Measurable Parameters of Ecosystem Health: Introduction and Concepts Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Introduction & Concepts

Sustainable Watershed Planning in Ohio

Clean Water Act Goal: Restoration of Degraded Waters

•Chemical, physical, and biological integrity

•Fishable/swimmable - designated uses

•"Where attainable"- use attainability analysis

Detecting Environmental Problems With Ambient Bioassessment Tools We cannot address problems about which we are not aware. •Traditional "administrative" approaches do not capture all significant impairments. •Environmental monitoring needs to be comprehensive enough to detect problems. •Choice of ambient indicators strongly influences overall effectiveness. •Ambient background influences need to be understood and accounted for up front.

Environmental Indicator

". . a measurable feature which singly or in combination provides managerially and scientifically useful evidence of ecosystem quality, or reliable evidence of trends in quality."

ITFM Indicators Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Introduction & Concepts

Major Classes and Types of Environment- al Indicators: Problem Statement

1.Stressor Indicators (e.g., loadings, land use, habitat) 2.Exposure Indicators (e.g., chemical-specific, biomarkers, toxicity) 3.Response Indicators (e.g., biological community condition) The problem nationally has been with the in- appropriate use of stressor and exposure indicators as response indicators.

Chemical vs. Biological Indicators of Aquatic Life Impairment: Relative performance of chemical water quality criteria compared with biological criteria in detecting aquatic life impairments:

6.7% Biocriteria Impairment ONLY

Chemical 41.1% 52.2% Impairment ONLY Agreement

2543 Sampling Sites (1994 Ohio 305b Report) Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Introduction & Concepts

An Integrated Approach to Water Quality Management

Water Quality Based Bioassessment Based •Parameter specific criteria • Biological criteria •Surrogate assessment • Direct assessment •Pollutant focused • Resource focused •Partial coverage • Complete coverage •Bottom up approach • Top down approach •Individual effects • Cumulative effects •Stress/exposure indicator • Response indicator •Design criteria • Impact assessment criteria

Integrated and

complimentary use of Alkalinity Velocity Solubilities Temperature High/Low D.O. Land Use Extremes Adsorption bioassessment, pH Chemical Flow Nutrients Turbidity Regime Variables Ground Precipitation & Organics Water chemical/physical Hardness Runoff INTEGRITY OF THE Disease WATER RESOURCE assessment, and Parasitism Reproduction Biotic Factors attendant tools, each Feeding Competition Predation “Principal Goal of the within their most CleanWater Act” Nutrients Riparian Sunlight Energy Width/Depth Vegetation Source Seasonal appropriate roles, is Cycles Bank Stability Channel Organic Matter Siltation Habitat o o Morphology Inputs 1 and 2 Structure Sinuosity needed to successfully Production Gradient Current Canopy Instream restore and protect water Substrate Cover resources.

Making Ambient Indicators Relevant to Water Quality Management •Indicators must measure or extend to the key elements of the 5 factors that influence water resource integrity. •Indicators fundamentals - stressor, exposure, response - each used within the most appropritate role. •National inconsistency results from using indicators outside of their most appropriate role. •Using the indicators hierarchy framework will lead to a well-rounded WQ management program. •Integration of programmatic needs (e.g., tiered uses) with logistical and structural needs must occur. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Introduction & Concepts

Monitoring & Assessment Should Be a Determinant in How WQ is Managed

•Problem identification and characterization. •Policy/program and legislation development. •Criteria development and application. •Demonstrate WQ management program effectiveness, i.e., manage for environmental results.

Develop monitoring & assessment as an overall function of WQ management, not on a piecemeal basis.

The Relationship Between WQ Management and the Purposes of Monitoring & Assessment

Water Quality Management Activities

Awareness Choose Evaluate of Problems/ Course Program Make Analyze Issues of Action Design & Effective- Adjustments Management Implement ness to Programs Options Programs & Priorities

Characterize Provide Existing/ Provide Information Reveal Define Emerging Information Base to Trends Water Problems Base in Evaluate in Water Resource Support Effectiveness Resource Conditions of WQ Mgmt. Quality Monitoring & Assessment Purposes

Source: ITFM (1995)

Important Considerations for Using Monitoring and Assessment to Support WQ Management

•Indicators and methods •Data quality & management •Assessment techniques •Variability •Regional stratfication •Levels of protection & restoration •Design considerations •Reporting •Role in management & policy Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Introduction & Concepts

Important Concepts and Elements of an Adequate State Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program

August 16, 1998

"Monitoring to Support WQ Management"

Steps Towards an Adequate State Watershed Monitoring & Assessment Program

•Use environmental indicators that are relevant to WQ management goals and WQS. •Assess at all relevant scales and for all aquatic resource types. •Link compliance and ambient monitoring & assessment (re: Hierarchy of Indicators). •Produce data & assessments of sufficient quality and power. •Responsive data & information management and reporting. •Promotion of incentives and elimination of disincentives.

Incentives/Disincentives Incentives - better M&A in exchange for: •Policy & program flexibility. •Improved WQS - stratified & refined use designations. •More accurate national statistics. •Stratified approaches to TMDLs. •Rewards via EnPPA process. Disincentives - deterrents to better M&A: •Listings - too many waters, problems (303d). •Makes things look worse - impact on 305b stats. •Legislation, mandates, distractions. •IA policy. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Introduction & Concepts Five-Year Basin Monitoring Where •Historical emphasis on inland rivers & streams •Extended to Lake Erie nearshore •Developmental work in the Ohio R. mainstem What •Watershed scale, synoptic design •Fish, macroinvertebrates, physical habitat •Sediments, water quality, fish contaminants •Biomarkers at selected sites Why •Support all water quality management programs •Integrate traditional water quality management tools with real world measures •Determine status of Ohio's aquatic resources in relation to agency mission and objectives

CORE INDICATORS • Fish Assemblage • Macroinvertebrates • Periphyton (Use Community Level Data From At Least Two) Physical Habitat Indicators Chemical Quality Indicators • Channel morphology • Flow • pH • Temperature

• Substrate Quality • Riparian • Conductivity • Dissolved O2 For Specific Designated Uses Add the Following: AQUATIC LIFE RECREATIONAL WATER SUPPLY Base List: Base List: Base List: • Ionic strength • Fecal bacteria • Fecal bacteria • Nutrients, sediment • Ionic strength • Ionic strength Supplemental List: Supplemental List: • Nutrients, sediment • Metals (water/sediment) • Other pathogens Supplemental List: • Organics (water/sediment) • Organics (water/sediment) • Metals (water/sediment) • Organics (water/sediment) • Other pathogens HUMAN/WILDLIFE CONSUMPTION Base List: • Metals (in tissues) • Organics (in tissues) Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Introduction & Concepts

Why Use Fish & Invertebrates?

•Inhabit the receiving waters continuously. •Integrate past events, both long and short-term. •Reasonable response and recovery rates. •Many species have long life-spans (>3-10 yrs.). •Not directly dependent on dilution dynamics. •Portray program results in direct terms. •Minimal use of adjustment or uncertainty factors.

Fish Assemblage Assessment: Ohio EPA Approach •Standardized & Representative Sampling - stratified pulsed D.C. electrofishing methods, mid-June to mid-October. •Relative Abundance - numbers and weight (biomass) per unit distance (effort). •Data Quality Objectives - genus/species based on regional ichthyology keys and AFS nomenclature. •Key Component of Biocriteria - IBI, MIwb, and component metrics. •Basin/Sub-basin Sampling Design - longitudinal and watershed scale interpretation of results. •Watershed Scale Considerations - headwaters, wading, and boat sites; metric calibration accomplished for each strata. •Experienced Biologists - regional fauna, natural history, response signatures, impact types.

Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Assessment: Ohio EPA Approach •Standardized & Representative Sampling - artificial substrates & qualitative dip-net/handpick methods, mid-June to late-September. •Taxa Richness & Relative Abundance - counts and numbers per unit area (sq. ft.). •Data Quality Objectives - lowest taxonomic level practicable for common orders/families (genus or species), standard keys. •Key Component of Biocriteria - ICI and component metrics •Basin/Sub-basin Sampling Design - longitudinal and watershed scale interpretation of results. •Watershed Scale Considerations - ICI metrics are calibrated against stream and river size. •Experienced Biologists - detailed familiarity with regional fauna, natural history, response signatures, impact types. Measureable Parameters of Watershed Health: Introduction & Concepts

Fundamental Objectives of Adequate Monitoring and Assessment Approaches Function: Surface Water Assessment • Collect and analyze baseline information. • Establish cause/effect (causal associations). • Compare results to criteria and goals (use attainment). • Publish results - statewide, regional, site-specific. Function: WQ Management/Pollution Abatement • Attainability analyses and criteria development (maintain WQS). • Formulate and revise abatement strategies (TMDL development). • Assess effectiveness of programs (WQ Management). Function: Compliance Evaluation • Monitor to determine compliance. • Monitor to support enforcement.

after 40CFR Part 35 (deleted in 1990?)

