compared to similar effort in 1998. The community was in exceptional condition in 1998 with an ICI score of 56. It appeared that the stream benefited from increased average flow volume experienced during the earlier survey (Figure 26). The macroinvertebrate community downstream from the Plymouth WWTP has exhibited a varied response to the discharge of treated wastewater since 1998. The Plymouth WWTP had a significant impact on the macroinvertebrate community in 2002. An ICI score of 16 reported in the TMDL report appears to be an error. Ohio EPA’s database of biological results contains qualitative sampling only in that year.

Page 101 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Nevertheless, conditions in 2002 were consistent with the score and failed to meet WWH ALU expectations. Low D.O. and elevated ammonia and phosphorus concentrations were thought to be significant causes of impact. Conversely, sampling in 1998 and 2016 produced comparable results with ICI scores in the exceptional range. Additional investigation into the Plymouth WWTP would be needed to ascertain treatment processes in 2002; but it is likely that changes in operation and/or treatment upgrades have helped to reestablish a high-quality macroinvertebrate community at the site.

East Branch Huron River 60

50

40

2016 PICI

PICI 30 2002 PICI 1998 PICI 20

10

0 25 20 15 10 5 0 River Mile

Figure 25. Longitudinal profiles of pICI scores for the East Branch Huron River by sampling year. Note that pICI scores are used solely to permit comparison of sites with a mix of narrative evaluation and ICI scores and not as an alternative determinant of aquatic life use attainment.

The remaining seven sites on the West Branch Huron River upstream from the confluence of Slate Run supported macroinvertebrate assemblages that were consistent with those reported in the 2005 TMDL. Shiloh Ditch qualitative sampling results marginally met WWH expectations in 2016. Total taxa number, EPT, and sensitive taxa diversity all were markedly higher than the 2002, even though sampling was conducted in a shallow channelized reach with a predominantly sand substrate. The earlier investigations of Marsh Run reported a marginally good macroinvertebrate community at RM 7.53 and a fair result for RM 0.2. Nutrients from upstream agricultural fields were identified as a primary source for the subpar result at RM 0.2 in the 2005 TMDL report. Sensitive taxa collected from Walnut Creek at RM 0.98 declined compared to similar sampling conducted in 1998 from 12 to just four taxa in 2016. In 2016, 26 tolerant taxa were collected, compared to nine taxa in 1998. Mayfly diversity was reduced in 2016 and suggests that RM 0.98 may be another location where selectively toxic agricultural chemicals have played a role in the makeup of the insect assemblage.

Page 102 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

West Branch Huron River 60

50

40

2016

PICI 30 2002 1998 20

10

0 50 40 30 20 10 0 River Mile

Figure 26. Longitudinal profiles of pICI scores for the West Branch Huron River by sampling year. Note that pICI scores are used solely to permit comparison of sites with a mix of narrative evaluation and ICI scores and not as an alternative determinant of aquatic life use attainment.

Slate Run at RM 4.1 was rated poor in 2002 and fair in 2016. Years earlier, in 1998 and 1984, water levels allowed for the placement of artificial substrates. The resultant ICI scores of 40 and 44, respectively, were consistent with the WWH ALU. Clayton Ditch is currently listed as WWH downstream from RM 2.85. The 2005 TMDL report included a recommendation that modified warmwater habitat use be applied to the upper reaches of the stream. Macroinvertebrate sampling in 2002 yielded results that were consistent with an MWH use at RM 4.09 and marginally met WWH expectations at RM 0.01. In 2016, a decline was evident in the results from RM 4.1. Just four EPT taxa and no sensitive taxa were collected. The macroinvertebrate assemblage was evaluated to be in the low fair range failed to meet the MWH criterion, let alone the current WWH at RM 4.09. The 2016 results from RM 0.01 were somewhat improved compared to results contained in the 2005 TMDL report.

Page 103 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table 15. Comparison of narrative evaluations and EPT diversity for selected Huron River and East Branch Huron River mainstem and tributary sites, 1998‐2002 and 2016. Station Code Stream Name River 1998‐ 2016 1998‐ 2016 Mile 2002 Evaluation 2002 Qual EPT Evaluation Qual EPT K01W01 HURON RIVER 14.65 E 54 19 20 501050 HURON RIVER 11.85 VG 54 11 18 K01G19 VILLAGE CREEK 1.12 G MG 7 8 K01W34 RATTLESNAKE CREEK 2.37 VG MG 16 6 K01W36 RATTLESNAKE CREEK 0.23 MG MG 5 5 501080 WEST BRANCH TO 1.38 3 4 F F RATTLESNAKE CREEK K01W22 EAST BRANCH HURON RIVER 24.67 P F 1 3 K01G21 EAST BRANCH HURON RIVER 19.11 P F 0 3 K01W19 EAST BRANCH HURON RIVER 13.66 VG 46 12 11 K01S11 EAST BRANCH HURON RIVER 6.85 50 48 13 15 501070 EAST BRANCH HURON RIVER 1.47 VG 54 15 18 K01P04 COLE CREEK 0.14 VG 54 14 13 K01P03 NORWALK CREEK 0.13 G 48 10 14 K01G20 UT (0.38) TO NORWALK CREEK 1.62 G G 11 11

Page 104 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table 16. Comparison of narrative evaluations and EPT diversity for selected West Branch Huron River mainstem and tributary sites, 1998‐2002 and 2016. Station Code Stream Name River 1998‐ 2016 1998‐ 2016 Mile 2002 Evaluation 2002 Qual EPT Evaluation Qual EPT K01G10 WEST BRANCH HURON RIVER 47.47 F MG 2 5 K01W11 WEST BRANCH HURON RIVER 42.23 56 G 18 13 K01P06 WEST BRANCH HURON RIVER 38.40 16 46 5 16 K01G12 WEST BRANCH HURON RIVER 35.34 40 36 7 2 K01W18 WEST BRANCH HURON RIVER 29.18 54 42 16 12 K01P05 WEST BRANCH HURON RIVER 22.73 46 46 13 16 K01W17 WEST BRANCH HURON RIVER 16.59 VG VG 13 18 K01W25 WEST BRANCH HURON RIVER 7.60 48 52 14 21 K01S12 WEST BRANCH HURON RIVER 3.67 E E 16 24 K01G17 CLAYTON DITCH 4.09 F LF 5 4 K01G16 CLAYTON DITCH 0.01 MG G 7 11 K01P10 UT (23.09) TO W. BR. HURON R. 2.97 F MG 5 8 K01G22 UT (2.80) TO HOLLIDAY LAKE 0.17 F F 5 4 K01G09 UT (48.05) TO W. BR. HURON 0.12 3 7 F MG RIVER (SHILOH DITCH) K01W24 MEGGINSON CREEK 0.59 MG F 6 4 K01P08 FRINK RUN 0.09 MG F 7 4 K01W16 SLATE RUN 10.42 MG MG 5 5 K01S03 SLATE RUN 4.10 P F 2 3 K01W15 EAST BRANCH MUD RUN 1.38 5 6 F MG (HURON CO.) K01W14 WEST BRANCH MUD RUN 0.52 4 7 F MG (SENECA CO.) K01G13 MARSH RUN 7.53 MG MG 9 10 K01K18 MARSH RUN 0.20 F 38 6 5 K01G14 UT (3.12) TO MARSH RUN 0.28 P MG 2 6

Page 105 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Pollutant Loads Water quality benefits resulting from iterative physical and operational improvements to the collection systems and treatment works of municipal wastewater facilities over the past 30 plus years appeared significant. First among these includes a substantial reduction in the loading of oxygen-demanding wastes and ammonia from major and important minor POTWs to the basin following the full implementation of WQBELs during the mid-1980s. Phosphorus loads to the Huron basin have been significantly reduced through the imposition of WWTP permit limits in support of reduction targets established in the late-1970s by the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA). Efforts to limit phosphorus entering the waste stream were also important in reducing loads of this key nutrient (for example, detergent phosphate ban of the mid- 1980s). Improved effluent quality associated with advanced wastewater treatment, optimization of existing treatment works, improvements to the collection system and management of inflow loads were clearly manifest in a marked reduction in the loading of key pollutants from most of the POTWs within the study area up to the late-1990s. For more information on pollutant loads from POTWs, see the NPDES appendix of this document. Ambient Water Quality To varying degrees, the actions summarized above were generally reflected in water quality though time. Gross trends were determined through the examination of three key parameters from daytime field grab samples: DO; ammonia; and total phosphorus. For most of the study area, adequate data dating back to the mid-1980s were available and formed the baseline against which the results from the 1998 and 2016 surveys were compared. Where these data were either lacking or inadequate, comparisons were limited to the results from recent field years. Data were aggregated by subbasin and limited to stations or reaches common to survey years. As measured by D.O., ammonia and phosphorus concentrations, water quality of the upper Huron mainstem showed consistent improvements since the 1980s. Peak ammonia loads were reflected in relatively high in-stream concentrations during the 1980s. At that time, median ammonia was twice background (0.05mg/l, per Ohio EPA 1999), with 75th percentile exceeding 0.2 mg/L, and maximum values approaching 1.0 mg/L. By comparison, results from 1998 showed significant reductions, with concentrations centered about the reporting limit. Low ammonia concentrations persisted, as results from 2016 were statistically indistinguishable from 1998 data. Phosphorus concentration showed similar declines, except major reductions were not realized until 2016. Peak values observed in 1998 may be related to heavy precipitation and associated elevated runoff and discharge that characterized that year. Under those conditions, diffuse sources and WWTP bypasses would serve as important overall sources to the watershed. D.O. declined significantly from peak concentrations observed in the 1980s. At that time, not only were the highest values observed, but these data showed the greatest spread, with a maximum greater than 12 mg/L and minimum values that approached 6 mg/L. Despite the bias inherent in daytime grab samples, these results suggested stimulated in-stream productivity and likely represented evidence of incipient nutrient over-enrichment. Between 1998 and 2016, the range of instantaneous D.O. values contracted significantly and were clustered around the median, at or near expected concentrations. These data and associated statistics are summarized in Figure 27 and Table 16.

Page 106 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

13 0.8 Huron River Huron River 1.4 Huron River 12 0.7 1.2 0.6 11 1 0.5 10 0.8 0.4 9 0.6

DO (mg/L) DO 0.3

8 Ammonia (mg/L) 0.2 0.4

7 0.1 Total Phosphorus0.2 (mg/L)

6 0 0 2016 1998 1980s 4 2016 1998 1980s 10 2016 1998 1980s 12 Rattlesn ake Creek Rattlesn ake Creek Ratt lesn ake Creek 3.5 8 10 3

8 2.5 6 2 6 4

DO (mg/L) DO 1.5 4 Ammonia (mg/L) 1 2 2 0.5 Total Phosphor us (mg/L)

0 0 0 2016 1998 1980s 2016 1998 1980s 2016 1998 1980s

Figure 27. Performance of the selected water quality parameter from the Huron River mainstem and Rattlesnake Creek subbasin (minor drainage to the Huron River mainstem) through time. Data aggregation based upon actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years.

Page 107 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table 17. Wilcoxon‐Mann‐Whitney Rank Sum tests for selected water quality parameters from the Huron River and Rattlesnake Creek subbasin through time. Data aggregation based upon actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years. At p<0.05, significant differences of D.O., ammonia and total phosphorus between years are highlighted (greyscale). Parameters: D.O.; ammonia (NH3); and total phosphorus (TP). All concentrations are represented as mg/L. No. 50th p No. 50th p No. 50th p Huron River: 1980s‐2016 2016 DO 28 7.845 2016 NH 25 0.03 2016 TP 25 0.047 0.2565 3 0.3716 <0.0001 1998 DO 14 7.9 1998 NH3 26 0.03 1998 TP 14 0.335 1998 DO 14 7.9 1998 NH 26 0.03 1998 TP 14 0.335 0.06493 3 <0.0001 0.5752 1980s DO 18 8.9 1980s NH3 20 0.1 1980s TP 20 0.295 2016 DO 28 7.845 2016 NH 25 0.03 2016 TP 25 0.047 0.03435 3 <0.0001 <0.0001 1980s DO 18 8.9 1980s NH3 20 0.1 1980s TP 20 0.295 Rattlesnake Creek: 1980s‐2016 2016 DO 22 7.13 2016 NH 20 0.066 2016 TP 19 0.116 0.8317 3 0.2718 0.00134 1998 DO 17 7.1 1998 NH3 18 0.095 1998 TP 18 0.37 1998 DO 17 7.1 1998 NH 18 0.095 1998 TP 18 0.37 <0.0001 3 0.4695 0.08861 1980s DO 10 4.35 1980s NH3 10 0.45 1980s TP 10 6.325 2016 DO 22 7.13 2016 NH 20 0.066 2016 TP 19 0.116 <0.0003 3 0.0671 0.03284 1980s DO 10 4.35 1980s NH3 10 0.45 1980s TP 10 6.325 Ambient water quality trends for Rattlesnake Creek portrayed dramatic improvement through the period of record. Conditions during the mid-1980s represented a classic municipal impact type not uncommon in Ohio at the time, as Rattlesnake Creek clearly labored under a heavy load of poorly treated municipal sewage. Heavy ammonia loads resulted in highly elevated instream concentrations, with the median over an order of magnitude greater than background, and maximum values approaching 4.0 mg/L. The load of oxygen-demanding wastes resulted in depressed D.O. concentrations. Phosphorus loads were very high and yielded median concentration just over 6 mg/L, with peak values approaching 8 mg/L. Advanced treatment and improved plant performance resulted in significant reduction in pollutant loads, with corresponding improvements in water quality documented between 1998 and 2016. Trends in ambient water quality of East Branch Huron River subbasin was described by the aggregation of comparable data from the East Branch mainstem and tributaries through the period of record. Lacking any significant permitted pollution sources, water quality within the basin is largely reflective of diffuse sources, both rural and urban. Urban sources are largely derived from storm water runoff, including CSOs, from the city of Norwalk, via Norwalk and Cole Creeks, the influence of which was limited to approximately the lower seven miles of the East Branch mainstem. D.O. trends within the East Branch subbasin showed a pattern similar to that observed on the Huron River mainstem — namely, a positive decline through the period of record, describing incipient over-enrichment during the mid-1980s, followed by reduced variation and median concentration consistent with background levels, per Ohio EPA (2016). Phosphorus trends too were akin to that observed on the mainstem, with peak concentrations observed in 1998. A wet year, these levels very likely reflected increased storm water runoff and CSO activity. Ammonia trends showed a modest but distinct increase through time. Given the paucity of significant permitted facilities, these observations may reflect a shift in background loads from diffuse sources. Water quality data from the East Branch Huron River are presented and summarized in Figure 28 and Table 18. Ambient water quality of the West Branch Huron River subbasin was described by the aggregation of comparable data from the West Branch mainstem and selected tributaries. Fortunately, adequate data were

Page 108 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

available to allow for separate analysis of the mainstem and tributaries. As observed in other subbasin within the study area, DO measurements from the West Branch from the 1980s suggested stimulated in- stream productivity. Results from 1998 and 2016 portrayed a steady decline down to normal levels. Similarly, phosphorus concentrations declined significantly through the period of record. Although not significantly different, ammonia concentrations showed modest increasing trend. For comparative purposes, adequate water quality data from selected West Branch tributaries were available for 1998 and 2016 only. For these waters, DO and ammonia concentrations were statistically indistinguishable between the two survey years. Phosphorus concentrations, however, appeared to decline over the past 18 years. Water quality data from both the West Branch Huron River and selected tributaries are presented and summarized in Figure 29 and Table 18.

0.12 2.5 E. Br. Huron and E. Br. Huron and E. Br. Huron and 12 Tributaries Tributaries Tributaries 0.1 2

10 0.08 1.5

8 0.06 1 DO (mg/L) DO Ammoni a (mg/L) 6 0.04 0.5 Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

4 0.02 0 2016 1998 1980s 2016 1998 1980s 2016 1998 1980s

Figure 28. Performance of the selected water quality parameter from the East Branch Huron River (and minor tributaries) through time. Data aggregation based upon actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years.

Table 18. Wilcoxon‐Mann‐Whitney Rank Sum tests for selected water quality parameters from East Branch Huron River (and tributaries), West Branch Huron River (mainstem) and selected West Branch tributaries, through time. Data aggregations based upon actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years. At p<0.05, significant differences in DO, ammonia and total phosphorus between years are highlighted (greyscale). Parameters: DO; ammonia (NH3); and total phosphorus (TP). All concentrations are represented as mg/L. No. 50th p No. 50th p No. 50th p East Br. Huron River (subbasin): 1998‐2016 2016 DO 47 7.34 2016 NH 48 0.0535 2016 TP 46 0.0435 0.4638 3 0.2908 <0.0001 1998 DO 29 7.4 1998 NH3 30 0.05 1998 TP 29 0.12 1998 DO 29 7.4 1998 NH 30 0.05 1998 TP 29 0.12 0.0183 3 0.07679 0.00466 1980s DO 16 8.25 1980s NH3 16 0.03 1980s TP 16 0.05 2016 DO 47 7.34 2016 NH 48 0.0535 2016 TP 46 0.0435 0.0056 3 0.02988 0.01662 1980s DO 16 8.25 1980s NH3 16 0.03 1980s TP 16 0.05 West Br. Huron River (mainstem): 1980s‐2016 2016 DO 64 7.675 2016 NH 55 0.051 2016 TP 54 0.0605 0.02182 3 0.00473 <0.0001 1998 DO 48 8.15 1998 NH3 47 0.03 1998 TP 47 0.16 1998 DO 48 8.15 1998 NH 47 0.03 1998 TP 47 0.16 0.03515 3 0.9247 0.336 1980s DO 13 8.9 1980s NH3 13 0.03 1980s TP 13 0.24 No. 50th p No. 50th p No. 50th p West Br. Huron River (mainstem): 1980s‐2016

Page 109 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

2016 DO 64 7.675 2016 NH 55 0.051 2016 TP 54 0.0605 0.00614 3 0.06541 0.00478 1980s DO 13 8.9 1980s NH3 13 0.03 1980s TP 13 0.24 Selected W. Branch Huron River Tributaries: 1998‐2016 2016 DO 47 6.16 2016 NH 42 0.0425 2016 TP 44 0.0705 0.1256 3 0.3585 <0.0001 1998 DO 37 6.8 1998 NH3 37 0.05 1998 TP 37 0.12

13 0.3 W. Br. Huron River W. Br. Huron River 1.4 W. Br. Huron River 12 0.25 1.2 11 0.2 1 10 0.8 9 0.15 0.6

DO (mg/L) DO 8 0.1

7 Ammoni a (mg/L) 0.4

0.05 Total Phosphor us (mg/L) 6 0.2

5 0 0 2016 1998 1980s 2016 1998 1980s 2016 1998 1980s 1 1 W. Br. Huron Tributaries W. Br. Huron Tributaries 12 W. Br. Huron Tributaries

0.8 0.8 10

0.6 0.6 8

0.4 0.4

DO (mg/L) DO 6 Ammoni a (mg/L) Inadequate Data Inadequate Inadequate Data Inadequate 4 0.2 Data Inadequate 0.2 Total Phosphor us (mg/L)

2 0 0 2016 1998 1980s 2016 1998 1980s 2016 1998 1980s

Figure 29. Performance of the selected water quality parameters from the West Branch Huron River (mainstem) and six West Branch Tributaries (Holiday Lake Outlet, Seymore Creek, Frink Run, Slate Run, Marsh Run and East Branch Mud Run) through time. Data aggregation based upon actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years.

Macrohabitat and Biological Indicators In addition to changes in pollutant loads, as reflected in ambient water quality through time, changes in the competency of macrohabitat to support diverse and well-organized communities of aquatic organisms is of equal import. As this pertains to biocriteria, channel form, riparian quality and the degree of sedimentation are among the most consequential habitat factors, and their relative quality are, in general, reflective of land use, drainage and soil conservation practices. Recent follow-up basin surveys conducted by Ohio EPA have found the QHEI generally sensitive enough to detect gross changes through time in substrate composition, channel form and function, and other components of physical habitat. Improved macrohabitat, as measured by the QHEI, has proved an important explanatory variable regarding the recovery of many previously impaired river systems in Ohio.

Page 110 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Following this approach, QHEI data from the Huron River basin were aggregated in the manner described previously and examined for trends. As much of the biomonitoring performed by Ohio EPA through the 1980s predated the formal adoption of the QHEI as an assessment tool, there are a small number of macrohabitat assessments from that period. As such, habitat trends, by necessity, were limited to the 1998 and 2016 survey results. Between 1998 and 2016, QHEI scores from the study area and each of the major subbasins were not statistically different (at p<0.05), suggesting relative habitat stability over the past 18 years Figure 30 and Table 19.

100 Huron River Basin E. Br. Huron River Basin W. Br. Huron River Basin 2016-1998 2016-1998 2016-1998

80

60 QHEI 40

20

n=8 n=8 n=19 n=20 0 n=12 n=14 2016 1998 2016 1998 2016 1998

Figure 30. Performance of the QHEI from the Huron River basin (mainstem and selected tributaries), East Branch subbasin and West Branch subbasin through time. Data aggregation based upon actual or functional correspondence between and among sites, water bodies and survey years. WWH QHEI benchmark indicated by greyscale line.

Table 19. Wilcoxon‐Mann‐Whitney Rank Sum tests for QHEI scores from the Huron River (and minor tributaries) and East and West Branch Huron River subbasins through time. At p<0.05, no significant differences in QHEI scores were observed between 1998 and 2016. East Branch West Branch Huron River Huron River Huron River 2016 1998 2016 1998 2016 1998 Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 Count 12 14 8 8 19 20 Median 68.4 63.75 65.15 59.25 61.3 61.5 Median Difference 4.65 5.9 ‐0.200001 Sum of Group 1 ranks 175 74 343.5 Sum of Group 2 ranks 176 62 436.5 Group1 U 97 38 153.5 Group2 U 71 26 226.5 P Value 0.5202 0.5632 0.3116 However, changes in species composition of the fish assemblage may serve as a valid and functional indicator of macrohabitat conditions, independently. The steady increase of selected sensitive species within the Huron basin through time strongly suggested improved macrohabitat, despite the relative

Page 111 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

stability of QHEI. In particular, the resurgence of bigeye chub (Notropis amblops) within the study area is important to note (Figure 31). This former widely distributed species is acutely sensitive to sedimentation and experienced significant reduction in its distribution in Ohio between 1939 and 1955 (Trautman 1981). By the 1980s, viable bigeye chub populations were limited to only a handful of localities within the state and it was extirpated from rivers and streams draining the Lake Plain of northwest Ohio. During the late 1990s, the bigeye chub was observed to reinvade portions of its former range, this following the widespread adoption of modern tillage practices. Over the preceding two decades, as the streambeds of many Ohio waterways have coarsened, the bigeye chub has continued its modern expansion and is now widespread, and even common, in selected watersheds. The effects of improved macrohabitat, including reduced sedimentation, would not benefit this species only, as many of Ohio’s environmentally sensitive fish require a natural or naturalized channel and generally coarse bed materials. At national and regional scales, the broad adoption of modern tillage practices has significantly reduced gross soil erosion since the late-1970s (USDA 2007 and 2010). Additional studies of the Western basin of Lake Erie, the Maumee River basin specifically, and other smaller watersheds not only affirm the findings of the national assessment, but have gone further to demonstrate linkages between agricultural best practices, reduced soil loss (USDA 2016), reduced in-stream sedimentation and a concurrent positive response in the lotic macrofauna (Barton and Farmer 1997, Meyers and Metzger 2000, Yoder et al. 2004, Richards et al. 2009, Tessler and Gottgens 2012 and Miltner 2016). For nearly two decades, Ohio EPA has observed, statewide, the reestablishment of not only formerly imperiled, substrate-sensitive fish species [bigeye chub and sand darter (Ammocriypta pellucida)], but also broad community shifts toward lithophilic and specialist insectivorous species (substrate-dependent taxa), with a corresponding decline in ecological generalists (common carp). Similar recovery was evident within the Huron River basin, and it is not unreasonable to assume improved macrohabitat has played a part, despite relative stability of QHEIs since 1998. Regarding this, it is important to note QHEIs were not available from the early 1980s, a time when sedimentation, statewide, was at egregious levels. Lacking these observations, QHEIs from1998 may have adequately captured or described the early benefits of modern soil conservation practices, thus the relative stability of the QHEI over the past 16 years. In other words, inadequate base-line data regarding macrohabitat quality from the earliest Huron surveys may have confounded an assessment of deep trends in macrohabitat quality. It is also worth noting that in addition to improving macrohabitat, reduced sedimentation almost certainly contributed to reduced phosphorus loadings to the Huron basin over the past 30 years.

Page 112 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Huron River RM 14.7

Rattlesnake Creek1 E.Br. Huron River RM 6.8

RM 1.5

Norw alk C reek RM 1.9 W. Br. Huron River RM 40.4 None Taken

RM 38.4 None Taken RM 36.3 None Taken2 RM 7.7 2016 RM 3.7 1980s Slate Run RM 4.1 None Taken 0 50 100 150 200 250 Rel. Abundance (No./0.3km)

Figure 31. Relative abundance estimates of bigeye chub (Notropis amblops) at fish monitoring stations common to sampling efforts from the 1980s and 2016. 1 ‐ Rattlesnake Creek estimate is a subbasin mean from two streams, Rattlesnake and West Branch Rattlesnake Creek. 2 ‐ Stray individuals were observed as far upstream as RM 35.0 in 2002. Note: Including 1998 and 2002 data, bigeye chub has become reestablished on five streams or monitoring stations over the past 30 years. Furthermore, where this species has been observed through the period of record, relative abundance has typically increased significantly at nearly every location.