Essential Principles of Adequate Monitoring and Assessment Approaches • Data Quality Objectives: need to produce data and information at a sufficient level of resolution so as to assure accuracy and precision. • Watershed Scale Assessment: essential to encompass the full gradient of response and exposure to multiple stressors and influences. • Comprehensive Assessments: integrated and careful analysis of multiple indicators adhering to a disciplined approach (Hierarchy of Indicators). • Learn by Doing: gain new knowledge and insights by iterative assessment and observing responses to management actions (what works?). State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

BIOCRITERIA TRAINING/ CERTIFICATION

Voluntary Action Program (VAP)

Fish

Physical Habitat

Macroinvertebrates

August 28 - September 1, 2000 Sustainable Watershed Planning in Ohio

Measurable Parameters of Ecosystem Health: Five-Year Basin Monitoring and Assessment Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: 5-Year Basin Approach

NWDO NEDO 19991990

Ohio EPA 5-Year 20011992 20031994 Basin Approach for 20011992 20001991 Monitoring & 20031994 19991990 19991991 Assessment 20021993

•Rotating basin approach for determining annual 1994 2003 CDO monitoring activities. 19991990 20031994 •Correlated with NPDES 20001991 permit schedule. 20001991 •Supports annual WQS 20001991 use designation rule- 20041993 20011992 19991990 making. SEDO

•Aligned with 15 year SWDO TMDL schedule.

Five-Year Basin Project Selection Criteria & Priorities •Previously sampled areas with new controls. •Watersheds targeted for TMDL development.** •Areas that have remaining "high profile" problems. •Inadequately or unassessed areas. •Priority NPS project or problem areas. •Use designation issues (priority for non-WWH uses). •Segments requiring re-evaluation under antidegradation rule. •Complex urban/industrial areas. •Rapidly developing or changing watersheds. •Areas with chronic spills, kills, exceedences. •Coordination with remedial activities. ** - new in 1998. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: 5-Year Basin Approach

TMDL DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE: 1999 - 2013

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Status Unknown

2.8 Sugar Creek Subbasin: 5.6 Sugar Creek 11 Smithville

Example of Geometric Weilersville Geometric Site Selection Orrville Sequential subdivision by halves of the entire 357 mi2 basin 22 yeilds subbasin areas of 178 mi2, 89 mi2, 44 mi2, 22 mi2, 11 mi 2, 5.6 mi2 and 2.8 mi2. Sites which most closely GREEN matched these stratifications were selected for inclusion in the Ohio EPA 1998 Sugar Creek watershed study. Site Selection Process East 5.6 11 44 Union Riceland 2.8 Approximate location and Symbols: size (mi2) of geometrically 2.8 selected sites. • Used in TMDL development and five-year 5.6 Stanwood 2.8 Kidron 11 5.6 2.8 basin watersheds 22 5.6 West Lebanon Elton N 44 2.8 Brewster 5.6 • Increased miles of assessed streams and 11 89 89 Mt. Eaton Justus

44 rivers annually 178 2.8 Wayne County . Wilmont 5.6 357 • Resolve undesignated streams Beach 11 22 City 178 2.8 11 2.8 • Close 305b/303d listing gaps 5.6 Mount Hope Winesburg Strasburg • Generate broader database for develop- Millers Corners 11 89 f 2.8 5.6 44 2.8 2.8 Dundee ment of improved tools and criteria 11 Columbia Loudon Parral 22 2.8 Barrs WAYNE FRANKLIN5.6 Mills • Part of 15 yr. TMDL development schedule 5.6 SUGAR CREEK DOVER Walnut Creek 11 Winfield 2.8 2.8 44 2.8 5.6 Dover beginning in 1998 CLARK 2.8 2.8 New 5.6 Sugar w Philadelphia Creek 22 2.8 357 Farmerstown • Augmented by five -year basin approach 22 2.8 11 2.8 process (1980-1997) 2.8 5.6 2.8 11 Ragersville • Standardized biological, chemical, physical Baltic 5.6 AUBURN BUCKS 2.8 tools and indicators Fiat Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: 5-Year Basin Approach

Ohio EPA Assessment Five-Year Basin & Reporting Process: Approach to Monitoring Five-Year Basin Approach & Assessment

AMBIENT SAMPLING Planning & Prioritzation (Biological, Chemical/ (Identify Information Needs) Physical, Habitat, Sediment)

Other Useable Data**

DATA ANALYSIS TECHNICAL (Incorporating field, effluent, ASSESSMENT (Detailed GIS, spills, kills, other analysis & summary of source information) status/trends throughout watershed)

** - Must meet Data Quality Objectives per Ohio EPA 5-Year Monitoring Strategy

Five Year Basin Monitoring & Assessment: Water Quality Management Support

NPDES Permits Hazardous Waste Watersheds/ Sites (NRDA/CERCLA) TMDLs (303d (PSD Support, Listings) Permits to Install) 401 Certification Nonpoint (Habitat) Source Assessment 5-Year Basin Assessments Source Water Protection Status/Trends Reporting (305b; Ohio 2000 Goals) WQS/Criteria & Wet Weather Use Designations Discharges (CSOs, Comparative Stormwater Risk (State of Environment Enforcement/Litigation Rept.) Support Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: 5-Year Basin Approach

Functional Support Provided by Individual Basin Assessments

Individual Basin Watershed Assessment Specific Issues Waterbody •RAPs System (305b) •Local efforts WQS/Use NPDES •319 projects Attainability Permits •401 certs. Analyses •enforcement 305b Report cases Statistics •problem PSD Section 1 discovery Annual WQS •Special Rulemaking Investigations 303d List of Impaired/Threat- Final PSD/ Fact Sheets ened Waters Ohio 2001 Goals Tracking

Strategic Support Provided Collectively by Basin Assessments

The ongoing accumulation of information across spatial and temporal scales

Policy Program Regional/ Development Development Statewide Applications • Antidegradation • Biological Criteria • NPDES (WET, CSOs, • Response Signa- • RAPs stormwater) tures • Trends • 401 Certification • Environmental • Local efforts • Stream Protection Indicators • NAWQA/EMAP • Nutrient controls • Refined & • Watersheds • Overall policy Validated WQC • IWI "ground effectiveness • Reference WQ truthing" • Refined WQS Uses & sediment • Ecoregions/Sub- regions Ohio EPA 305(b)/303(d) Link

TSD Assessment Process: - Are Uses Appropriate - Examine Attainment Status - Identify Causes/Sources of Impairment

Produce Detailed Technical Support Document, Permit Summarize Assessment Support Document, Ecological for 305(b) Database Risk Analysis, etc.

Impaired and Threatened Waters/TMDL List

Waters Prioritized and Scheduled for TMDL

TMDL Developed Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: 5-Year Basin Approach

The Role of Biocriteria & Biosurveys in NPDES Permits

Use Designations: • Use designation determines which chemical critetia apply Mixing Zones/WET Requirements: • Near and far-field impacts help determine WET category Characterization of Impact: • Descibes extent and severity of impacts • Biological response signatures Compliance Success/Failure: • Determine adequacy & success of abatement efforts Enforcement Support: • Basic information about extent of environmental damage

Ohio EPA Assessment TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT & Reporting Process: (Detailed summary of analysis & status/trends throughout NPDES Permit Support watershed) 1. USE ATTAINMENT STATUS (Miles & severity of impairment; associated causes, sources) Other 2. REVISIONS TO WQS (Use Useable designations, site-specific criteria) WASTELOAD Data** ALLOCATION PROCESS 3. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS (Chemical-specific, WET, (Problem discovery, actions Anti-degradation) needed, follow-up investigations)

WATER QUALITY PERMIT SUPPORT DOCUMENT (WQPSD; PERMIT NPDES Permit Summary of impact assessment & STAFF Reissuance wasteload allocation)

** - Must meet Data Quality Objectives per Ohio EPA 5-Year Monitoring Strategy Sustainable Watershed Planning in Ohio

Measurable Parameters of Ecosystem Health: Water Quality Standards/Designated Uses Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Water Quality Standards

Water Quality Standards: The Basis for Water Quality Management

• Basis for implementing controls under CWA • Consist of uses and criteria • Focus of water quality planning/implementation • Benchmarks for evaluating effectiveness of controls, funding, permits, BMPS, etc. States are the principal custodians of WQS and associated use designations and criteria

Ohio WQS: Use Designations Aquatic Life Use Designations • Tiered system of use classifications. • Principal uses: EWH, WWH, CWH, SSH, MWH, LRW. • Chemical criteria: pollutant specific. • Whole toxicity criteria: lab bioassay end-points. • Biological criteria: indigenous community based. Non-aquatic Life Use Designations • Recreation uses: primarily bacteriological criteria. • Consumption based uses: water supply uses. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Water Quality Standards

Aquatic Life Use

Definition:

A designation (classification) assigned to a waterbody based on the potential aquatic community that can realistically be sustained given the ecoregion potential and the level of protection afforded by the applicable criteria.

(1990 305b Report, Volume I)

Aquatic Life Designated Uses Ohio Water Quality Standards • Uses defined as narratives; • Chemical and biological criteria are assigned to each use in accordance with the attributes ascribed by the narrative definition. Uses Are Based on Demonstrated Potential • Attainment of biological criteria; or, • Physical habitat assessment demonstrates potential to support use; • Attainment of uses are tracked in 305b report.

Aquatic Life Use Designations: Ohio WQS Based on Biological Community Attributes Ö Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH): preserve & maintain exisitng high quality. Ö Warmwater Habitat (WWH): basic restoration goal for most streams. Ö Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH): attainable condition for streams under drainage maintenance or other essentially permanent hydromodifications (e.g., impoundments). Ö Limited Resource Waters (LRW): essentially irretrievable, human induced (e.g., widespread watershed modififcations) or naturally occurring conditions (e.g., ephemeral flow). Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Water Quality Standards

Warmwater Habitat (WWH)

Characterized by aquatic communities with a diversity and functional organization comparable to the typical habitats of the region; such habitats represent the "least disturbed" conditions typical of an ecoregion.

Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH)

Characterized by aquatic communities of exceptional diversity and biotic integrity; such communities usually have high species richness, often support significant populations of rare, threatened, endangered, or declining species and/or support exceptional sport fisheries. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Water Quality Standards

Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH)

Aquatic life use assigned to streams subjected to essentially irretrievable, extensive, anthropogenic modifications that preclude attainment of the Warmwater Habitat (WWH) use; such streams are characterized by species that are tolerant of poor chemical quality (e.g. low D.O.) and habitat conditions (silt, habitat simplification).

Limited Resource Waters (LRW)

An aquatic life use assigned to streams with a very limited aquatic life potential due to irretrievable, human-induced conditions; usually restricted to very small streams (<3 sq. mi. drainage area) with severe habitat restrictions and/or no or limited water during the summer, or severe acid mine drainage affected streams (pH < 4 S.U.). Sustainable Watershed Planning in Ohio

Measurable Parameters of Ecosystem Health: Biological Criteria Concepts & Derivation Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Criteria

The Utility of Bioassessments and Biological Criteria

The ability of a water body to sustain a balanced, integrated, adaptive assemblage of aquatic organisms is one of the best overall indications of the suitability of that water body for many other beneficial uses. (after Karr 1991)

Minimum Criteria That Biological Assessment and Criteria Programs Should Meet

1. The measures must be biological. 2. The measures must be interpretable at or extend to several trophic levels. 3. The measures must be sufficiently sensitive to the environmental conditions being assessed. 4. The response range (sensitivity) must be suitable for the intended purpose. 5. The measures must be reproducible and sufficiently precise. 6. The variability of the measures must be low. After Herricks and Shaeffer (1985) Measurable Paraneters of Watershed Health: Biological Criteria

Biological Criteria: I

•Narrative ratings or numerical values which are based on the numbers and kinds of aquatic organisms (i.e., assemblage) which are found to inhabit a particular stream or river sampling location.

Biological Criteria: II

•Biological criteria are indexed to the reference assemblage of aquatic organisms within a particular geographical region (i.e., ecoregion) and with respect to stream and river size.

Biological Criteria: III

•Biological criteria represent a calibrated assessment tool which fosters an organized goal setting process in an effort to reconcile human impacts and guide restoration efforts. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Criteria

Biological Integrity: Operational Definition

"The ability of an aquatic community to support and maintain a structural and functional performance comparable to the natural habitats of a region." (Core of each aquatic life designation definition in the Ohio WQS)

paraphrased from Karr and Dudley (1981)

Biological Integrity: Putting Theory Into Practice Essential Elements of the Regional Reference Site Approach •Biological Performance - need ways to measure (e.g. IBI, ICI, MIwb, BI, etc.). •Natural Habitats - come to grips with the attainability issue (e.g. "least impacted" reference sites). •Region - need to stratify and account for natural variability (e.g. ecoregions and tiered uses). •Reference site "re-sampling" to account for broad scale, long-term changes in attainable conditions. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Criteria

Index of Biotic Integrity (Karr 1981) 12 Metrics • Species richness • 5,3,1 metric scoring • #Darter species Community • #Sunfish species Composition categories. • #Sucker species • 12 to 60 scoring • %Intolerant species Environmental range. Tolerance • %Green sunfish • Calibrated on a • %Omnivores Community regional basis. • %Insectivores Function • %Top Carnivores • Scoring adjust- • %Hybrids ments needed for • %Diseased individuals Community very low numbers. • Number of Fish Condition

INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY (IBI) MODIFIED FOR USE IN OHIO STREAMS AND RIVERS OHIO EPA HEADWATER WADEABLE BOATABLE MODIFIED SITE TYPE SITE TYPE SITE TYPE IBI METRICs (<20 SQ. MI.) (20-300 MI.2) (200-6000 MI.2) 1. Total Native Species X X X 2. #Darter Species X #Darters + Sculpins X* %Round-bodied Suckers X* 3. #Sunfish Species X X #Headwater Species X* %Pioneering Species X* 4. #Sucker Species X X #Minnow Species X* 5. #Intolerant Species X X #Sensitive Species X* 6. %Tolerant Species X X X 7. %Omnivores X X X 8. %Insectivores X X X 9. %Top Carnivores X X 10. %Simple Lithophils X* X* X* 11. %DELT Anomalies X X X 12. Number of Individuals X X X * - Substitute for original IBI metric described by Karr (1981) and Fausch et al. (1984) Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Criteria

Invertebrate Community Index (Ohio EPA 1987; DeShon 1995)

• Taxa Richness • #Mayfly taxa • 6,4,2,0 metric scoring • #Caddisfly taxa categories. • #Dipteran taxa • 0 to 60 scoring range. • %Mayflies • Calibrated on regional basis. • %Caddisflies • Scoring adjustments needed • %Tanytarsini Midges for very low numbers of • %Other Diptera/Non-Insects specific taxa. • %Tolerant taxa • Qualitative EPT taxa

Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwb): Computational Formula Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwb) MIwb = 0.5Ln N + 0.5Ln B + H (no.) + H (wt.) where: N = relative numbers of all species except Hybrids, exotics, and those designated as highly tolerant. B = relative weight (kg) of all species except Hybrids, exotics, and those designated as highly tolerant. H = Shannon diversity index based on numbers1 _ H = Shannon diversity index based on numbers1

1 based on loge version; all species including tolerants and exotics are included in the calculation of H. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Criteria

The Regional Reference Site Approach: The Role of Stratification Recognizing the relative importance of landscape, geographic, physical, and socioeconomic factors in deriving regionally relevant benchmarks or criteria Inter-Regional Factors: • Ecoregions - overall synthesis of taxonomy, biogeo- graphy, diversity, ecological function, and attainability. • Water Quality Standards - define goals and criteria. Intra-Regional Factors: • Site-Specific Stratification - stream size (drainage area, width), gradient, temperature, elevation, latitude etc.

Reference and Control Sites Regional Reference Sites • A collection of sites within a homogenous regional area which represent the best attainable condition (unimpaired) for all waters with similar physical dimensions for that particular region. Control Site • A single site usually located on the waterbody under study which represents the best or most appropriate attainable condition for that waterbody whether it is impaired or not.

Coping With Biological Data Variability • Compress Variability: use multi-metric measures (e.g. IBI, ICI, etc.). • Stratify Variability: use ecoregions (or subsets) and tiered aquatic life use classification system. • Control Variability: select efficient sampling methods that yield informative and consistent results. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Criteria

Ecoregion Definition and Delineation A more or less homogeneous area that differs from other areas. • Within region variability < between region variability • Ecoregion driving factors: land surface form soil type land use potential natural vegetation • Regionalization helps organize and present ambient information and enhances communication

Ecoregions and Subregions: Policy & Program Uses • Ecosystem Characteristics - stratified biological, physical, and chemical assessment end-points for rivers and streams. • Water Quality Management Objectives - stratify background conditions across landscapes and watersheds (e.g., biological criteria, nutrients). • Stream Protection Efforts - use ecoregions and subregions to stratify policy applications. • Best Management Practices - provides a ready framework to determine where specific BMPs are most effective. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Criteria

______

Metric 5 3 1 40 ______Wading & Headwater Sites

30 Number of Species Varies x Drainage Area 5 No. of Darter Spp. Varies x Drainage Area No. of Sunfish Spp. >3 2-3 <2 20 No. of Sucker Spp. Varies x Drainage Area 3 Intolerant Species >100 sq. mi. >5 3-5 <3 10 1 <100 sq. mi. Varies x Drainage Area

TOTAL SPECIES %Tolerant Species Varies x Drainage Area 0 %Omnivores <19 19-34 >34 1 10 100 1000 %Insectivores <30 sq. mi. Varies x Drainage Area DRAINAGE AREA (SQ MI) >30 sq. mi. >55 26-55 <26 %Top Carnivores >5 1-5 <1 I.Select & sample II. Calibration of IBI metrics %Simple Lithophils Varies x Drainage Area %DELT Anomalies >1.3 0.5-1.3 <0.5 reference sites Relative Abundance >750 200-750<200 ______

Fish — Boat Sites Fish — Wading Sites IBI/Iwb IBI/Iwb III.Calibrated IBI modified for REGIONAL REFERENCE SITES: 34/8.6 40/8.7 32/7.3 38/7.9 Ohio waters IBI (Wading Site Type) 60 42/8.5 40/8.6 40/8.3 44/8.4 Scioto River: Columbus to Circleville

50 JACKSON WHITTIER PIKE WWTP 38/8.7 40/8.1 STREET CSO SOUTHERLY WWTP 48/ 50/ EWH 60 EWH 9.4 EWH Criterion 40 9.6 (IBI=48) Fish — Headwater Sites Macroinvertebrates 50 IBI ICI 30 Units I B 28 40 34 34 40

20 I B WWH Criterion (IBI=42) HELP IP EOLP WAP ECBP 40 44 36 36 30 10 (n = 20) (n = 50) (n = 64) (n = 105) (n = 155) 1980 20 1991 0 40 30 Impounded 1994 IBI 12 ECOREGION 50 EWH 46 EWH 140 130 120 110 100 90 Huron Erie Lake Plain - HELP Eastern-Ontario Lake Plain - EOLP Eastern Corn Belt Plains - ECBP Interior Plateau - IP Western Allegheny Plateau - WAP RIVER MILE IV. Establish ecoregional V. Derive numeric bio- VI. Numeric biocriteria are patterns/expectations criteria: Codify in WQS used in bioassessments

BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA CALIBRATION & DERIVATION PROCESS: INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY INDEX (ICI) ______

14 Metric 0 2 4 6 12 ______Number of Taxa 10 No. of Mayfly Taxa 8 No. of Caddisfly Taxa No. of Dipteran Taxa 6 6 %Mayfly Composition All ICI Metrics Vary %Caddisfly Composition With Drainage Area 4 4 %Tribe Tanytarsini MAYFLY TAXA 2 2 %Other Dipteran & 0 0 Non-insect Composition 1 10 100 1000 10000 %Tolerant Organisms %Total Qual. EPT Taxa DRAINAGE AREA (SQ MI) ______I. Select & sample II. Calibration of ICI metrics III. Calibrated ICI applicable reference sites to Ohio waters Fish — Boat Sites Fish — Wading Sites IBI/Iwb IBI/Iwb

34/8.6 40/8.7 32/7.3 38/7.9 REGIONAL REFERENCE SITES: CUYAHOGA R. 1977-1991 ICI (Statewide) 60 60 42/8.5 40/8.6 40/8.3 44/8.4 50 WWH Criterion 50 (ICI = 36) 38/8.7 40/8.1 40 48/ 50/ EWH EWH 9.6 9.4 40 30 Fish — Headwater Sites Macroinvertebrates

IBI ICI I C 30 20 Units I C 28 40 34 34 20 10

40 36 0 at Independence (RM 15.6) 10 44 36 HELP IP EOLP WAP ECBP (n = 27) (n = 22) (n = 54) (n = 57) (n = 82) 0 ICI 40 30 1990 1992 ECOREGION 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 50 EWH 46 EWH YEAR

Huron Erie Lake Plain - HELP Eastern-Ontario Lake Plain - EOLP Eastern Corn Belt Plains - ECBP Interior Plateau - IP Western Allegheny Plateau - WAP IV. Establish ecoregional VI. Numeric biocriteria patterns/expectations V. Derive numeric biocriteria/codify in WQS used in assessments Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Criteria

Biocriteria in the Ohio Water Quality Standards (OAC 3745-1-07; Table 7-14)

INDEX Modified Warmwater Habitat Exceptional Site Type Channel Mine Warmwater Warmwater ECOREGION Modified Affected Impounded Habitat Habitat I. INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY (IBI) A. Wading Sites HELP 22 -- -- 32 50 IP 24 -- -- 40 50 EOLP 24 -- -- 38 50 WAP 24 24 -- 44 50 ECBP 24 -- -- 40 50

II. INVERTEBRATE COMMUNIY INDEX (ICI) A. Artificial Substrate Samplers (Statewide) HELP 22 -- -- 34 46 IP 22 -- -- 30 46 EOLP 22 -- -- 34 46 WAP 22 30 -- 36 46 ECBP 22 -- -- 36 46

Fish — Boat Sites Fish — Wading Sites IBI/Iwb IBI/Iwb Ohio Numerical

34/8.6 32/7.3 40/8.7 38/7.9 Biological Criteria • Two organism groups -

42/8.5 40/8.6 40/8.3 44/8.4 fish & invertebrates • Three indices - IBI, MIwb, ICI 38/8.7 40/8.1 48/ 50/ EWH EWH 9.6 9.4 • Three site types - head- Fish — Headwater Sites Macroinvertebrates water, wadable, boat IBI ICI • Three use designations 28 40 34 34 - WWH, EWH, MWH • Reference sites number 400 (sampled 1981- 1989); 40 44 36 36 10% are resampled each year

40 30 • Codified in WQS in 1990

46 EWH (OAC 3745-1-07; Table 50 EWH 7-14)

Huron Erie Lake Plain - HELP Eastern-Ontario Lake Plain - EOLP Eastern Corn Belt Plains - ECBP Interior Plateau - IP Western Allegheny Plateau - WAP Numerical Biological Criteria: Ohio Water Quality Standards (OAC 3745-1-07; Table 7-14) Adopted May, 1990

Huron Erie Lake Plain (HELP) Use Size IBI MIwb ICI Erie Ontario Lake Plain (EOLP) WWH H 28 NA 34 Use Size IBI MIwb ICI W 32 7.3 34 WWH H 40 NA 34 B 34 8.6 34 W 38 7.9 34 MWH-CH 20 NA 22 B 40 8.7 34 W 22 5.6 22 MWH-CH 24 NA 22 B 20 5.7 22 W 24 6.2 22 MWH-I B 30 5.7 NA B 24 5.8 22 MWH-I B 30 6.6 NA

ECBP Huron-Erie Lake Plain Erie-Ontario (HELP) Lake Plain Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) (EOLP) Use Size IBI MIwb ICI WWH H 40 NA 36 W 40 8.3 36 B 42 8.5 36 Eastern Corn Belt Western MWH-CH 24 NA 22 Plain Allegheny W 24 6.2 22 (ECBP) Plateau B 24 5.8 22 (WAP) MWH-I B 30 6.6 NA

Interior Plateau (IP)

Interior Plateau (IP) Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) Use Size IBI MIwb ICI Use Size IBI MIwb ICI WWH H 40 NA 30 WWH H 44 NA 36 W 40 8.1 30 W 44 8.4 36 B 38 8.7 30 B 40 8.6 36 MWH-CH 24 NA 22 MWH-CH 24 NA 22 W 24 6.2 22 W 24 6.2 22 B 24 5.8 22 B 24 5.8 22 MWH-I B 30 6.6 NA MWH-AH 24 NA 30 W 24 5.5 30 B 24 5.5 30 MWH-I B 30 6.6 NA Statewide Exceptional Criteria Use Size IBI MIwb ICI EWH H 50 NA 46 W 50 9.4 46 B 48 9.6 46 Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Criteria

Relationship of Aquatic Life Designated Use to Biological Integrity and the Effect of Human Activities Maximum "Exceptional"

GRADIENT OF Protection QUALITY & Uses MEASUREMENT "Good" (Long Term Scale) Restoration Measure- Uses ment "Fair" Value CWA GOAL USES (Short Modified Term Scale) "Poor" Uses LESS THAN "Very CWA GOAL Poor" Limited USES Uses (Requires UAA) Minimum LOW Biological Integrity HIGH HIGH LOW Effect of Human Activity

Quality Gradient of Aquatic Life Uses and Narrative Descriptions of Biological Community Condition

Max. Exceptional Warm- water Habitat (EWH) "Exceptional"

Warmwater "Very Good" Habitat (WWH) "Good" Index Modified Value Warmwater "Marginally Good" (IBI, Habitat (MWH) ICI) "Fair" Limited Resource Waters (LRW) "Poor"

"Very Poor" Min. LOW HIGH BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Criteria

Max. Management "Preservation" "Pristine" Responses/ Options "Least Impacted" "Restoration" "Substantially Measure- Altered" ment Scale "Enhancement" "Highly Degraded"

"Irretriev- Quality State "Severely Gradient & able" Degraded" Descriptors "Dead" Min. LOW HIGH BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY

Designated Uses: Principal Water Quality Management Objectives • Restoration - applies to most 303d listed waters in Ohio (i.e., do not attain baseline CWA goals); most common for WWH.

• Preservation - applies to high quality waters above CWA baselines; most common for EWH and higher antidegradation tiers.

• Enhancement - the best we can do where CWA restoration is precluded; applies to less than CWA uses (MWH, LRW). Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Criteria

Correspondence of Biocriteria to

Environmental Gradients: Dissolved O2 12 10th Percentile D.O. Values 10

4 Proposed EWH Min. D.O. Criterion WWH Minimum 2 D.O. Criterion DISSOLVED OXYGEN (MG/L) 0 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-60 INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY

99.5th %ile 99.5th %ile = 520 ug/l = 123 ug/l 100 Biocriteria Can Be Used @300 mg/l CaCO Hardness to Validate the Accuracy 80 3 of Chemical Water 60 Current Ohio EPA Criterion Quality Criteria: Metals 40

COPPER (ug/l) •The Ohio EPA statewide 20 database was used to TOTAL RECOVERABLE Proposed GLI Criterion 0 correlate ranges of biological VERY POOR POOR FAIR GOOD EXCEPT. 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-60 quality with heavy metals IBI Range Maximum: 12 ug/l concentrations. 99.5th Percentile: 27 ug/l 10 •Proposed criteria changes @300 mg/l CaCO Hardness for copper, cadium, zinc, and 3 8 Proposed GLI Criterion lead were evaluated. 6 •The results were used to develop biologically-based 4 application guidelines for the CADMIUM (ug/l) 2 use of dissolved metals in Current TOTAL RECOVERABLE Ohio EPA Criterion calculating wasteload 0 VERY POOR POOR FAIR GOOD EXCEPT. allocations for point sources. 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-60 IBI Range Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Criteria

Biocriteria Metrics Can Aid in Distinguishing Different Types of Impacts: Anomalies on Fish

ECBP/HELP Ecoregions 60

30 %DELT 20

0 TOXIC CONV. CONV. CHAN AGRIC. FLOW IMPOU TOXIC PS1 WWTP 2 CSO 3 NELIZ 4 NPS5 REG. 6 NDED 7 CSO8 ED -10 IMPACT%DELT TYPES after Yoder and Rankin (1995)

BIOLOGICAL QUALITY OF SELECTED OHIO URBAN/SUBURBAN WATERSHEDS (<100 mi.2): IMPACT TYPES Sustainable Watershed Planning in Ohio

Measurable Parameters of Ecosystem Health: Biological Assessment Concepts and Uses Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Assessment

Overall Framework For Using Biological Criteria in Assessments

• Goal - protect/restore biological integrity. • Standards - Use designations and criteria. • Operational Measures - biological criteria based on key indicator assemblages. • Tool of Measurement - ambient biological sampling (survey).