Page 113 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Recreation Use Results and Discussion Water quality criteria for determining attainment of the recreation use are codified in the Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-1-37, Table 37-2) based upon the quantities of fecal indicators (Escherichia coli) present in the water column. Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria are microscopic organisms that are normally present in large numbers in the feces and intestinal tracts of humans and other warm-blooded animals. E. coli typically comprises approximately 97 percent of the organisms found in the fecal coliform bacteria of human feces (Dufour 1977). There is currently no simple way to differentiate between human and animal sources of coliform bacteria in surface waters, although methodologies for this type of analysis are becoming more feasible. These microorganisms can enter water bodies where there is a direct discharge of human and animal wastes or may enter water bodies along with runoff from soils where these wastes have been deposited. Pathogenic (disease-causing) organisms are typically present in the environment in such small amounts that it is impractical to monitor every type of pathogen. Fecal indicator bacteria by themselves, including E. coli, are usually not pathogenic. However, some strains of E. coli can be pathogenic and capable of causing serious illness. Although not necessarily agents of disease, fecal indicator bacteria such as E. coli may indicate the potential presence of pathogenic organisms that enter the environment through the same pathways. When E. coli are present in high numbers in a water sample, it invariably means that the water has received fecal matter from one or more sources. Swimming or other recreation-based contact with water having a high E. coli count may result in ear, nose and throat infections, as well as stomach upsets, skin rashes and diarrhea. Young children, the elderly and those with depressed immune systems are most susceptible to infection. The Huron River drainage basin is designated as PCR in OAC Rule 3745-1-19, Table 19-1. Water bodies with a designated recreation use of PCR “...are suitable for one or more full-body contact recreation activities such as, but not limited to, wading, swimming, boating, water skiing, canoeing, kayaking and scuba diving” [OAC 3745-1-07 (3)(b)]. The E. coli criterion that applies to PCR streams is a geometric mean of ≤126 colony forming units (cfu)/100 mL and a Statistical Threshold Value (STV) of 410 cfu/100 mL that shall not be exceeded in more than 10 percent of the total number of samples collected in any 90-day period. The geometric mean and percentage of samples exceeding the STV is based on a goal of five or more samples and is used as the basis for determining the attainment status of the recreation use. Between June 8, 2016, and August 11, 2016 (65 days), 20 locations in the watershed were tested for E. coli levels five times (see Figure 32). The complete bacteria result dataset is reported in Appendix K and Table 20. Evaluation of E. coli results revealed that 16 of the 20 locations sampled failed to meet the applicable criterion, indicating non-attainment of the recreation use at these locations. The four sampling locations in attainment are streams with drainage areas ranging from 220 to 406 square miles and represent the four largest sampling locations by drainage area in the entire project area. The two locations with the highest geometric means (1,129 cfu/100 mL and 1,332 cfu/100 mL) and single sample values (10,000 cfu/110 mL and 20,000 cfu/100 mL) were at Rattlesnake Creek at Shaw Mill Road (K01W36) and Norwalk Creek at St. Rte. 61, respectively. Both sampling locations have possible bacteria sources of unsewered subdivisions upstream. The Rattlesnake Creek site also has a CSO upstream.

Page 114 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Potential sources of E. coli contamination at locations not attaining the recreation use criteria are failing home sewage treatment systems (HSTS), WWTP effluent violations, livestock waste, wildlife waste, CSOs and SSOs, urban runoff and biosolid application. Many of the sites sampled had extensive amounts of agricultural land and drastically reduced riparian buffer along the streams resulting in the streams being more susceptible to surface runoff. Areas listed in non-attainment of the recreation use standard for failing HSTS may need to complete individual system improvements and/or provide sewers to unsewered communities to reduce the discharge of bacteria. Runoff from livestock manure application and livestock grazing areas could be improved by the installation of additional buffers and/or livestock exclusion fencing between the activity and the stream. Areas where streams have been impounded provide habitat for waterfowl to accumulate and increase the bacteria source to the stream.

Figure 32. E. coli samples within the Huron River watershed for the selected sampling locations.

Page 115 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table 20. Summary of E. coli data for the 20 locations in the Huron River Basin sampled June through August 2016. Recreation Use Attainment Status is determined by comparing samples collected within a 90‐day period during the recreation season to the geometric mean criterion of 126 cfu/100 mL and to the statistical threshold value (STV) of 410 cfu/100 mL (for PCR), or geometric mean of 1,030 cfu/100 mL, and statistical threshold values of 1,030 cfu/100 mL (for SCR). The STV is not be exceeded by more than 10 percent of individual samples.

River Geometric Maximum Attainment Possible Source(s)¹ Station ID Location Mile # Samples Mean % > STV Value Status of Bacteria 04100012 04 01 – Marsh Run K01K18 MARSH RUN NEAR NEW HAVEN @ ST. RT. 61 0.20 5 511 60% 1000 NON HSTS, AG, B 04100012 04 02 – Town of Plymouth – West Branch Huron River K01P06 W.BR. HURON R. DST PLYMOUTH WWTP @ 38.40 5 543 40% 1600 NON HSTS, AG, B, SSO, SKINNER RD. WWTP 04100012 04 03 – Walnut Creek – West Branch Huron River K01G12 W.BR. HURON R. NE OF NEW HAVEN @ GREEN 35.34 5 659 60% 7700 NON HSTS, AG, B, SSO BUSH RD. 04100012 04 04 – Holiday Lake K01P10 HOLIDAY LAKE TRIBUTARY @ ST. RT. 162 2.97 5 170 20% 420 NON HSTS, B 04100012 04 05 – Willard Lake – West Branch Huron River K01K16 W. BR. HURON R. S OF MONROEVILLE @TERRY RD. 13.34 5 406 60% 600 NON HSTS, AG, B 04100012 05 01 – Mud Run K01W15 E. BR. MUD RUN @ N. GREENFIELD RD. 1.38 5 235 40% 1500 NON HSTS, AG,B 04100012 05 02 – Slate Run K01S03 SLATE RUN NEAR PONTIAC @ TOWNLINE RD. 4.10 5 163 0% 360 NON HSTS,AG 04100012 05 03 – Frink Run K01P08 FRINK RUN S OF MONROEVILLE @ ST. RT. 99 0.09 5 203 20% 420 NON HSTS, AG 04100012 05 04 – Seymour Creek K01W27 SEYMORE CREEK NEAR MOUTH @ LAMEREAUX RD. 0.13 5 87 20% 610 NON HSTS, AG 04100012 05 05 – Town of Kimball K01G16 CLAYTON DITCH NW OF NORWALK @ MOUTH 0.01 5 54 20% 680 NON HSTS, B 04100012 05 06 – Town of Monroeville – West Branch Huron River K01S12 W. BR. HURON R. @ LAMEREAUX RD. 3.67 5 119 0% 220 FULL 04100012 06 01 – Upper East Branch Huron River K01G21 E. BR. HURON R. @ HANVILLE CORNERS RD. 19.11 5 209 20% 750 NON HSTS 04100012 06 02 – Cole Creek K01P04 COLE CREEK AT NORWALK @ ST. RT. 61 0.14 5 622 80% 2000 NON HSTS 04100012 06 03 – Norwalk Creek K01P03 NORWALK CREEK AT NORWALK @ ST. RT. 61 0.13 5 1332 100% 20000 NON HSTS, AG 04100012 06 04 – Lower East Branch Huron River K01S11 E. BR. HURON R. NEAR NORWALK @ BROWN RD. 6.85 5 513 60% 4900 NON HSTS

Page 116 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

River Geometric Maximum Attainment Possible Source(s)¹ Station ID Location Mile # Samples Mean % > STV Value Status of Bacteria 501070 E. BR. HURON R. NW OF NORWALK @ SCHAEFER RD. 1.47 5 167 20% 3700 HSTS, Urban 04100012 06 05 – City of Norwalk K01W36 RATTLESNAKE CREEK AT MILAN @ SHAW MILL RD. 0.23 5 1129 80% 10000 NON HSTS, CSO, Urban 04100012 06 06 – Mud Brook – Frontal Lake Erie K01W01 HURON R. @ DAM DST. EAST/WEST BRANCHES 14.65 5 67 0% 200 FULL 501040 HURON R. DST. MILAN @ MASON RD. 8.01 5 34 0% 350 FULL K01W31 HURON R. AT HURON, ON DST SIDE OF U.S. RT. 6 0.70 5 99 0% 240 FULL ¹ Possible Sources: AG – Agriculture HSTS – Home Sewage Treatment Systems WWTP – Wastewater Treatment Plants CSOs – Combined Sewer Overflows SSOs – Sanitary Sewer Overflows Urban – Urban runoff B ‐ Biosolids

Page 117 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Public Water Supply Results and Discussion The public water supply (PWS) beneficial use in the WQS (OAC 3745-1-33) currently applies within 500 yards of drinking water intakes and for all publicly owned lakes. Ohio EPA has developed an assessment methodology for this beneficial use which focuses on source water contaminants not effectively removed through conventional treatment methods. Source water quality is assessed though comparison of water quality data to numeric chemical water quality criteria for three core indicators: nitrate; pesticides (atrazine); and cyanotoxins. The Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Ohio IR) describes this methodology and is available at epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/OhioIntegratedReport.aspx. The Ohio IR is updated on a two-year cycle, and the current report at the time of this report was the 2018 Ohio IR. Impaired source waters may contribute to increased human health risk or treatment costs. For the case when stream water is pumped to a reservoir, the stream and reservoir will be evaluated separately. These assessments are designed to determine if the quality of source water meets the standards and criteria of the Clean Water Act. Monitoring of the safety and quality of treated finished drinking water is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and evaluated separately from this assessment. For those cases when the treatment plant processes do not specifically remove a source water contaminant, the finished water quality data may be considered representative of the raw source water directly feeding into the treatment plant. There are four community public water systems directly served by surface water sources within the study area — Bellevue, Monroeville, Norwalk and Willard. A community public water system is a system that regularly supplies drinking water from its own sources to at least 15 service connections used by year- round residents of the area or regularly serves 25 or more people throughout the entire year. Bellevue has an intake on Frink Run (RM 4.83). Monroeville and Willard have intakes on West Branch Huron River at RMs 8.52 and 33.8, respectively. Norwalk has an intake on Norwalk Creek (RM 0.13) and on East Branch Huron River (RM 6.13). Table 21 provides a summary of exceedances for the PWS use while Appendices G and H contain water quality analytical results. Appendix L contains analysis on the reservoirs sampled as part of this study. All cyanotoxin (microcystins, saxitoxins and cylindrospermopsin) results are available on Ohio EPA’s website at http://wwwapp.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/hab/HAB_Sampling_Results.xlsx. Table 21. Summary of available Ohio EPA water quality data for parameters of interest at sampling sites near/at PWS intakes. This table does not include finished water sample results. PDWS Parameters of Interest Nitrate‐Nitrite Atrazine WQC = 10 mg/L1 WQC = 3.0 ug/L2 Average Maximum Average Annual Annual Maximum (sample (# samples (sample Average Average Single Location(s) count) >WQC) count) (2016)3 (2017)3 Detect. 04100012 05 03 – Frink Run/Bellevue PWS Frink Run @ Dogtown Rd. (303471) 1.85 mg/L 9.37 mg/L 2.05 ug/L 0.41 ug/L 1.2 ug/L 13 ug/L n= 13 (0) (13) 04100012 05 06 – West Branch Huron River/Monroeville PWS W. Br. Huron River @ Monroeville 2.22 mg/L 9.97 mg/L 0.84 ug/L 0.44 ug/L 0.54 ug/L 2.5 ug/L (303472) n= 14 (0) (13) 04100012 04 03 – West Branch Huron River/Willard PWS W. Br. Huron River @ Willard 1.98 mg/L 9.35 mg/L 0.45 ug/L 0.22 ug/L 0.27 ug/L 1.1 ug/L (303473) n= 13 (0) (13)

Page 118 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

04100012 06 03 – Norwalk Creek/Norwalk PWS W. Br. Huron River @ Norwalk 1.16 mg/L 2.65 mg/L 0.38 ug/L <0.20 ug/L <0.20 ug/L 0.85 ug/L (204705) n= 18 (0) (13) 04100012 06 04 – East Branch Huron River/Norwalk PWS E. Br. Huron River @ St. Rte. 61 0.30 mg/L 1.79 mg/L <0.20 ug/L <0.20 ug/L <0.20 ug/L 0.31 ug/L (K01S10) n= 12 (0) (12) 1 Nitrate Water Quality Criteria (WQC) evaluated as maximum value not to be exceeded, impaired waters defined as having two or more excursions about the criteria. 2 Atrazine WQC evaluated as annual average based on quarterly averages. Watch List conditions include maximum instantaneous value > 12.0 ug/L. City of Bellevue The city of Bellevue operates a community public water system that serves a population of approximately 8,136 people through 3,200 service connections. The water treatment system obtains its water from Frink Run and Berry Creek. Berry Creek lies entirely within a karst limestone region that is located in the Mills Creek – Frontal Lake Erie watershed, and is outside of this study area. The system's treatment capacity is approximately 3.0 MGD, but current average production is 1.71 MGD. Water is pumped from Frink Run and Berry Creek into five upground reservoirs for storage prior to treatment. Of the five upground reservoirs, only Bellevue Reservoir #5 is in the study area. The city of Bellevue's treatment processes include lime softening, coagulation, sedimentation, stabilization, fluoridation, sand filtration and disinfection. Ohio EPA collected water quality samples from Frink Run and Bellevue Reservoir #5 (L-1) during 2016 and 2017. The PWS assessment unit is HUC 04100012 05 03 Frink Run. The results for each impairment indicator are summarized as follows:  Nitrate Indicator: All results were below the water quality criterion for nitrate (10.0 mg/L). o Frink Run: Nitrate results ranged from below detection limit (BDL) to 9.37 mg/L. o Bellevue Reservoir #5 (L-1): Nitrates ranged from 0.41 to 0.97 mg/L.  Pesticides Indicator: There was one exceedance of the maximum instantaneous value >12 µg/L. All annual averages for atrazine were below the water quality criteria. o Frink Run: Atrazine results ranged from 0.32 to 13 µg/L. o Bellevue Reservoir #5 (L-1): Atrazine results were all BDL.  Algae, Cyanotoxins Indicator: There were two exceedances of the water quality criterion for microcystins (1.0 ug/L) in June 2017. There were no exceedances of the water quality criterion for saxitoxins (0.2 ug/L) or cylindrospermopsin (1.0 µg/L). o Bellevue Reservoir #5: All results for cyanotoxins (microcystins, saxitoxins, and cylindrospermopsin) were BDL. o PWS routine monitoring at raw water sampling point occurred June 2016 through December 2017. . Microcystins ranged from BDL to 1.3 ug/L. . Saxitoxins ranged from BDL to 0.081 ug/L. . Cyanobacteria screening results for cylindrospermopsin-producing genes were BDL. The sample results from this study and PWS monitoring data informed the drinking water use assessment. In the 2018 Ohio IR, Frink Run (04100012 05 03) is listed as full support and watch list for all indicators (nitrates, pesticides, and algae indicators). The maximum detection for nitrate was 9.37 mg/L, which exceeds 80% of water quality criterion for nitrate, supporting the watch list determination. The watch list for cyanotoxins is based microcystins detections from PWS monitoring data. Village of Monroeville