Definitions of Impaired and Impacted

Impaired: Monitored level data establishes a violation of the biological criteria, and hence, an impairment of the aquatic life designated use. Impacted: Evidence based on the presence of stressors suggests that there may be an impairment; quantitative, monitored level data is needed to confirm an impairment.

(Ohio Water Resource Inventory 305b Report) Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Assessment

Aquatic Life Use Attainment

Definition: The condition when a waterbody has demonstrated, through use of ambient biological and/or chemical data, that it does not significantly violate biological or water quality criteria for that use.

(1990 305b Report, Volume I)

Determining Use Attainment Status With Biocriteria FULL ATTAINMENT • ALL biological indices are at or within non- significant departure of the applicable biocriterion PARTIAL ATTAINMENT • A MIX of biological index scores at or within non- significant departure and below the applicable biocriterion NON-ATTAINMENT • NONE of the biological indices are at or within non- significant departure of the applicable biocriterion OR one organism group reflect poor or very poor quality

Determining Aquatic Life Use Attainment Status With Biocriteria

Aquatic Life Use Attainment Table Format:

Attainment River Mile IBI MIwb ICI QHEI Status-WWH Comment 20.2/20.0 44 8.9 40 68 FULL Ust. Anyplace WWTP 19.5/19.7 30* 8.0ns 34ns 60 PARTIAL WWTP Mixing Zone 17.0/16.8 22* 6.3* 8* 62 NON Dst. Anyplace WWTP 12.6/12.3 36ns 8.4 32* 70 PARTIAL Recovery zone 9.5/9.0 40 8.8 42 56 FULL Full Recovery 5.2/5.7 42 9.2 44 75 FULL 0.5/ - 32* 7.6* -- 45 [NON] Impoundment effect

* - significant departure from ecoregion biocriteria; poor and very poor performing values are underlined. ns- insignificant departure from ecoregion biocriteria (4 IBI or ICI units; 0.5 MIwb units). Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Assessment

Application of Biocriteria in Complex Settings

2. Impounded river (MWH use designation): 1. Free-flowing river Within urban area ECBP 3. Free-flowing river (WWH (WWH use designation): use designation): Upstream from urban Ecoregion - Boat site type: IBI = 30 Downstream from urban area ECBP Ecoregion - area Wading site type: MIwb = 6.6 ICI = N/A ECBP Ecoregion - Boat site IBI = 40 type: MIwb = 8.3 IBI = 42 ICI = 36 MIwb = 8.5 ICI = 36 WWTP Limiting Factors: CSOs • chemical water quality Limiting Factors: • physical habitat • physical habitat Limiting Factors: • flow/energy dynamics • energy/flow dynamics • chemical water quality • chemical water quality • energy/flow dynamics • physical habitat Flow Direction

USING BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA & ASSESSMENT TO EVALUATE TRENDS IN QUALITY: SCIOTO RIVER Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Assessment

• NPDES Permit Issuance • Compliance/Enforcement Actions by • Pretreatment Program EPA and • Actual Funding LEVEL 1 • CSO Requirements Hierarchy of States • Storm Water Permits • 319 NPS Projects • 404/401 Certification Environmental • Stream/Riparian Protection

Responses • POTW Construction Indicators for by the • Local Limits LEVEL 2 • Storm Water Controls Regulated • BMPs for NPS Control Surface Waters Communitiy • Pollution Prevention Measures • Point Source Loadings - Effluent & Influent Changes in • Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) LEVEL 3 Discharge • NPDES Violations •Pilot indicators project • Toxic Release Inventory Quantities • Spills & Other Releases tested hierarchy and • Fish Kills

Changes in • Water Column Chemistry selected indicators. • Sediment Chemistry LEVEL 4 Ambient • Habitat Quality •Each indicator was used Conditions • Flow Regime within the most appropriate Changes in • Assimilative Capacity - TMDL/WLA role. LEVEL 5 Uptake and/or • Biomarkers •Two case studies: Scioto Assimilation • Tissue Contamination R. (Columbus, OH) and Changes in • Biota (Biocriteria) Ottawa R. (Lima, OH). LEVEL 6 Health and • Bacterial Contamination Ecology, or • Target Assemblages (RT&E, Declining Species) Other Effects

Upper Great Miami River: Piqua WWTP Effluent Loadings 1976-1994 (Level 3 Indicator)

500 Piqua WWTP 001 Effluent Annual Loadings 50th percentile 400 95th percentile

300

200 Current Permit Load (30 day avg.) Ammonia-N (kg/day) 100

0 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Assessment

Demonstrating Linkages Between Indicators: Scioto River Case Study

ADMINISTRATIVE STRESSORS INDICATORS LEVEL 3: Loadings of ammonia, BOD, etc. are reduced LEVEL 1: 8000 Ohio EPA issues WQ based $$$$ 7000 30 Days Average Permit Limit Weekly Average Permit Limit permits & awards funds for 6000 Columbus WWTPs NPDES Columbus Southerly WWTP 5000 LEVEL 2: 4000 Columbus constructs AWT WWTP BOD_CO30S 3000 2000 by July 1, 1988; permit Ammonia Loading (kg/day) conditions attained 1000

0 N=143 148152 151 134153 152153 153 151 121 153153 153 153 153153153153 153

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 YEAR LEVEL 6: Biological recovery evidenced in LEVELS 4&5: Reduced instream biocriteria; 3 yrs. post AWT pollutant levels; enhanced assimilation SciotoRiver:Columbus Circlevilleto Scioto River Near Commercial Point (RM 115.3) 16 JACKSON WHITTIER PIKE WWTP 14 60 STREET CSO SOUTHERLY WWTP EWH Criterion 1971-72 1973-74 1975-76 1977-78 1979-80 1981-82 1983-84 1985-86 1987-88 1989-91 1992-93 1994-95 12 (IBI=48) 50 10 Maximum Criteria* 40 8 Summer: Data Collected June through October

I B WWH Criterion 6 (IBI=42)

30 Ammonia-N (mg/l) 1980 4 20 1991 2 30-Day Impounded 1994 Average No Data 12 No Data Criteria* 0 N = 18 34 36 66 54 108 104 104 105 71

RESPONSE EXPOSURE Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Assessment

Demonstrating Linkages Between Indicators: Ottawa River Case Study

ADMINISTRATIVE STRESSORS INDICATORS LEVEL 3: Loadings of ammonia, BOD, were reduced; other sources present LEVEL 1: 1000 Ohio EPA issues WQ based $$$$ Weekly Average Permit Limit permits & awards funds for 800 30 Days Average Permit Limit the Lima WWTP NPDES Lima WWTP 600 Note: No Ammonia Permit Limit Before 1977 LEVEL 2: Lima constructs AWT by WWTP 400 mid 1980s; permit Ammonia Loading (kg/day) 200 conditions attained by 1990

0 N=153 153150 153 137151 153152152 153 151 153 153 153150 153 153 152 153 153

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 YEAR LEVEL 6: Biological recovery incomplete 6-8 LEVELS 4&5: Reduced instream yrs. post AWT; toxic response signatures pollutant levels; toxics in sediment Ottawa River: Lima to Elida Ottawa River at Shawnee (RM 32.6) 60 Maximum Lima WWTP, Landfill, 6 Criteria* BP Refinery/Arcadian LP Ottawa River 1971 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 50 CSOs 5 Summer: Data Collected June through October

40 Shawnee #2 Allentown Dam 4 WWH Criterion I B IBI=40/42 3 30 (ECBP Ecoregion)

2 20

Lost Cr. Ammonia-N, Summer (mg/l) 1 30-Day 12 Average Impounded Criteria* No Data No Data 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 No Data 0 RIVER MILE N = 23269141518 21 22 19203223 19 19 20

RESPONSE EXPOSURE Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Assessment Using Indicators to Evaluate Causal Associations & Trends Rocky Fork Mohican River: WWH Use (existing) Major Point Sources: Mansfield WWTP [Industrial Pretreatment] Armco Steel Other Stressors: Luntz Corp. Scrapyard Channelization Key Indicators: (Levels 4&6) Biological Response Signatures [IBI, DELT Anomalies] Chemical (Sediment Chemistry) Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Assessment

Indicator Case Examples in Ohio

Documentation of Permit Program Effectiveness: • Good "success stories" limited to point sources. • Scioto River type of results repeated at approximately 20-25 other municipalities statewide. • Ottawa River type results in fewer, but historically industrialized areas of Ohio.

Documentation of Other WQ Management Successes: • Evidence of nonpoint source abatement emerging. • Clear Creek watershed - 50% reduction in soil loss. • Response observed in IBI 10-12 later.

Recent Indicators Publications

1. As Used in Water Quality Management The role of biological indicators in a state water quality management process. J. Env. Mon. Assess. 51: 61-88. Biological criteria for water resource management, pp. 227-254. in P. Sculze (ed.). Measures of Environmental Performance and Ecosystem Condition, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. [www.nap.edu/books/0309054419/html/227.html] 2. As Used in Monitoring & Assessment Programs Important elements and concepts of an adequate State watershed monitoring and assessment program. [www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/document_index/docindex.html] Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Assessment

ECBP/HELP Ecoregions Biocriteria Metrics and 100.0 Attributes Aid in 80.0 Distinguishing Different 60.0 Types of Impacts 40.0

20.0 •Two aggregations of the midge family Chironomidae show 0.0 Complex Muni. CSO Chan. Agric. Flow CSO Live-

%CRICOTOPUS SPP. Toxic Conv. Conv. Mod. NPS Alter. Toxic stock starkly differing responses to n=72 n=275 n=22 n=10 n=83 n=23 n=24 n=11 -20.0 CRICOTOPUS different stressors. IMPACT TYPES •%Tanytarsini midges are 80 indicators of good water quality

60 and serve as a metric of the ICI. •%Cricotopus midges are 40 indicators of toxic conditions Units

20 and poor water quality. •Genus level taxonomic

%TANYTARSINI 0 Complex Muni. CSO Chan. Agric. Flow CSO Live- resolution is required at a Toxic Conv. Conv. Mod. NPS Alter. Toxic stock n=72 n=275 n=22 n=10 n=83 n=23 n=24 n=11 -20 minumum to benefit from IMPACT%TANYTARSINI TYPES macroinvertebrate data in this manner.

Biocriteria Indices and Metrics Show Varying Quality and Aid in Determining Types of Impacts

70 12

60 10

50 8

40 6

30 4 MIwb I B 20 2

10 0 Complex Muni. CSO Chan. Agric. Flow Impound- CSO Complex Muni. CSO Chan. Agric. Flow Impound- CSO Toxic Conv. Conv. Mod. NPS Alter. ment Toxic 0 -2 Toxic Conv. Conv. Mod. NPS Alter. ment Toxic n=106 n=546 n=76 n=55 n=340 n=26 n=30 n=35 n=106 n=546 n=76 n=55 n=340 n=26 n=30 n=35 -10 -4 IBI IMPACT TYPES IMPACTMIwb TYPES

60 40

50 35 30 40 25 30 20

20 15 Units %DELT 10 10 5 0 Complex Muni. CSO Chan. Agric. Flow Impound- CSO 0 Toxic Conv. Conv. Mod. NPS Alter. ment Toxic Complex Muni. CSO Chan. Agric. Flow Impound- CSO

-10 NUMBER OF SPECIES Toxic Conv. Conv. Mod. NPS Alter. ment Toxic n=106 n=546 n=76 n=55 n=340 n=26 n=30 n=35 -5 n=106 n=546 n=76 n=55 n=340 n=26 n=30 n=35 -20 -10 IMPACT%DELT TYPES IMPACTNO. SPECIES TYPES after Yoder and Rankin (1995) Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Assessment

Using Biocriteria to Evaluate Impacts of Toxic Releases: Leading Creek (SOCCo Mine Spill) 60 Parker Run (Meigs #31 Discharge) 50

40 WWH Bio- 30 criterion (IBI = 44) Leading Creek Historical 20 Pre-Discharge Post-Discharge 12 INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY (IBI) 05101520253035 RIVER MILE

80 Using Biocriteria to 70 IBI >40 (Meets WWH) IBI >50 (Meets EWH) Evaluate Chemical 60 50 Contaminant Thresholds: 40 Metals in Sediment 30 20 NUMBER OF SITES •Direct correlation of heavy 10 metals in sediment with the IBI 0 and %DELT anomalies state- 0-50 >500

51-100 wide. 101-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 301-350 351-400 401-450 451-500 TOTAL TOXIC METALS (MG/KG) •Determine highest concentra- 20 tions at which biocriteria are %DELT (5Oth %ile) %DELT (75th %ile) 15 attained, thus evaluating protectiveness of threshold

10 concentrations. •Does not rule out adverse Extreme 5 Departure

%DELT ANOMALIES effects at lower concentrations - other test data needed. 0 Moderate Departure •Can be used to evaluate the risk 0-50 >500

51-100 of toxic contamination in bottom 101-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 301-350 351-400 401-450 451-500 TOTAL TOXIC METALS (MG/KG) sediments to aquatic life. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Assessment

Smallmouth Bass Abundance and Biomass by Channel Condition: Channel Condition ECBP/HELP Ecoregion Streams 100 Affects the Abundance ECBP/HELP 80 Ecoregions (<200 sq. mi.) and Size of Small- 60 mouth Bass in Ohio 40 Abundance Streams & Rivers Smallmouth Bass 20

0 •Smallmouth bass are one of N = 90 N = 164 N = 25 N = 262 the most popular and wide- Maintained/ Recovering Recovered None No Recovery spread game fish in Ohio

CHANNEL CONDITION and are a sentinel species 140 6 Sites for WWH and EWH streams ECBP/HELP >150 Kg 120 Ecoregions (<200 sq. mi.) and rivers. 100 80 •Adverse effects of channel 60 modification to smallmouth Biomass 40

Smallmouth Bass bass include loss of cover, 20

0 loss of pools, degradation of N = 88 N = 159 N = 23 N = 259

Maintained/ Recovering Recovered None substrates, and food web No Recovery CHANNEL CONDITION alterations.

Rock Bass Abundance and Biomass by Channel Condition: Channel Condition ECBP/HELP Ecoregion Streams

250 Affects the Abundance 5 Sites ECBP/HELP >250 200 Ecoregions (<200 sq. mi.) and Size of Rock Bass 150 in Ohio Streams 100

50 •Rock bass are a popular Rock Bass Abundance

0 and widespread pan fish in N = 90 N = 164 N = 25 N = 262

Maintained/ Recovering Recovered None Ohio and are a sentinel No Recovery CHANNEL CONDITION species for small WWH 20 2 Sites and EWH streams. ECBP/HELP >20 Kg 15 Ecoregions (<200 sq. mi.) •Adverse effects of channel 10 modification to rock bass 5 include loss of cover, loss of Rock Bass Biomass

0 pools, degradation of sub- N = 90 N = 164 N = 25 N = 262 strates, and food web Maintained/ Recovering Recovered None No Recovery CHANNEL CONDITION alterations. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Biological Assessment

200 IBI>28 IBI>38 IBI<48 The Abundance and 175 IBI<38 IBI>50 150 IBI>18 Size of Smallmouth 125 IBI<28

100 Bass Corresponds to 75 the IBI in Ohio 50 Streams & Rivers 25 IBI<18

0 RELATIVE NUMBERS V. POOR POOR FAIR GOOD EXCEP. •Smallmouth bass are one of n=35 n=1178 n=1846 n=68 -25 n=50 6 Rel. No. 3 the most popular and wide- 25 IBI>38 IBI>28 IBI<48 spread game fish in Ohio IBI<38 IBI>50 20 and achieve their highest 15 IBI>18 numbers and size in IBI<28

10 streams and rivers which

IBI<18 attain WWH and EWH. 5 •As a top carnivore, small- 0 V. POOR POOR FAIR GOOD EXCEP. mouth bass abundance and

RELATIVE WEIGHT (Kg) n=50 n=35 n=1178 n=1846 n=68 -5 6 3 size decrease as overall Rel. Wt. <18 18-27 28-37 38-47 48-60 aquatic community condition INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY and health declines.

0.5

0.4 Using Biocriteria to

0.3 Validate and Evaluate

0.2 Water Quality Criteria:

0.1 Ammonia

0 UNIONIZED AMMONIA-N (MG/L) VERY POOR FAIR GOOD EXCEP- •Direct correlation of ambient POOR TIONAL ammonia results with the IBI 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-60

INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY (IBI) statewide. 95% "Line-of-Best-Fit" •Determine upper concentrations 60 at which biocriteria are attained, EWH 50 thus evaluating protectiveness WWH #1 N = 10,396 of a criterion. 40 WWH #2 •Does not rule out adverse

30 effects at lower concentrations - MWH toxicity test data needed. 20 •Can be used to set tiered

12 chemical criteria for different INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY (IBI) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 designated uses. UNIONIZED AMMONIA-N Sustainable Watershed Planning in Ohio

Measurable Parameters of Ecosystem Health: Ohio Water Resource Inventory (305b Report) Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: 305[b] Reporting

Ohio Water Resource Inventory (305[b] Report) Required by Sec. 305b of the Clean Water Act Ö Reports on status of designated uses of Ohio's rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, Lake Erie, Ohio River, wetlands, and ground water. Ö Causes and sources of impairment determined using multiple indicators and "lines of evidence" approach. Ö Tracks progress in restoring water resources. Ö Provides rankings of different types of problems. Ö Baseline for future comparisons.