Page 119 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

The village of Monroeville operates a community public water system that serves a population of approximately 1,430 people through 648 service connections. The water treatment system obtains its water from the West Branch Huron River. The system's treatment capacity is approximately 504,000 gallons per day, but current average production is 187,000 gallons per day. Water is pumped from the river to a 75-million-gallon reservoir. The village of Monroeville's water treatment system consists of coagulation, lime softening, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection. Ohio EPA collected water quality samples from West Branch Huron River and Monroeville Upground Reservoir (L-1) during 2016 and 2017. The PWS assessment unit is HUC 04100012 05 06 West Branch Huron River. The results for each impairment indicator are summarized as follows:  Nitrate Indicator: All results were below the water quality criterion for nitrate (10.0 mg/L). o West Branch Huron River at Monroeville: Nitrate results ranged from BDL to 9.97 mg/L. o Monroeville Upground Reservoir (L-1): Nitrate results ranged from BDL to 0.21 mg/L.  Pesticides Indicator: All atrazine results were below the maximum instantaneous value (12 µg/L). All annual averages for atrazine were below the water quality criteria. o West Branch Huron River at Monroeville: Atrazine results ranged from BDL to 1.09 µg/L. o Monroeville Upground Reservoir (L-1): Atrazine results ranged from 0.31 to 0.53 µg/L.  Algae, Cyanotoxins Indicator: All results were below the water quality criterion for microcysitns (1.0 ug/L), saxitoxins (0.2 ug/L) and cylindrospermopsin (1.0 ug/L). o Monroeville Upground Reservoir (L-1) results for cyanotoxins (microcystins, saxitoxins and cylindrospermopsin) were BDL. o PWS routine monitoring at raw water sampling point occurred June 2016 through December 2017, and all results for microcystins and cyanotoxin-producing genes were BDL.

The sample results from this study and PWS monitoring data informed the drinking water use assessment. In the 2018 Ohio IR, the drinking water use support for West Branch Huron River (04100012 05 06) is listed as full support, watch list for nitrates. The maximum detection for nitrates was 9.97 mg/L, which exceeds 80% of water quality criterion for nitrate, supporting the watch list determination. The watch list for pesticides was removed based on sampling data for atrazine in this study. City of Willard The city of Willard operates a community public water system that serves a population of approximately 7,600 people through 2,913 service connections. The water treatment system obtains its water from the West Branch Huron River. The system's treatment capacity is approximately 2.5 MGD, but current average production is 1.064 MGD. Water is pumped from the river to a 2.3-billion-gallon reservoir. The city of Willard's water treatment system consists of coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, adsorption, stabilization, fluoridation and disinfection. Ohio EPA collected water quality samples from West Branch Huron River and Willard City Reservoir (L-1) during 2016 and 2017. The PWS assessment unit is HUC 04100012 04 03 West Branch Huron River. The results for each impairment indicator are summarized as follows:  Nitrate Indicator: All results were below the water quality criterion for nitrate (10.0 mg/L). o West Branch Huron River at Willard: Nitrate ranged from BDL to 9.35 mg/L. o Willard City Reservoir (L-1): Nitrate results ranged from BDL to 0.21 mg/L.  Pesticides Indicator: There was one exceedance of the maximum instantaneous value >12 µg/L. All annual averages for atrazine were below the water quality criteria.

Page 120 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

o West Branch Huron River at Willard: Atrazine results ranged from 0.23 to 2.5 µg/L. o Willard City Reservoir (L-1): Atrazine results ranged from 0.31 to 0.53 µg/L.  Algae, Cyanotoxins Indicator: There were 10 exceedances of the water quality criterion for microcystins (1.0 ug/L) during October and November 2017. There were no exceedances of the water quality criterion for saxitoxins (0.2 ug/L) or cylindrospermopsin (1.0 µg/L). o Willard City Reservoir (L-1): . Microcystins ranged from BDL to 0.55 ug/L. . All results for saxitoxins and cylindrospermopsin were BDL. o PWS routine monitoring at raw water sampling point occurred June 2016 through December 2017. . Microcystins ranged from BDL to greater than 5 ug/L. . All results for saxitoxin and cylindrospermopsin-producing genes were BDL.

The sample results from this study and PWS monitoring data informed the drinking water use assessment. In the 2018 Ohio IR, the drinking water use support for West Branch Huron River (04100012 04 03) is listed as impaired for algae indicator (microcystins) and watch list for nitrate indicator. The algae, cyanotoxins impairment is supported by multiple microcystins detections greater than 1.0 ug/L from PWS monitoring data. The maximum detection for nitrate was 9.37 mg/L, which exceeds 80% of water quality criterion for nitrate, supporting the watch list determination. City of Norwalk The city of Norwalk operates a community public water system that serves a population of approximately 16,200 people through 6,120 service connections. The system's treatment capacity is approximately 4.0 MGD, but current average production is 1.72 MGD. The water treatment system obtains its water from Norwalk Creek. Water is pumped from the river to three reservoirs: Upper Reservoir (169 million gallons); Middle (Memorial) Reservoir (250 million gallons); and Lower Reservoir (175 million gallons). The city of Norwalk's water treatment system consists of coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, adsorption, stabilization, fluoridation and disinfection. Ohio EPA collected water quality samples from East Branch Huron River, Norwalk Creek, Lower Reservoir (L-1) and Memorial Reservoir (L-1) during 2016 and 2017. The PWS assessment units are HUC 04100012 06 03 Norwalk Creek and 04100012 06 04 East Branch Huron River. The results for each impairment indicator are summarized as follows:  Nitrate Indicator: All results were below the water quality criterion for nitrate (10.0 mg/L). o Norwalk Creek: Nitrate ranged from 0.18 to 2.65 mg/L. o East Branch Huron River: Nitrate results ranged from 0.05 to 1.79 mg/L.  Pesticides Indicator: All atrazine results were below the maximum instantaneous value (12 µg/L). All annual averages for atrazine were below the water quality criteria. o Norwalk Creek: Atrazine results ranged from BDL to 0.85 µg/L. o East Branch Huron River: Atrazine results ranged from BDL to 0.31 µg/L.  Algae, Cyanotoxins Indicator: There was one exceedance of the water quality criterion for saxitoxins (0.2 ug/L) in July 2017. There were no exceedances of the water quality criterion for microcystins (1.0 ug/L) or cylindrospermopsin (1.0 µg/L). o Norwalk Lower Reservoir (L-1) results for cyanotoxins (microcystins, saxitoxins and cylindrospermopsin) were BDL. o Norwalk Memorial Reservoir (L-1):

Page 121 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

. Saxitoxins ranged from BDL to 0.27 ug/L. . All results for microcystins and cylindrospermopsin were BDL. o PWS routine monitoring at raw water sampling point occurred June 2016 through December 2017, and all results for microcystins and cyanotoxin-producing genes were BDL. Prior to routine monitoring, Norwalk detected 22.7ug/L microcystins in Memorial Reservoir in 2014 and greater than 5 ug/L microcystins in Memorial Reservoir in 2015.

The sample results from this study and PWS monitoring data informed the drinking water use assessment. In the 2018 Ohio IR, the drinking water use support for Norwalk Creek (04100012 06 03) is impaired for algae indicator and full support for nitrate and pesticide indicators and East Branch Huron River (04100012 06 04) is full support for all indicators. The algae, cyanotoxins impairment in Norwalk Creek is supported by multiple microcystins detections greater than 1.0 ug/L from the PWS intake monitoring data prior to routine monitoring. Human Health (Sport Fish Consumption) Results and Discussion Ohio has been sampling streams annually for sport fish contamination since 1993. Fish are analyzed for contaminants that bioaccumulate in fish and that could 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 sometimes 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 (epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/fishadvisory/FishAdvisoryProcedure10.pdf). 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 (for example, 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 epa.ohio.gov/dsw/fishadvisory/index. The minimum data requirement for issuing a fish advisory is three samples of a single species from within the past 10 years. For the Huron River, two one meal per month advisories existed on the mainstem (for common carp and smallmouth buffalo, both for PCBs) prior to the 2016 sampling, while no advisories existed on the East or West branches. For all unlisted species, the statewide advisories apply, which are: two meals a week for sunfish (bluegill) and yellow perch, one meal a week for most other fish, and one meal a month for flathead catfish 23” and over and northern pike 23” and over. Sufficient data was collected in 2016 to assess several species for advisory updates. The following new advisories were added as the result of this sampling:

Page 122 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Huron River mainstem  Rock Bass, White Crappie: two meals per week for mercury  Channel Catfish, Flathead Catfish: one meal per month for PCBs  Freshwater Drum: one meal per month for mercury  Bluegill Sunfish, Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Common Carp: Statewide advisories confirmed East Branch Huron River  No new advisories  Rock Bass, Smallmouth Bass: Statewide advisories confirmed West Branch Huron River  Common Carp: one meal per month for PCBs  Rock Bass, Smallmouth Bass: Statewide advisories confirmed For a listing of fish tissue data collected from the Huron River mainstem and tributaries in support of the advisory program, and how the data compare to advisory thresholds, see Table 26 and Table 27. Fish Tissue/Human Health Use Attainment In addition to determining safe meal frequencies, fish contaminant data are also used to determine attainment with the human health water quality criteria pursuant to OAC Rules 3745-1-33 and 3745-1-34. The human health water quality criteria are presented in water column concentrations of μg/L and are then translated into fish tissue concentrations in mg/kg. [See Ohio’s 2018 Integrated Report, Section E (https://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/tmdl/2018intreport/SectionE.pdf) for further details of this conversion.] In order to be considered in attainment of the water quality standards, the sport fish caught within an assessment unit in the Lake Erie basin must have a weighted average concentration of the geometric means for all species below 0.35 mg/kg for mercury, and below 0.023 mg/kg for PCBs. Within the Huron River study area, fish tissue data were adequate to determine attainment status for five watershed assessment units (WAUs). At least two samples from each trophic level, 3 and 4, are needed, which were available for all five WAUs assessed as part of the watershed. Prior to the 2016 sampling, only one WAU had sufficient data for assessment. Table 22 shows the results of the assessment with the inclusion of the 2016 sampling, as reported in Ohio’s 2018 Integrated Report. Table 22. Previous and current impairment status for WAUs in the Huron River study area, from the 2016 and 2018 Ohio Integrated Reports (IRs), respectively, using fish tissue data from 2005‐2014 (2016 IR) and 2007‐ 2016 (2018 IR). Status 1 (green) represents unimpaired watersheds (contaminant levels below impairment thresholds in fish tissue), Status 3 (grey) represents insufficient data to assess the unit, and Status 5 (red) represents watershed impairment (exceeding contaminant thresholds in fish tissue for the listed contaminant). Previous Current Impairment WAU Status (2016) Status (2018) Cause Assessment Unit Name 04100012 04 03 3 1 Walnut Creek‐West Branch Huron River 04100012 04 05 3 1 Peru Township‐West Branch Huron River 04100012 05 06 3 5 PCBs Mouth West Branch Huron River 04100012 06 04 3 5 PCBs Mouth East Branch Huron River

Page 123 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

04100012 06 06 5 5 PCBs Huron River‐Frontal Lake Erie

Fish Contaminant Trends Fish contaminant levels can be used as an indicator of pollution in the water column at levels lower than laboratory reporting limits for water concentrations but high enough to pose a threat to human health from eating fish. Most bioaccumulative contaminant concentrations are decreasing in the environment because of bans on certain types of chemicals like PCBs and because of stricter permitting limits on dischargers for other chemicals. However, data show that PCBs continue to pose a risk to humans who consume fish, and mercury concentrations have been increasing in some locations because of increases in certain types of industries for which mercury is a byproduct that is released to air and/or surface water. For this reason, it is useful to compare the results from the survey presented in this report with the results of the previous survey(s) done in the study area. Recent data can be compared against historical data to determine whether contaminant concentrations in fish tissue appear to be increasing, decreasing or staying the same in a water body or watershed. However, evaluating trends in contaminant data can be challenging, since many factors beyond time itself can affect the contaminant levels in a sample, including location and species, that may vary substantially between sampling events. Therefore, directly comparing contaminant results between years is not always reliable. When evaluating mercury results, it is often useful to condense samples by trophic level. Because mercury tends to increase with increasing position within the food web (that is, predator fish have higher mercury levels than herbivores and insectivores), all sample results within a trophic level can be calculated as a yearly average and compared between years, making for an informative assessment while remaining concise. However, this approach does not fare well for PCBs, which are more affected by the fat content of fish species rather than their trophic level. For example, trophic level three fish (insectivores) often include both some of the most-contaminated species for PCBs (such as catfish and carp), as well as some of the least-contaminated species for PCBs (such as bluegill and other panfish). If the same species have been consistently collected across years in a water body, then species PCB concentrations can be evaluated directly, but if different species have been collected across years, then other approaches must be considered. Therefore, PCB contamination trends are often evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure the most reliable conclusions. Mercury Mercury concentrations in the Huron River study area were relatively low, with most sampling results below Ohio’s 0.220 mg/kg threshold for issuing consumption advisories at the one meal per month level. Mercury concentrations often fluctuate substantially between years, with such fluctuations observed in the Huron River mainstem (Figure 33). These fluctuations were not observed in the East and West branches, where mercury concentrations were quite stable across time (Figure 34 and Figure 35). As expected, mercury concentrations were somewhat lower in trophic level three samples compared to trophic level four samples.

Page 124 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Figure 33. Average fish tissue mercury concentration by year and trophic level for the Huron River. Mercury concentrations were generally low, with most yearly averages below Ohio’s 0.220 mg/kg threshold for issuing consumption advisories at the one meal per month level. Observed inter‐annual fluctuations were consistent with expected natural variation.

Page 125 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Figure 34. Average fish tissue mercury concentration by year and trophic level for the East Branch Huron River. Mercury concentrations were low, with all yearly averages below Ohio’s 0.220 mg/kg threshold for issuing consumption advisories at the one meal per month level. Concentrations were steady between these two sampling events.

Page 126 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Figure 35. Average fish tissue mercury concentration by year and trophic level for the West Branch Huron River. Mercury concentrations were low, with all yearly averages below Ohio’s 0.220 mg/kg threshold for issuing consumption advisories at the one meal per month level. Concentrations were quite steady between these four sampling events, with some apparent fluctuation in the 1998 results, but which were well below the natural fluctuation often seen for this contaminant.

PCBs PCB results from the Huron River study area presented a challenging case for evaluation. While many samples were collected across 10 different sampling years, the composition of the sample sets—in terms of species and locations—varied substantially between years. One major effect of this variation is that contamination trends over time are confounded by factors which obscure the trends of interest. An investigation was conducted into the data to see if various approaches would provide for further clarification by controlling for these confounding factors, but none were successful. As a result, the data was evaluated with the most basic approach available, using simple, unweighted PCB averages, PCB maxima and detection frequency by year. In some cases, multiple years’ worth of data were grouped together on a decade basis in order to condense multiple small sample sets into fewer larger data sets. While these approaches allow for a convenient overview of the available data, care should be taken to note that confounding factors, such as species type, have not been controlled for and will almost certainly obscure the underlying or true trends occurring in the study area. Therefore, the trends observed below should be understood to be only rough approximations at best.

Page 127 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

While the historic PCB levels were higher in the Huron River mainstem (Table 23) and lower in the East (Table 24) and West (Table 25) branches, by the 2016 sampling PCB levels appear to be converging at a low level and low detection frequency for all three water bodies. Although Huron River PCB levels are still slightly elevated, and all three water bodies had 2016 detections at or above Ohio’s one meal per month consumption threshold of 0.220 mg/kg or Ohio’s one meal per two months consumption threshold of 1.0 mg/kg, average PCB values in all three water bodies were below these consumption advisory thresholds in 2016. Even for the mainstem, PCB detection frequencies are approaching 50 percent or less since the 1990s. Prior to the 2016 sampling, Ohio EPA lowered its PCB detection limits from approximately 0.05 mg/kg to approximately 0.02 mg/kg, so the recent slight increase in PCB detection frequency for both the mainstem and the West Branch may be attributable to this increase in detection sensitivity, at least to some extent. Table 23. PCB contamination summary statistics for the Huron River mainstem. Average PCB Max PCB Detection Year Value (mg/kg) Value (mg/kg) Frequency Sample Size 1970s 0.768 1.395 100% 2 1980s 0.769 1.380 86% 7 1990s 0.102 0.490 47% 15 2010s 0.186 1.634 52% 95 Table 24. PCB contamination summary statistics for the East Branch Huron River. Average PCB Max PCB Detection Year Value (mg/kg) Value (mg/kg) Frequency Sample Size 1998 0.095 0.429 13% 8 2016 0.114 0.773 13% 8 Table 25. PCB contamination summary statistics for the West Branch Huron River. Average PCB Max PCB Detection Year Value (mg/kg) Value (mg/kg) Frequency Sample Size 1990s 0.046 0.050 0% 15 2016 0.052 0.725 17% 29 Table 26. Fish tissue mercury data from 2016 Huron River study area sampling (mg/kg). Shading indicates the advisory category that would apply at that contaminant level. Blue = unrestricted consumption; Green = two meals per week; yellow = one meal per week; orange = one meal per month. River Station Site Name Species Mile Value Detected? K01S11 E. Br. Huron R. near Norwalk @ Brown Rd. Rock Bass 6.85 0.093 Yes K01S11 E. Br. Huron R. near Norwalk @ Brown Rd. Rock Bass 6.85 0.106 Yes K01S11 E. Br. Huron R. near Norwalk @ Brown Rd. Smallmouth Bass 6.85 0.167 Yes K01S11 E. Br. Huron R. near Norwalk @ Brown Rd. Common Carp 6.85 0.169 Yes K01S11 E. Br. Huron R. near Norwalk @ Brown Rd. Smallmouth Bass 6.85 0.226 Yes 501070 E. Br. Huron R. NW of Norwalk @ Schaefer Rd. Rock Bass 1.47 0.169 Yes 501070 E. Br. Huron R. NW of Norwalk @ Schaefer Rd. Rock Bass 1.47 0.175 Yes 501070 E. Br. Huron R. NW of Norwalk @ Schaefer Rd. Smallmouth Bass 1.47 0.224 Yes K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Rock Bass 14.65 0.051 Yes K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Bluegill Sunfish 14.65 0.059 Yes K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Common Carp 14.65 0.072 Yes K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Bluegill Sunfish 14.65 0.078 Yes K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Channel Catfish 14.65 0.105 Yes K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Rock Bass 14.65 0.128 Yes

Page 128 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

River Station Site Name Species Mile Value Detected? K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Smallmouth Bass 14.65 0.136 Yes K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Channel Catfish 14.65 0.242 Yes K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Bluegill Sunfish 14.65 0.263 Yes K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Smallmouth Bass 14.65 0.309 Yes K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Black Crappie 14.65 0.398 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Flathead Catfish 0.01 0.045 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Flathead Catfish 0.01 0.065 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Largemouth Bass 0.01 0.067 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Freshwater Drum 0.01 0.07 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Largemouth Bass 0.01 0.103 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Channel Catfish 0.01 0.103 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Rock Bass 0.01 0.104 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Common Carp 0.01 0.131 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Common Carp 0.01 0.143 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Common Carp 0.01 0.161 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Black Crappie 0.01 0.196 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth White Perch 0.01 0.257 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Largemouth Bass 0.01 0.285 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Largemouth Bass 0.01 0.303 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Freshwater Drum 0.01 0.307 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Flathead Catfish 0.01 0.311 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Freshwater Drum 0.01 0.347 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Smallmouth Bass 11.85 0.067 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Flathead Catfish 11.85 0.087 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Largemouth Bass 11.85 0.087 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Common Carp 11.85 0.093 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. White Crappie 11.85 0.1 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Channel Catfish 11.85 0.112 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Rock Bass 11.85 0.126 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Common Carp 11.85 0.139 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Common Carp 11.85 0.156 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Smallmouth Bass 11.85 0.651 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Common Carp 9.1 0.05 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Common Carp 9.1 0.081 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Freshwater Drum 9.1 0.09 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Freshwater Drum 9.1 0.09 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Smallmouth Bass 9.1 0.092 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Largemouth Bass 9.1 0.094 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike White Crappie 9.1 0.111 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Channel Catfish 9.1 0.128 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Smallmouth Bass 9.1 0.165 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Flathead Catfish 9.1 0.181 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Flathead Catfish 9.1 0.239 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Flathead Catfish 9.1 0.451 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 White Bass 3.4 0.032 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Largemouth Bass 3.4 0.061 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Channel Catfish 3.4 0.062 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Common Carp 3.4 0.079 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Common Carp 3.4 0.08 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Flathead Catfish 3.4 0.081 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Common Carp 3.4 0.098 Yes

Page 129 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

River Station Site Name Species Mile Value Detected? K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Flathead Catfish 3.4 0.103 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 White Crappie 3.4 0.124 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Freshwater Drum 3.4 0.228 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Freshwater Drum 3.4 0.235 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 White Perch 3.4 0.26 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Flathead Catfish 3.4 0.309 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Flathead Catfish 3.4 0.404 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Freshwater Drum 3.4 0.522 Yes K01P05 W. Br. Huron R. 5 mi. N of Willard @ Bauman Rd. Bluegill Sunfish 22.73 0.065 Yes K01P05 W. Br. Huron R. 5 mi. N of Willard @ Bauman Rd. Rock Bass 22.73 0.125 Yes K01P05 W. Br. Huron R. 5 mi. N of Willard @ Bauman Rd. White Crappie 22.73 0.135 Yes K01P05 W. Br. Huron R. 5 mi. N of Willard @ Bauman Rd. Rock Bass 22.73 0.166 Yes K01P05 W. Br. Huron R. 5 mi. N of Willard @ Bauman Rd. Rock Bass 22.73 0.228 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Rock Bass 7.6 0.079 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Channel Catfish 7.6 0.087 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Largemouth Bass 7.6 0.114 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Common Carp 7.6 0.127 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Freshwater Drum 7.6 0.14 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Rock Bass 7.6 0.147 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Common Carp 7.6 0.157 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Rock Bass 7.6 0.182 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Common Carp 7.6 0.185 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Smallmouth Bass 7.6 0.186 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Channel Catfish 7.6 0.274 Yes K01G12 W. Br. Huron R. NE of New Haven @ Green Bush Rd. Largemouth Bass 35.34 0.049 Yes K01G12 W. Br. Huron R. NE of New Haven @ Green Bush Rd. Rock Bass 35.34 0.065 Yes K01G12 W. Br. Huron R. NE of New Haven @ Green Bush Rd. Rock Bass 35.34 0.089 Yes K01G12 W. Br. Huron R. NE of New Haven @ Green Bush Rd. Smallmouth Bass 35.34 0.253 Yes K01G12 W. Br. Huron R. NE of New Haven @ Green Bush Rd. Rock Bass 35.34 0.303 Yes 501090 W. Br. Huron R. near mouth @ Lovers Lane Rd. Smallmouth Bass 0.38 0.078 Yes 501090 W. Br. Huron R. near mouth @ Lovers Lane Rd. Smallmouth Bass 0.38 0.126 Yes 501090 W. Br. Huron R. near mouth @ Lovers Lane Rd. Rock Bass 0.38 0.135 Yes 501090 W. Br. Huron R. near mouth @ Lovers Lane Rd. Rock Bass 0.38 0.145 Yes K01W17 W. Br. Huron R. S of Monroeville @ Snyder Rd. Rock Bass 16.59 0.072 Yes K01W17 W. Br. Huron R. S of Monroeville @ Snyder Rd. White Crappie 16.59 0.08 Yes K01W17 W. Br. Huron R. S of Monroeville @ Snyder Rd. Smallmouth Bass 16.59 0.135 Yes K01W17 W. Br. Huron R. S of Monroeville @ Snyder Rd. Smallmouth Bass 16.59 0.405 Yes

Table 27. Fish tissue total PCB data from 2016 Huron River study area sampling (mg/kg). The shading indicates the advisory category that would apply at that contaminant level. Blue = unrestricted consumption; yellow = one meal per week; orange = one meal per month. River Station Site Name Species Mile Value Detected? K01S11 E. Br. Huron R. near Norwalk @ Brown Rd. Rock Bass 6.85 0.0199 No K01S11 E. Br. Huron R. near Norwalk @ Brown Rd. Rock Bass 6.85 0.0199 No K01S11 E. Br. Huron R. near Norwalk @ Brown Rd. Smallmouth Bass 6.85 0.0199 No K01S11 E. Br. Huron R. near Norwalk @ Brown Rd. Smallmouth Bass 6.85 0.02 No K01S11 E. Br. Huron R. near Norwalk @ Brown Rd. Common Carp 6.85 0.773 Yes 501070 E. Br. Huron R. NW of Norwalk @ Schaefer Rd. Smallmouth Bass 1.47 0.0198 No