Ohio EPA Assessment TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT & Reporting Process: (Detailed summary of analysis & status/trends throughout 305b Reporting Process watershed)

STAFF COMPLETE WBS ASSESSMENTS (Determine associated causes & sources of impairment and severity of impacts) Other Useable Data** DATA ENTRY TO OHIO EPA WATER BODY SYSTEM (WBS) Ohio Water DATA AGGREGATION (Miles of rivers & streams which attain or do not attain Resource Inventory biocriteria and other criteria; associated (305b Report) causes & sources are compiled)

** - Must meet Data Quality Objectives per Ohio EPA 5-Year Monitoring Strategy 303(d) List/TMDLs

Causes and Sources of Impairment

Causes • Agents such as pollutants and stressors such as habitat alterations

Sources • Activities that produce the agents such as point source discharges or land use activities Year 2000 Ohio Water Resource Inventory

Bob Taft Governor, State of Ohio Christopher Jones Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049 Lazarus Government Center, 122 S. Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Sept 11, 2000 Appendices to the Year 2000 Ohio Water Resource Inventory

Bob Taft Governor, State of Ohio Christopher Jones Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049 Lazarus Government Center, 122 S. Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Sept 11, 2000 Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: 305[b] Reporting Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: 305[b] Reporting

Attainment Status by Stream/River Size: Year 2000 305b Report

Aquatic Life Use Attainment Status by Ohio EPA District: Year 2000 305b Report Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: 305[b] Reporting

RECREATIONAL USES STATUS: YEAR 2000 305B REPORT Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Habitat/UAA Waterbody System Segment Coding Worksheet

Front Side Back Side Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: 305[b] Reporting Ohio is a water-rich state with more than 25,000 miles of named and designated streams and rivers and a Ohio Water 451-mile border on the Ohio River. The suitability of these waters for beneficial uses (e.g., recreation and Resource drinking water) and to maintain healthy ecological conditions or “biological integrity” (a key goal of Inventory: the Clean Water Act) is important to Ohio's economy and standard of living.

Ohio EPA uses multiple chemical, physical, and biological measures to assess the health and integrity of surface water resources. The biological measures are emphasized because the fish and invertebrates Aquatic Life Status: Year 2000 that comprise this measure serve as living indicators of the health and well-being of Ohio's waterways. tics since 1988 (Figure 2) is the They also serve as a direct measure Ohio’s goal is for 80% of stream result of the abatement of the point of the biological integrity goal of and river miles to fully meet the source impacts dating from before the Clean Water Act. These organ- applicable aquatic

isms are sensitive indicators of life goals and stan- Aquatic Life Use Attainment Statistics By Cycle water pollution because they inhabit dards (called “uses”) 90 the water all of the time and all by the year 2010. Year 2010 Goal aspects of their life cycles are Progress towards this 80 dependent on water. A healthy fish goal is tracked by Cumulative Statistics Up To That Cycle 70 or invertebrate community is also this report. The sta- Statistics By Individual Assessment Cycle

associated with high quality recre- tistics reported here 60 ational opportunities (e.g., fishing, indicate that just over swimming, canoeing, etc.). one-half (54.6%) of 50

the streams and riv- Aquatic Life Uses 54.6 40 53.3

ers that have been 49.3 Percent of Miles Attaining monitored and data

30 41.1 is considered current 39.7 35.8 by Ohio EPA are 34.6 20 fully supporting their 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

applicable aquatic Assessment Cycle life use designation (Figure 1). This Figure 2. This bar chart summarizes the aquatic life use attainment means that more than statistics cumulatively up to each two-year cycle from 1988 to 2000. Statistics for each assessment cycle alone one-half of Ohio's are illustrated by the dotted line. The individual 2000 streams and rivers cycle reflects data collected in 1997 and 1998, the 1998 harbor good or cycle data collected from 1995 and 1996, etc. exceptional quality assemblages of aquatic life. Statis- the 1970s and 1980s that were the tics for the most recent two-year original impetus for the Clean reporting cycle alone (representing Water Act. Reducing the effects of data collected in 1997-98) showed these sources was amenable to the 52.3% of streams and rivers meet- type of permitting and funding ing uses (dotted line on Figure 2) assistance that was widely available which is a break in the trend of in the 1980s. The remaining point and nonpoint source impacts Figure 1. This pie chart summarizes the current increasing attainment that has been cumulative aquatic life use attainment observed since 1994. There are present greater challenges and thus status for monitored-level data from the multiple factors that are responsible a leveling off of the comparatively 1988-2000 assessment cycles. for this change. Almost all of the rapid rate of restoration seen improvement noted in these statis- between 1988 and 1998 was Fact Sheet #: FS-1-EAS-2000 TMDL Program Addressing the impairments in these Aquatic Life Use Status streams will be cru- -All Monitored Level Data- The TMDL process will be used as cial to the success of a starting point to restore impaired the TMDL program waters. This includes nonpoint (see inset). More (NPS) impairments as well as the detailed analysis of remaining point source related this information is impacts. TMDL stands for “Total available in a com- Maximum Daily Load” and is man- panion fact sheet dated by the Clean Water Act. The (Fact Sheet FS-3- objective of a TMDL is to derive EAS-2000). the loadings of pollutants that a Map 1 illustrates the water body can receive and main- variation in attain- tain “water quality standards” (i.e., ment of aquatic life that needed to protect and restore uses in Ohio streams aquatic life and other uses). The and rivers across the data and statistics presented here state. Some subba- are the basis for Ohio’s list of sins (central, south- impaired waters that need restora- central, far north- tion and/or protection to meet and east) are approach- maintain standards. The analysis ing or have exceeded involved in developing a TMDL 75% of assessed represents a key component of the miles in full attainment while others strategic focus that is needed to are far below that > 75% restore degraded waters and make threshold (much of progress towards the goal of 80% northwest Ohio, 60-74.9 full attainment by 2010. most urban subbasins). 45-59.9 expected. An increasingly greater proportion of the remaining impair- 30-44.9 ment is associated with nonpoint The list of impaired waters generated by < 30 sources, which includes polluted the 305b report and runoff (such as sediment, nutrients, < 50 Miles Monitored the assignment of and toxic chemicals), habitat modi- causes and sources fication and destruction, and alter- Map 1. Map illustrating aquatic life use attainment status in associated with the ation of flow regimes, that have Ohio subbasins based on monitor-level data (data impairments will be always been present during the past that is considered current and meets QA/QC stan- the basis for devel- 20 years, but in which there has dards). oping restoration been comparatively little progress requirements over in abating. Other factors contribut- As such this process serves as a the next 10-15 years (see TMDL ing to the decline includes a shift to feedback loop which documents the process sidebar). Ohio EPA’s moni- monitoring a larger number of small efficacy of our combined efforts, streams, spatial bias in where monitoring and assessment program, provides information about new or supplemented by newly developed toring is conducted each year, and emerging problems, and ensures tools, will provide a method for formerly attaining streams and riv- that the progress made over the past determining whether pollution ers which have since become 20 years continues. abatement strategies are working impaired. Small, headwater streams and whether public or private dol- are the most common stream type in For more information contact: Ohio (80% of streams drain <20 sq. lars are having the intended effect. mi.) and are the Ed Rankin or Chris Yoder Ecological Assessment Section primary interface Division of Surface Water between non- Ohio EPA point source pol- 4675 Homer Ohio Lane lutants and Columbus, OH 43125 watersheds. These streams 614.836.8772 tend to be propor- FAX: 614.836.8795 tionately more This and other publications are available on the impaired than Division of Surface Water Web Site: larger streams Bigeye chub - a species sensitive to NPS pollutants such as and rivers. sediment http://chagrin.epa.state.oh.us/ hio's streams and rivers have Osubstantially improved in quality over the past 10-15 years. Ohio Water The majority of this improvement has been the result of improvements in the quality of municipal waste- Resource water treatment discharges across Ohio. Inventory: Ohio EPA uses multiple chemical, physical, and biological measures to assess the health and integrity of surface water resources. The bio- Causes & Sources logical measures are emphasized because the fish and invertebrates of Impairment: that comprise this measure serve as living indicators of the health and well-being of Ohio's waterways. Year 2000 They also serve as a direct measure of the biological integrity goal of Describing the causes and sources impairment represents the associa- the Clean Water Act. These organ- associated with the impairments tion of impairments (defined by the isms are sensitive indicators of revealed by the biological data and biological response) with stressor water pollution because they inhabit linking this with pollution sources and exposure indicators (e.g., the water all of the time and all involves an interpretation of multi- chemical and physical data). aspects of their life cycles are ple lines of evidence including dependent on water. A healthy fish water and sediment chemistry data, Leading Causes or invertebrate community is also habitat data, effluent data, biomoni- The leading causes of impairment associated with high quality recre- toring results, land use data, and in Ohio streams and rivers are listed ational opportunities (e.g., fishing, response signatures within the bio- in Figure 1. Although the leading swimming, canoeing, etc.). logical data itself. The assignment cause had been organic enrichment of principal causes and sources of Causes of impairment are the Major Causes of Aquatic Life Impairment “agents” that actually damage or 1222 impair the aquatic life in a stream, Habitat Alterations 847.2 such as the toxic effects of heavy 563.5 metals or acidic water. Sources of 932.7 Siltation 754.2 impairment are the origin of the 615.7