Page 130 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

River Station Site Name Species Mile Value Detected? 501070 E. Br. Huron R. NW of Norwalk @ Schaefer Rd. Rock Bass 1.47 0.0199 No 501070 E. Br. Huron R. NW of Norwalk @ Schaefer Rd. Rock Bass 1.47 0.0199 No K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Bluegill Sunfish 14.65 0.0198 No K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Rock Bass 14.65 0.0199 No K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Bluegill Sunfish 14.65 0.0199 No K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Rock Bass 14.65 0.0199 No K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Bluegill Sunfish 14.65 0.0199 No K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Smallmouth Bass 14.65 0.0199 No K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Smallmouth Bass 14.65 0.0199 No K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Black Crappie 14.65 0.02 No K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Channel Catfish 14.65 0.0853 Yes K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Channel Catfish 14.65 0.2513 Yes K01W01 Huron R. @ Dam dst. East/West Branches Common Carp 14.65 0.67 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Flathead Catfish 0.01 0.0199 No K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Flathead Catfish 0.01 0.0199 No K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Largemouth Bass 0.01 0.0199 No K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Largemouth Bass 0.01 0.0199 No K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Rock Bass 0.01 0.0199 No K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Largemouth Bass 0.01 0.02 No K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Black Crappie 0.01 0.02 No K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Freshwater Drum 0.01 0.032 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Largemouth Bass 0.01 0.0342 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Freshwater Drum 0.01 0.0543 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Freshwater Drum 0.01 0.0882 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth White Perch 0.01 0.1684 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Channel Catfish 0.01 0.1779 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Common Carp 0.01 0.183 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Flathead Catfish 0.01 0.277 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Common Carp 0.01 0.291 Yes K01S01 Huron R. @ Huron @ mouth Common Carp 0.01 0.394 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. White Crappie 11.85 0.0199 No 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Smallmouth Bass 11.85 0.0199 No 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Rock Bass 11.85 0.0199 No 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Common Carp 11.85 0.02 No 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Largemouth Bass 11.85 0.02 No 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Flathead Catfish 11.85 0.0266 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Common Carp 11.85 0.065 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Channel Catfish 11.85 0.1886 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Smallmouth Bass 11.85 0.2316 Yes 501050 Huron R. dst. Milan, adj. Mud Brook Rd. Common Carp 11.85 0.455 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike White Crappie 9.1 0.0198 No K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Smallmouth Bass 9.1 0.0198 No K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Common Carp 9.1 0.0199 No K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Freshwater Drum 9.1 0.0199 No K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Smallmouth Bass 9.1 0.0199 No K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Freshwater Drum 9.1 0.02 No K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Largemouth Bass 9.1 0.02 No K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Common Carp 9.1 0.0227 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Flathead Catfish 9.1 0.1363 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Flathead Catfish 9.1 0.284 Yes K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Channel Catfish 9.1 0.419 Yes

Page 131 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

River Station Site Name Species Mile Value Detected? K01K03 Huron R. N of Milan @ Ohio Turnpike Flathead Catfish 9.1 0.446 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 White Crappie 3.4 0.0198 No K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Flathead Catfish 3.4 0.0199 No K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Largemouth Bass 3.4 0.0199 No K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 White Bass 3.4 0.0199 No K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Freshwater Drum 3.4 0.02 No K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Flathead Catfish 3.4 0.0204 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Freshwater Drum 3.4 0.0221 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Freshwater Drum 3.4 0.0388 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 White Perch 3.4 0.128 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Common Carp 3.4 0.137 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Common Carp 3.4 0.1595 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Flathead Catfish 3.4 0.3827 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Common Carp 3.4 0.454 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Channel Catfish 3.4 0.496 Yes K01K02 Huron R. S of Huron, 0.65 mi. upst. St. Rte. 2 Flathead Catfish 3.4 0.947 Yes K01P05 W. Br. Huron R. 5 mi. N of Willard @ Bauman Rd. Rock Bass 22.73 0.0199 No K01P05 W. Br. Huron R. 5 mi. N of Willard @ Bauman Rd. Rock Bass 22.73 0.0199 No K01P05 W. Br. Huron R. 5 mi. N of Willard @ Bauman Rd. Bluegill Sunfish 22.73 0.0199 No K01P05 W. Br. Huron R. 5 mi. N of Willard @ Bauman Rd. White Crappie 22.73 0.0199 No K01P05 W. Br. Huron R. 5 mi. N of Willard @ Bauman Rd. Rock Bass 22.73 0.02 No K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Common Carp 7.6 0.0199 No K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Rock Bass 7.6 0.0199 No K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Rock Bass 7.6 0.0199 No K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Largemouth Bass 7.6 0.0199 No K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Rock Bass 7.6 0.02 No K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Smallmouth Bass 7.6 0.02 No K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Channel Catfish 7.6 0.0264 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Freshwater Drum 7.6 0.056 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Common Carp 7.6 0.0723 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Channel Catfish 7.6 0.1551 Yes K01W25 W. Br. Huron R. @ Monroeville @ River Rd. Common Carp 7.6 0.725 Yes K01G12 W. Br. Huron R. NE of New Haven @ Green Bush Rd. Largemouth Bass 35.34 0.0199 No K01G12 W. Br. Huron R. NE of New Haven @ Green Bush Rd. Smallmouth Bass 35.34 0.0199 No K01G12 W. Br. Huron R. NE of New Haven @ Green Bush Rd. Rock Bass 35.34 0.0199 No K01G12 W. Br. Huron R. NE of New Haven @ Green Bush Rd. Rock Bass 35.34 0.02 No K01G12 W. Br. Huron R. NE of New Haven @ Green Bush Rd. Rock Bass 35.34 0.02 No 501090 W. Br. Huron R. near mouth @ Lovers Lane Rd. Smallmouth Bass 0.38 0.0199 No 501090 W. Br. Huron R. near mouth @ Lovers Lane Rd. Smallmouth Bass 0.38 0.0199 No 501090 W. Br. Huron R. near mouth @ Lovers Lane Rd. Rock Bass 0.38 0.0199 No 501090 W. Br. Huron R. near mouth @ Lovers Lane Rd. Rock Bass 0.38 0.0199 No K01W17 W. Br. Huron R. S of Monroeville @ Snyder Rd. Smallmouth Bass 16.59 0.0198 No K01W17 W. Br. Huron R. S of Monroeville @ Snyder Rd. Rock Bass 16.59 0.0199 No K01W17 W. Br. Huron R. S of Monroeville @ Snyder Rd. White Crappie 16.59 0.0199 No K01W17 W. Br. Huron R. S of Monroeville @ Snyder Rd. Smallmouth Bass 16.59 0.0199 No

Beneficial Use Recommendations Designated uses for 28 named and unnamed principal streams in the Huron River basin are listed in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-1-19, Table 19-1. All are assigned the WWH aquatic life use designation. The Huron River mainstem is also assigned the seasonal salmonid habitat (SSH) use. This use

Page 132 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

applies October through May in streams capable of supporting the passage of trout/salmon and large enough for recreational fishing. Most of the assigned uses (24 of 28) are denoted as verified based on previous field assessments done in 1998 and 2002. The remaining four are considered unverified because the uses originally assigned in the 1978 water quality standards were not based on a standardized biological assessment approach. All listed streams are designated as PCR for the recreation use. Agricultural water supply (AWS) and industrial water supply (IWS) uses are also assigned. Again, 24 of 28 are considered verified based on previous field assessments. The PWS use applies within 500 yards of intakes used to draw drinking water. There are four communities in the watershed that use surface water as their drinking water source. Norwalk uses a combination of in-stream and upground reservoirs for storage. Drainage from the watershed fills the impoundments, but there are also pump stations on Norwalk Creek (RM 0.11) and the East Branch Huron River (RM 6.16) to supplement capacity when needed. Bellevue uses a series of five upground reservoirs to store raw water. Reservoir #5 is the only one in the study area and water is pumped from Frink Run at RM 4.83. Monroeville and Willard both use upground storage reservoirs and pump water from the West Branch Huron River at river miles (RM) 8.52 and 33.8, respectively. In 2016, Ohio EPA evaluated 24 streams in the Huron River basin. Significant findings are listed below and recommended use designation changes are reflected in Table 28.  Exceptional warmwater habitat (EWH) is recommended for the Huron River in the free-flowing mainstem segment from the East Branch/West Branch confluence (RM 14.70) to the Ohio Turnpike (RM 9.10).  EWH is recommended for the West Branch Huron River from Bauman Rd. (RM 22.73) to the mouth.  WWH is recommended for three previously unlisted streams: unnamed tributary (RM 3.12) to Marsh Run; unnamed tributary (RM 5.38) to Frink Run; and unnamed tributary (RM 48.05) to West Branch Huron River a.k.a. Shiloh Ditch.  Modified warmwater habitat (MWH) is recommended for the unverified use in Mud Brook.  MWH is recommended for Clayton Ditch in the channelized segment above Higbee Rd.  PWS is recommended for the East Branch Huron River at RM 6.16.  WWH, PWS, AWS, IWS and PCR uses should be retained for all other previously verified streams.  Less restrictive statewide sport fish consumption advisory (mercury) of two meals per week for rock bass and white crappie in the Huron River.  More restrictive statewide sport fish consumption advisory (mercury) of one meal per month for freshwater drum in the Huron River.  One meal per month advisory for channel and flathead catfish in the Huron River due to PCBs.  One meal per month advisory for common carp in the West Branch Huron River due to PCBs.

The EWH use recommended for the Huron River mainstem and the West Branch is based on documented attainment within the fish and macroinvertebrate communities and the presence of sufficiently diverse habitat to expect that high-quality biological communities will be maintained. Conversely, Mud Brook and the upper reach of Clayton Ditch biological communities were depressed due to pervasive, long-standing channel modifications. Given the limited potential for improved biological community condition, MWH is recommended for these two stream reaches. The WWH use is recommended for three previously unlisted streams included in the 2016 survey, an unnamed tributary to Marsh Run (RM 3.12), Shiloh Ditch and an unnamed tributary Frink Run (RM 5.38). Biological communities were consistent with the use in the first two streams. Natural intermittence affected the unnamed tributary to Frink Run but under-sustained flow conditions should support typical warmwater fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages. Page 133 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Table 28. Waterbody use designations and recommendations for the Huron River study area. Designations based on the 1978 and 1985 Ohio Water Quality Standards are indicated with asterisks (*) while designations based on the results of a previous biological field assessment performed by Ohio EPA are symbolized using a (+) sign. Verification of current designations based on this study are symbolized as (*/+) while a (▲) denotes a new recommended use based on the findings of this study. Streams not assessed in this study appear in bold font. Use Designations Aquatic Life Habitat Water Supply Recreation S W E M S C L P A I P S R W W W S W R W W W B C C Water Body Segment W H H H H H W S S S W R R Comments

Huron River ‐ East Branch/West Branch confluence to Ohio turnpike (RM 9.1) ▲ + + + + ‐ Ohio turnpike (RM 9.1) to Lake Erie + + + + + Mud Brook ▲ */+ */+ */+ HELP ecoregion – channel modification Village Creek + + + + Rattlesnake Creek + + + + West Branch (Rattlesnake Creek RM 0.28) + + + + East Branch ‐ at RM 6.13 + o + + + PWS intake ‐ Norwalk ‐ all other segments + + + + Norwalk Creek ‐ at RMs 0.11 and 4.02 + o + + + PWS intake ‐ Norwalk ‐ all other segments + + + + Unnamed tributary (Norwalk Creek RM 0.38) + + + + Cole Creek + + + + Unnamed tributary (Cole Creek RM 2.46) + + + + Unnamed tributary (East Br. RM 19.98) + + + + West Branch ‐ headwaters to Bauman Rd. (RM 22.73) + + + + ‐ at RM 33.8 + o + + + PWS intake ‐ Willard ‐ Bauman Rd. (RM 22.73) to the mouth ▲ + + + at RM 8.5233.8 ▲ o + + + PWS intake ‐ Monroeville Clayton Ditch (West Br. RM 0.4) ‐ headwaters to Higbee Rd. (RM 2.85) ▲ + + + HELP ecoregion – channel modification ‐ Higbee Rd. (RM 2.85) to the mouth + + + + Seymour Creek + + + + Megginson Creek + + + + Frink Run ‐ at RM 4.83 + o + + + PWS intake ‐ Bellevue ‐ all other segments + + + + Unnamed tributary (Frink Run RM 5.38) ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Haas Ditch * * * * Schoeffel Ditch * * * * Slate Run + + + +

Page 134 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Use Designations Aquatic Life Habitat Water Supply Recreation S W E M S C L P A I P S R W W W S W R W W W B C C Water Body Segment W H H H H H W S S S W R R Comments

Mud Run (East Branch) + + + + Mud Run (West Branch) + + + + Shriner Run * * * * Holiday tributary (West Br. RM 23.09) + + + + Unnamed tributary (Holiday tributary RM 2.8) + + + + Jacobs Creek + + + + Walnut Creek (West Branch RM 33.05) + + + + Marsh Run + + + + Unnamed tributary (Marsh Run RM 3.12) ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ Unnamed tributary (West Br. RM 41.50) + + + + Shiloh Ditch (West Br. RM 48.05) ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ SRW = state resource water; WWH = warmwater habitat; EWH = exceptional warmwater habitat; MWH = modified warmwater habitat; SSH = seasonal salmonid habitat; CWH = coldwater habitat; LRW = limited resource water; PWS = public water supply; AWS = agricultural water supply; IWS = industrial water supply; BW = bathing water; PCR = primary contact recreation; SCR = secondary contact recreation.

Page 135 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Acknowledgements Ohio EPA's Division of Surface Water (DSW) appreciates the cooperation of all property owners who allowed agency personnel access to the project areas. DSW would also like to thank the Division of Environmental Services and Jones & Henry Laboratories, Inc. for analytical support. The following Ohio EPA staff provided expertise for this project:

Report Coordination Dan Glomski Report format and editing Cathryn Allen Reviewers Sarah Becker, Jeff Bohne and Mari Piekutowski Data support Sarah Becker and Bob Miltner Study Area, Surface Water, Sediment, Recreation Chris Riddle and Ben Smith with college intern Alex McCartney Macroinvertebrate Community Chuck McKnight with college intern Donald Karlquist Fish Community Chuck Boucher with college interns Aaron Bishop, Neil Hamrick and Trevor Smoot Fish Tissue Gary Klase DO/Trophic Surveys Josh Griffin Inland Lakes Brent Kuenzli Drinking Water Heather Raymond and Ruth Briland Use Designations Chris Skalski

Page 136 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

References Barton D.R. and Farmer M.E.D., 1997. The effects of conservation tillage practices on benthic invertebrate communities in headwater streams in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. Environmental Pollution Volume 96, No. 2, pp. 207-215. Elsevier Science Limited. Office of the Erie County Engineer, 2016. Erie County Engineer’s Office 2016 Annual Report for Highway Department, Bridge Maintenance, Ditch Maintenance, and Tax Map Office. 58 pp. Dodds, W.K. 2007. Trophic State, Eutrophication and Nutrient Criteria in Streams. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 22(12): 669-676. Dodds, W.K. 2006 Eutrophication and trophic state in rivers and streams. Limnol. Oceanogr., 51(1, part 2), 2006, 671–680 Evans, J.E., J.M. Huxley, and R.K. Vincent, 2007. Upstream Channel Changes Following Dam Construction and Removal Using a GIS/Remote Sensing Approach. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 43(3):1-15. Heiskary, S., H. Markus. 2003. Establishing Relationships Among In‐Stream Nutrient Concentrations, Phytoplankton Abundance and Composition, Fish IBI and Biochemical Oxygen Demand in Minnesota USA Rivers Final Report to USEPA Region V. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – Environmental Outcomes Division. 106 pp. Hladik, Michelle & W. Kolpin, Dana. (2015). First national-scale reconnaissance of neonicotinoid insecticides in streams across the USA. Environmental Chemistry. 13. 10.1071/EN15061. Fajen, O.F. and J.B. Layzer, 1993. Agricultural Practices. Pages 257-270 In Bryan C.F. and Rutherford D.A., editors 1993. Impacts on Warmwater Streams: Guidelines for evaluation. Second Edition. Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Little Rock, Arkansas. Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico, and J.D. Williams, 1999. Nonindigenous Fishes Introduced into Inland Waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland. Karr, J. R., 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications 1(1):66-84. February 1991 Karr, J. R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser, 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters. A method and its rationale. Champaign: Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication, 5. 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. Meyer D.N. and Metzger K.D., 2000. Status and trends in suspended‐sediment discharges, soil erosion, and conservation tillage in the Maumee. Water-Resources Investigation Report 00-4091. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Society. 20 pp. Miltner R.J. 2018. Eutrophication endpoints for large rivers in Ohio, USA. Environ Monit Assess. 2018 Jan 4;190(2):55. Miltner R.J. 2016. Measuring the contribution of agricultural conservation practices to observed trends and recent condition in water quality indicators in Ohio, USA. Journal of Environmental Quality 44(6):1821- 1831.

Page 137 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Miltner, Robert J. 2010. A Method and Rationale for Deriving Nutrient Criteria for Small Rivers and Streams in Ohio. Environmental Management 45:842-855. Miner R. and D. Borton, 1991. Considerations in the development and implementation of biocriteria, Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, U.S. EPA, Offc. Science and Technology, Washington, D.C., 115 pp. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2017. Ohio’s Listed Species, Wildlife Considered Endangered, Threatened, Species of Concern, Special Interest, Extirpated, or Extinct. Division of Wildlife. Publication 5356 (R0717). ___1998. Physiographic regions of Ohio. Division of Geological Survey. Page size map with text, 2 p., scale 1:210,000. Ohio EPA, 1987a. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume I. The Role of Biological Data in Water Quality Assessment. Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio. ___1987b. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume II. User’s manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio. ___1989. Addendum to Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume II. User’s manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio. ___1999. Association Between Nutrients, Habitat, and the Aquatic Biota in Ohio Rivers and Streams, Appendices. Ohio EPA Tech. Bull. MAS/1999-1-1. Division of Surface Water, Ecol. Assess. Section, Columbus, Ohio ___2005. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Huron River Watershed. Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water, Columbus, OH. ___2006a. Methods for assessing habitat in flowing waters: Using the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI). Ohio EPA Tech. Bull. EAS/2006-06-1. Revised by the Midwest Biodiversity Institute for Divison of Surface Water, Ecol. Assess. Sect., Groveport, Ohio. ___2006b. 2006 Updates to Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume II. User’s manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio. ___2008. Ohio EPA DERR Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance. https://epa.ohio.gov/derr/rules/guidance.aspx#119153115-risk-assessment ___2010. Guidance on Evaluating Sediment Contaminant Results, January 2010. Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio. https://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/guidance/sediment_evaluation_jan10.pdf ___2014. Preamble: Proposed Stream Nutrient Assessment Procedure. Ohio EPA Nutrients Technical Advisory Group – Assessment Procedure Subgroup. 11 Sept 2014. 17 pp. ___2015a. Surface Water Field Sampling Manual. July 31, 2015. Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio. http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/document_index/docindx.aspx

Page 138 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

___2015b. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume III. Standardized Biological Field Sampling and Laboratory Methods for Assessing Fish and Macroinvertebrate Communities. Div. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio.

___2015c. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Stillwater River Basin, 2013. Darke, Miami and Montgomery Counties, Ohio. Division of Surface Water. Ecological Assessment Section. Columbus, Ohio. ___2016. Percentiles of Water Quality Parameters from Ohio Reference Sites. Division of Surface Water. Ecological Assessment Section. Columbus, Ohio. Unpublished Compendium. Omernik J.M., 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Association of American Geographers, 77(1): 118-125. Omernik J.M. and A.L. Gallant, 1988. Ecoregions of the upper Midwest states. EPA/600/3-88/037. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. 56 pp. Pavey R.R., R.P. Goldthwait, C.S. Brokman, D.N. Hull, E.M. Swinford, and R.G. Van Horn, 1999. Quaternary Geology of Ohio. Ohio Geological Survey Map No. 2. Pflieger W.L., 1997. The Fishes of Missouri (revised edition). Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 372 pp. 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. ___1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods, and application. Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Columbus, Ohio. Richards R.P., Baker D.B. and Crumrine J.P., 2009. Improved water quality in Ohio tributaries to Lake Erie: A consequence of conservation practices. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 64(3):200-211. Roessink, I., Merga, L.B., Zweers, H.J. and Van den Brink, P.J., 2013. The neonicotinoid imidacloprid shows high chronic toxicity to mayfly nymphs. Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 32(5): 1096– 1100. Smith P.W., 1979. The Fishes of Illinois. Illinois State Natural History Survey, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago. 314 pp. Tessler N.T. and Gottgens J.F., 2012. The first observation of the Eastern sand darter, Ammocrypta pellucida (Agassiz) in the Ohio portion of the Maumee River mainstem in sixty‐five years. American Midland Naturalist, 167:198-204. Trautman M.B., 1981. The fishes of Ohio with illustrated keys. Ohio State Univ. Press, Columbus. 782 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. Ecological Screening Levels, US EPA Region 5 RCRA. https://archive.epa.gov/region5/waste/cars/web/html/esl.html ___2015. State Development of Numeric Criteria for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution. United States Environmental Protection Agency – Nutrient Policy and Data. n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2015. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 2016. Effects of Conservation Practice Adoption on Cultivated Cropland Acres in the Western Basin Lake Erie, 2003‐06 and 2012. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 120 pp.

Page 139 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

___2010. Soil Erosion on Cropland. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 29 pp. ___2006. Soil Survey of Erie County. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Soil and Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. 389 pp. ___1995. Soil Survey of Huron County. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Soil and Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. 155 pp. United States Geological Survey, 2000. Low Flow Characteristics of Streams in Ohio through the Water Year 1997. US Department of the Interior, Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4140. 415 pp. Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing, 1980. The River Continuum Concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37(1): 130-137. Waters T.F., 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. Whittier, T.R., D.P. Larsen, R.M. Hughes, C.M. Rohm, A.L. Gallant, and J.M. Omernik. 1987. The Ohio stream regionalization project: a compendium of results. EPA/600/3-87/025. 66 pp. Yoder, C.O. 1989. The development and use of biological criteria for Ohio surface waters. U.S. EPA, Criteria and Standards Div., Water Quality Stds. 21st Century, 1989: 139-146. ___1991. Answering some concerns about biological criteria based on experiences in Ohio, in G. H. Flock (ed.) Water quality standards for the 21st century. Proceedings of a National Conference, U. S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin, 1995. Biological criteria program development and implementation in Ohio, in W.S. Davis and T. Simon (eds.). Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Risk-based Planning and Decision Making. CRC Press/Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor.

___1995b. Biological Response Signatures and the Area of Degradation Value: New Tools for Interpreting Multimetric Data. In: Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., Eds., Biological Assessment and Criteria—Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, 263-286.

___1995c. The role of biological criteria in water quality monitoring, assessment and regulation. Ohio EPA Technical Report MAS/1995-1-3.

Yoder C.O., Rankin E.T., Smith M.A, Alsdorf B.A., Altfater D.J., Boucher, C.E., Miltner R.J., Mishne D.E., Sanders R.E., and Thoma R.F., 2004. Changes in fish assemblage status in Ohio’s non‐wadable rivers and streams over two decades. American Fisheries Society Symposium.

Page 140 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Glossary of Terms Acid mine drainage (AMD) A causative factor for the Limited Resource Water beneficial use designation for aquatic life habitat. These are surface waters with sustained pH values below 4.1 s.u. or with intermittently acidic conditions combined with severe streambed siltation,and have a demonstrated biological performance below that of the modified warmwater habitat (MWH) beneficial use designation.

Acute aquatic criterion Ohio EPA estimation of the highest instream concentration of a chemical to which (AAC) aquatic organisms can be exposed for a brief period of time without causing mortality.

Acute mixing zone The mixture of receiving water and effluent adjacent to a treated or untreated discharge within which the acute aquatic life criteria may be exceeded but the inside mixing zone maximum criteria may not be exceeded. The acute aquatic life criteria shall be met on the downstream perimeter of the acute mixing zone.

Acute toxicity Adverse effects that result from an acute exposure and occur within any short observation period which begins when the exposure begins, and usually does not constitute a substantial portion of the life span of the organism.

Adverse effect Any deleterious effect to organisms due to exposure to a substance. This includes effects which are or may become debilitating, harmful or toxic to the normal functions of the organism, but does not include non-harmful effects such as tissue discoloration alone or the induction of enzymes involved in the metabolism of the substance.

Agricultural water supply Waters suitable for irrigation and livestock watering without treatment. use designation

Ambient water The spatial (longitudinal, lateral and vertical) and temporal water temperature temperature measured in the receiving body of water prior to a specific waste heat discharge, and is outside the influence of any thermal mixing zone.

Area of initial mixing The limited zone where discharge-induced mixing causes the effluent to rapidly mix (AIM) with the receiving water such that the area may not be physically inhabitable to aquatic life. The inside mixing zone maximum criteria may be exceeded within the AIM but shall be met on the perimeter of the AIM.

Average temperature Represents the arithmetic mean of multiple daily average temperatures over a consecutive 15 or 30-day period.

Bathing waters A recreation beneficial use designation. Waters that, during the recreation season, are heavily used for swimming. The bathing water use applies to all waters in areas where a lifeguard or bathhouse facilities are present, and to any additional water bodies designated bathing waters in rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-32 of the Ohio Administrative Code.

Page 141 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Beneficial use Expectations for all surface waters of the state with respect to aquatic life designations (biological indicators), human health (fish tissue), public water supply and recreation (bacteria). Criteria for each Beneficial Use Designation is defined in Ohio Administrative Code 3745-1.

Benthic Small animals living among stones, logs, sediments and aquatic plants on the macroinvertebrates bottom of streams, rivers and lakes. They are large enough to see with the naked eye (macro) and have no backbone (invertebrate). They are also large enough to be retained by a U.S. Standard Testing Sieves number 30 (0.595 mm openings).

Bioaccumulation The net accumulation of a substance by an organism as a result of uptake from all environmental sources.

°C Degree Celsius.

Carcinogen A substance which causes an increased incidence of benign or malignant neoplasms, or substantially decreases the time to develop neoplasms, in animals or humans. The classification of carcinogens is discussed in rule 3745-1-42 of the Administrative Code.

Chronic aquatic criterion The Ohio EPA estimation of the highest instream concentration of a chemical to (CAC) which aquatic organisms can be exposed indefinitely without causing unacceptable effects (e.g., adverse effects on growth or reproduction)

Chronic mixing zone The mixture of receiving water and effluent adjacent to a treated or untreated discharge within which the chronic aquatic life, human health, wildlife and agricultural water supply criteria may be exceeded. The chronic aquatic life, human health, wildlife and agricultural water supply criteria shall be met on the downstream perimeter of the chronic mixing zone.

Chronic toxicity Concurrent and delayed adverse effects that occur only as a result of a chronic exposure. Chronic exposure is exposure of an organism for any long period or for a substantial portion of its life span.

Coldwater fish Those species of fish that thrive in relatively coldwater. These species include, but are not limited to, salmon and trout (Salmonidae), and may include sculpins (Cottidae), and certain minnow (Cyprinidae) species.

Coldwater habitat (CWH) A beneficial use designation for aquatic life habitat. These are waters that meet one or both of the characteristics described below:  Coldwater habitat, inland trout streams - these are waters which support trout stocking and management under the auspices of the Ohio department of natural resources, division of wildlife, excluding waters in lake run stocking programs, lake or reservoir stocking programs, experimental or trial stocking programs, and put and take programs on waters without, or without the potential restoration of, natural coldwater attributes of temperature and flow.  Coldwater habitat, native fauna - these are waters capable of supporting populations of native coldwater fish and associated vertebrate and invertebrate organisms and plants on an annual basis.

Page 142 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Confluence The point where two or more bodies of water flow together.

Criteria Elements of water quality standards, expressed as constituent concentrations, levels, or narrative statements, representing a quality of water that supports a particular designated use.

Daily average The arithmetic mean of multiple temperature measurements to be taken at least temperature once per hour during a twenty-four-hour day.

Degradation A lowering of the existing water quality in the surface waters of the state.

Depauperate Lacking.

Designated use A use of the surface waters of the state, established by Ohio Administrative Code 3745-1.

Diel Denoting or involving a period of 24 hours.

E. coli Escherichia coli. A specific bacterial species included in the fecal coliform bacteria group, the presence of which in surface waters has been correlated with gastrointestinal illness in swimmers.

Ecoregion An area defined by environmental characteristics, such as soil conditions, geography, flora, fauna, etc. Ecoregions in Ohio include the Eastern Cornbelt Plains, Interior Plateau, Erie-Ontario Lake Plains, Huron-Erie Lake Plains, and Western Alleghany Plateau.

Estuary The section of a Lake Erie tributary near the mouth where tributary and Lake Erie waters mix. This area is characterized by flow reversals and seiche influences and is generally located between the farthest downstream riffle of the tributary and Lake Erie proper. All tributaries of estuaries shall be considered estuaries below the Lake Erie mean high water level.

Eutrophic or The process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients eutrophication (such as phosphates) that stimulate the growth of aquatic plant life

Exceedance Measurement greater than a limit and/or standard

Exceptional warmwater A beneficial use designation for aquatic life habitat. These are waters capable of habitat (EWH) supporting and maintaining an exceptional or unusual community of warmwater aquatic organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to the 75th percentile of the identified reference sites on a statewide basis.

Existing beneficial use Those uses actually attained in the water body on or after Nov. 28, 1975.

°F Degree Fahrenheit.

Great Lakes system All the streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water within the drainage basin of the Great Lakes within the United States.

Page 143 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Hydrologic unit code Watersheds are delineated by USGS using a nationwide system based on surface (HUC) hydrologic features. This system divides the country into 21 regions (2-digit), 222 sub-regions (4-digit), 352 accounting units (6-digit), and 2,262 cataloguing units (8-digit).

Index of Biotic Integrity A biological criteria assessment tool that is the principle measure of the overall fish (IBI) community condition used by Ohio EPA which consists of 12 community metrics. Each metric is compared to the value expected at an ecoregional reference condition.

Industrial water supply Waters suitable for commercial and industrial uses, with or without treatment. use designation Criteria for the support of the industrial water supply use designation will vary with the type of industry involved.

Invertebrate Community A biological criteria assessment tool that is the principle measure of overall Index (ICI) macroinvertebrate community condition used by Ohio EPA and which consists of ten structural community metrics. The point system evaluates a quantitative macroinvertebrate sample against a data base of relatively undisturbed ecoregional reference sites throughout Ohio.

Lake Erie drainage basin All the streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water within the drainage basin of Lake Erie and within the United States.

Large river assessment A river assessment unit that encompasses a drainage of more than 500 square unit (LRAU) miles; the length of each river included is from the mouth of each river upstream to the point where the drainage area reaches approximately 500 square miles.

Lentic Of, relating to, or living in still waters (such as lakes or ponds).

Limited resource water A beneficial use designation for aquatic life habitat. These are waters that have (LRW) been the subject of a use attainability analysis and have been found to lack the potential for any resemblance of any other aquatic life habitat as determined by the biological criteria in table 7-1 of Ohio Administrative Code 3745-1-07. The use attainability analysis must demonstrate that the extant fauna is substantially degraded and that the potential for recovery of the fauna to the level characteristic of any other aquatic life habitat is realistically precluded due to natural background conditions or irretrievable human induced conditions.

Lotic Of, relating to, or living in moving waters (such as rivers or streams).

Maximum daily The highest temperature observed in a 24-hour day. temperature

Micrograms per liter The micrograms of substance per liter of solution and is equivalent to 10-9 (ug/L) kilograms per liter or parts per billion, assuming unit density.

Milligrams per kilogram The milligrams of substance per kilogram of weight. (mg/kg)

Page 144 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Milligrams per liter The milligrams of substance per liter of solution and is equivalent to 10-6 kilograms (mg/L) per liter or parts per million, assuming unit density.

Mine drainage Surface or ground water flowing through or from mines and mine sites. It is usually characterized by concentrations of acidity or alkalinity, various heavy metals, sulfates, and dissolved solids.

Mixing zone An area of a water body contiguous to a treated or untreated wastewater discharge. This discharge is in transit and progressively diluted from the source concentration to the receiving system concentration. The mixing zone shall be considered a place where wastewater and receiving water mix, not a place where wastes are treated.

Modified Index of well‐ A biological criteria assessment tool that incorporates four measures of fish being (MIwb) community that have traditionally been used separately: numbers of individuals, biomass, a Shannon diversity index based on numbers and weights (two separate calculations).

Modified warmwater A beneficial use designation for aquatic life habitat. Waters that have been the habitat (MWH) subject of a use attainability analysis and have been found to be incapable of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of warmwater organisms due to irretrievable modifications of the physical habitat.

National Pollutant A permit issued by the state of Ohio for a discharge that is either in compliance with Discharge Elimination authorized discharge levels of pollutants or that includes a schedule that will bring System (NPDES) Permit the point source into compliance with authorized discharge levels of pollutants.

Natural conditions Those conditions that are measured outside the influence of human activities.

Nonpoint source Any source of pollutants other than those defined as point sources.

Nutrient enrichment The excess contribution of materials such as nitrogen and phosphorus used for plant growth.

Ohio River drainage basin All the streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water within the drainage basin of the Ohio River.

Organic enrichment The addition of carbon-based materials from living organisms beyond natural rates and amounts

Palustrine Nontidal wetland dominated by trees, shrubs, or emergent macrophytes. Common palustrine wetland types include marshes, swamps, bogs, and fens.

pH The negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity concentrations when expressed as moles per liter or pH = -log (H+).

Primary contact A recreation beneficial use designation. Waters that, during the recreation season, recreation are suitable for one or more full body contact recreation activities such as, but not limited to, wading, swimming, boating, water skiing, canoeing, kayaking, and scuba diving. All surface waters of the state are designated as primary contact recreation unless otherwise designated as bathing waters or secondary contact recreation.

Page 145 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Primary Productivity Synthesis of inorganic carbon into organic forms; this is typically used to discuss algal growth in streams

Point source Any discernible, confined or discrete conveyance from which a pollutant is or may be discharged to the surface waters of the state.

Pollutant Sewage, industrial waste or other waste as defined by divisions (B) to (D) of section 6111.01 of the Revised Code.

Public water supply use These are waters that, with conventional treatment, will be suitable for human designation intake and meet federal regulations for drinking water. Criteria associated with this use designation apply within five hundred yards of surface water intakes. Although not necessarily included in rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-30 of the Administrative Code, the bodies of water with one or more of the following characteristics are designated public water supply:  All publicly owned lakes and reservoirs, with the exception of Piedmont reservoir.  All privately owned lakes and reservoirs used as a source of public drinking water.  All surface waters within five hundred yards of an existing public water supply surface water intake.  All surface waters used as emergency water supplies.

Qualitative Habitat Methodology for completing a general evaluation of stream physical habitat; an Evaluation Index index designed to provide an empirical, quantified evaluation of the general lotic macrohabitat characteristics that are important to fish communities.

Receiving waters The surface waters of the state into which point and nonpoint sources flow.

Recreation beneficial use In effect only during the recreation season, which is the period from May 1 to designation October 31. The director of the Ohio EPA may require effluent disinfection, as a term or condition of a national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit, administrative findings and orders or a judicial order, during the months outside the recreation season if necessary to protect an unusually high level of water based recreation activity such as, but not limited to, canoeing, kayaking, scuba diving, or sport fishing during spawning runs and, in the normal pursuit of the recreation activity, there is a strong likelihood of exposure to water borne pathogens through ingestion of water or from dermal exposure through fresh cuts or abrasions.

Page 146 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Representative aquatic Those organisms, either natural or introduced, which presently exist or have species existed in the surface waters of the state prior to July 1, 1977, with the exception of those banned species outlined in rule 1501:31-19-01 of the Administrative Code. In addition, it may include any species that are legally introduced into the surface waters of the state. Aquatic species designated as representative shall satisfy one or more of the following:  Species that are particularly vulnerable to the existing or proposed environmental impact in question.  Species that are commercially or recreationally valuable.  Species that are threatened, rare, or endangered.  Species that are critical to the structure and function of the aquatic community.  Species whose presence is causally related to the existing or proposed environmental impact under examination.  Species that are potentially capable of becoming localized nuisance species.  Species that are representative of the ecological, behavioral, and physiological requirements and characteristics of species determined in paragraphs (B)(77)(a) to (B)(77)(f) of this rule, but which themselves may not be representative.

Rheopalustrine Riverine or lotic wetlands, commonly referred to as “swamp streams”. May include hydromodified waters that retain residual palustrine functions and features, including floral and faunal artifacts. In the context of Ohio’s ALUs and compared against supporting water quality and biological criteria, waters so defined may be naturally limited or otherwise underperform due to slack water habitat and chemically reductive conditions.

Seasonal salmonid habitat A beneficial use designation for aquatic life habitat. Rivers, streams and (SSH) embayments capable of supporting the passage of salmonids from October to May and are water bodies large enough to support recreational fishing. This use will be in effect the months of October to May. Another aquatic life habitat use designation will be enforced the remainder of the year (June to September).

Secondary recreation A recreation beneficial use designation. Waters that result in minimal exposure potential to water borne pathogens because the waters are: rarely used for water- based recreation such as, but not limited to, wading; situated in remote, sparsely populated areas; have restricted access points; and have insufficient depth to provide full body immersion, thereby greatly limiting the potential for water-based recreation activities. Waters designated secondary contact recreation are identified in rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-30 of the Administrative Code.

Small drainageway A causative factor for the limited resource water beneficial use designation for maintenance aquatic life habitat. These are highly modified surface water drainageways (usually less than three square miles in drainage area) that do not possess the stream morphology and habitat characteristics necessary to support any other aquatic life habitat use. The potential for habitat improvements must be precluded due to regular stream channel maintenance required for drainage purposes.

Page 147 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Surface waters of the state All streams, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, marshes, wetlands or other waterways which or water bodies are situated wholly or partially within the boundaries of the state, except those private waters which do not combine or effect a junction with natural surface or underground waters. Waters defined as sewerage system, treatment works or disposal system in section 6111.01 of the Revised Code are not included.

Threatened or Those species of the state's biota which are threatened with statewide extirpation endangered species or national extinction, as listed in rule 1501:31-23-01 of the Administrative Code or 50 C.F.R. 17 or that are listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act.

Threshold effect An effect of a substance for which there is a theoretical or empirically established dose or concentration below which the effect does not occur.

Toxic substances Any substances which can cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological or reproductive malfunction or physical deformities in any organism or its offspring, or which can become poisonous after concentration in the food chain or in combination with other substances.

Tributary A stream flowing into a larger body of water.

Uptake Acquisition of a substance from the environment by an organism as a result of any active or passive process.

Use attainability analysis A structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of the use which may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors.

Warmwater habitat A beneficial use designation for aquatic life habitat. These waters capable of (WWH) supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of warmwater aquatic organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to the twenty-fifth percentile of the identified reference sites within each of Ohio’s ecoregions.

Warmwater fish Those species of fish that inhabit relatively warm water. These species include, but are not limited to, bass; crappies and sunfish (Centrarchidae), and catfish (Ictaluridae), and may include certain suckers (Catostomidae), minnows (Cyprinidae), and perch and darter (Percidae) species.

Water bodies or waters of All streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, the state irrigation systems, drainage systems, and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface and underground, natural or artificial, that are situated wholly or partly within, or border upon, this state, or are within its jurisdiction, except those private waters that do not combine or effect a junction with natural surface or underground waters.

Water quality sondes Made for collecting and transmitting multi-parameter water quality data. Sondes are used for gathering instantaneous data and can also be deployed over a long period of time.

Page 148 of 149

AMS/2016‐HURON‐2 Draft Biological and Water Quality Study of the Huron River Basin, 2016 January 2020

Water quality standards The rules set forth in Ohio Administrative Code 3745-1 establishing stream use designations and water quality criteria protective of such uses for the surface waters of the state.

Watershed A common surface drainage area corresponding to one from the list of thirty-seven adapted from the 44 cataloging units as depicted on the hydrologic unit map of Ohio, U.S. Geological Survey, 1988.

Watershed assessment A geographic description of a watersheds that align with the 12-digit hydrologic unit (WAU) unit code (HUC) system.

Wetlands Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration that are sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. "Wetlands" includes swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas that are delineated in accordance with the 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual and any other procedures and requirements adopted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers for delineating wetlands.

Page 149 of 149