agent. For example, an industry 783.2 may discharge a heavy metal, a Organic Enrichment 931.2 2674 farm may erode topsoil, or a coal 575.9 mine may be the source of acid Nutrients 228 water leaching into a stream. 3.3 537.3 2000 Flow Alteration 314.8 1996 355.2 In addition to biological data, Ohio 1988 413.5 EPA also collects information on Metals 226.1 the chemical quality of the water, 599.2 81.7 sediment and effluents; data on the Ammonia 150.1 contaminants in fish flesh; and data 648.4 on the physical nature of streams 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 (i.e., aquatic habitat, siltation). This Miles Impaired data is essential to identify the factors that are limiting or impair Figure 1. Changes in major causes of aquatic life use impairment in Ohio streams aquatic life and which constitute and rivers over the past three 305(b) assessment cycles: 1988, 1996, and threats to human health. 2000. These represent the water years 1980-87, 1993-94, and 1997-98. Fact Sheet #: FS-2-EAS-2000 and low dissolved oxygen up until Development Agriculture 1996, habitat degradation and sedi- Related Related mentation are now the leading Hydromodification 314.1 1005.8 (1) causes of impairment. Habitat refers to the physical character of a stream Agriculture 1048.8 (3) or river which is necessary to sup- Point Sources 774 (2) porting aquatic life. Many human Mining 455 (4) activities can directly or indirectly degrade habitat, thus making it less Other 287.6 (5) suitable for aquatic life. Aquatic life Urban Runoff 274.5 (6) Major Source Categories Associated With is especially dependent on intact Unknown 250 (7) Aquatic Life Impairment instream habitat and the adjacent 2000 Cycle Land Disposal 135.9 (8) vegetated riparian habitat as are many other forms of wildlife. Ohio Construction 108.2 (9)

is not unique in this regard. The Silviculture 0 (10) National Academy of Sciences 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 (National Research Council 1992) recognized the devastation of ripar- Miles Impaired ian and instream habitats and rec- Figure 2. Major sources associated with aquatic life use impairment in Ohio ommended that 400,000 miles of streams and rivers and considered current for the 2000 assessment river-riparian ecosystems be cycle (data collected as of 1998). Numbers in parentheses are ranks restored over the next 20 years. The from the 1998 assessment cycle. mosaic of intact instream and riparian habitats is also critical to a water (a “point source”). These dramatic decline since 1988 (Figure stream or watershed maintaining have been the most rapidly declin- 1). the capacity to intercept and assimi- ing causes of impairment since late nonpoint source runoff, particu- 1988. In 2000 point sources, as a Nonpoint Sources: Leading larly nutrients and sediment. This principal source of impairment, Sources of Impairment in ensures that high quality water and declined to 8.7% of impaired stream Ohio biological resources are “exported” miles from 41.7% in 1988 (Fact Sheet FS-3-EAS-2000). The major sources of aquatic life to downstream reaches and larger impairment are illustrated in Figure receiving water bodies. Point source-related causes of 2. Hydromodification is now the leading source of impairment and is Point Sources impairment have also declined since 1988. Ammonia, a toxic com- the origin of habitat degradation Impairments from organic enrich- ponent of municipal wastewater and and sedimentation problems that are ment and low dissolved oxygen the second leading cause of impair- now the top two leading causes of largely originated from the inade- ment in 1988 (responsible for 648 impairment. These are termed “non- quate treatment of municipal waste- miles of impair- point sources” because they do not ment), dropped emanate from pipes or other dis- crete conveyances, but instead are Change in Major Sources Between the to tenth in 2000 1988 and 2000 Assessment Cycle (82 miles; Figure the result of land disturbance activities or direct modifications of Point Sources 1). This dramatic stream ecosystems. In 2000 we ini- Other improvement Fewer Miles Impaired tiated a more detailed analysis of Mining resulted from the hydromodification by more pre- Silviculture construction of cisely delineating the origin (e.g., Land Disposal new and More associated with development or Urban Runoff Miles Impaired upgraded sew- agricultural activities, etc.). Urban Unknown age treatment and suburban development associ- Development facilities in the 1980s at a cost ated hydromodification was respon- Agriculture sible for 23.8% of the impairment Ag Hydromodification of approximately $6 billion across attributed to hydromodification -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 (Figure 2). Combined with the con- Change in River Miles Ohio. Heavy metals as a prin- struction category, development is the fifth ranked source of impair- Figure 3. Change in major source categories associated with cipal cause of aquatic life use impairment in Ohio streams and rivers impairment ment behind mining. Development- between the 1988 and the 2000 assessment cycles. showed a less related activities are also the highest ranked threat to fully attaining streams and rivers. Major Source Categories Threatening Aquatic Life Uses Point sources of impairment have 2000 Cycle declined the most since 1988 when Development 268.6 we began tracking it in this manner. At that time point sources were a Agriculture 166.8 major source in 2,453 miles of rivers and streams versus 777 miles in Ag Hydromodification 134.7 2000. Figure 3 summarizes these changes for the leading source cate- Point Sources 119.5 gories. Increases in agriculture and related hydromodification does not Land Disposal 69.4 mean that these sources have wors- ened, rather they were previously Urban Runoff 62.6 overshadowed by now corrected point source impacts. It is these Mining 29 remaining nonpoint source impacts that will provide the primary resto- 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 ration challenge for the TMDL pro- Miles Threatened cess. Figure 4. Major sources threatening aquatic life use attainment in Ohio For more information contact: streams and rivers and considered current for the 2000 assessment cycle (data collected as of 1998). Ed Rankin or Chris Yoder Ecological Assessment Section Division of Surface Water Ohio EPA 4675 Homer Ohio Lane Columbus, OH 43125

614.836.8772 FAX: 614.836.8795

This and other publications are available on the Division of Surface Water Web Site:

http://chagrin.epa.state.oh.us/

Citation National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technol- Black Redhorse - Moxostoma duquesnei (Lesueur) ogy, and public policy. An intolerant species found in medium to large streams and riv- Committee on Restoration ers that feeds on insects and invertebrates and is sensitive to the of Aquatic Ecosystems: Sci- causes of impairment that predominate in Ohio waters (e.g., ence, Technology, and Pub- sedimentation, habitat destruction, nutrient enrichment) lic Policy. National Academy Press, Washing- ton, D.C. hio EPA has been assessing Othe quality of rivers and streams for nearly 25 years. Each river or stream in Ohio has one of Ohio Water four aquatic life use goals (termed “uses”) that vary with the ecological potential of that waterway. Resource Monitoring and assessment results are used to track attainment of these Inventory: goals and this is detailed in the Ohio Water Resource Inventory. The results of the year 2000 report are summarized in this and two Trend Analysis companion fact sheets. Numerous Ohio stream and river Year 2000 segments have been reassessed following the implementation of point source controls to meet water quality standards in the 1970s and assessment cycles will continue to 1980s. One benefit of the monitor- level off until additional progress is Ohio 2010 Goals: ing approach employed by Ohio realized in abating nonpoint sources EPA is the ability to forecast poten- of impairment, which comprise Aquatic Life Uses tial water quality changes into the more than 80% of the current 2010 Goal: future. A major challenge facing the 80% impairment. Even if immediate 1 Ohio EPA water programs is the progress is made in dealing with 2010 Forecast: 60.0% goal of achieving full support of these sources, the inherently longer 2000 Forecast: 61.7% aquatic life uses in 80% of Ohio's recovery time from nonpoint source 2 streams and rivers by the year 2010 impacts will result in the slowing of 2000 Actual: 52.3% (Ohio 2010 Goal). In order to deter- the rate of restoration in the future. 1 Assuming Asymptotic Trend mine if existing programs are likely 2 97/98 Water Years to achieve this goal, we attempted Slowing Rate of Restoration to look ahead based on past trends need to provide site-specific infor- in the process of restoring impaired It is important to understand the mation for a variety of water quality waters. The first of these forecast basis for the trend assessment and management purposes (e.g., is a analyses was accomplished in 1994, to recognize what in the forecast and updated biennially thereafter analysis is real The rate of restoration based on and how much Aquatic Life Use Attainment Statistics By Cycle results observed between 1988 and is statistical 90

“noise”. The Proposed Year 2010 Goal 1998 (Figure 1) was 2.2% impaired 80 miles restored per year (range: 0.9- data used in the trend and fore- Previous Year 2000 Goal 60.7% Predicted 3.8% per year). This has largely 70 From 2000 Data 66.1% 57% Predicted cast analyses Predicted been the product of point source From 1996 Data 61.7% abatement efforts that took place in are generated by 60 Actual 57.4% the watershed 52.9% the 1970s and 1980s (see Figure 3). 49.8% 50 52.3% The results of the 2000 forecast assessments that 45.4% comprise the Aquatic Life Uses 39.4% analysis indicate a slowing in the 40 34.6% rate of restoration to less than 2% five-year basin Percent of Miles Attaining (Figure 1). This was not entirely approach. This 30 unexpected since the proportion of effort employs a point source related impairments targeted, inten- 20 sive watershed 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 has been declining, presently com- Assessment Cycle prising less than 10% of impaired survey design. waters. It is likely that the trend While it is Figure 1. Aquatic life use attainment trend prediction based over the next several biennial driven by the on 1988-1998 assessment cycles. Fact Sheet #: FS-3-EAS-2000 particular treatment plant effective? is the designated aquatic life use appropriate? should we commit abatement resources to this water 65 body? etc.), it also provides a grow- ing database from which aggregate 60 Error in Forecast Estimate statistics like those featured in this Aquatic Backsliding report can be derived. Comparisons Life of this approach to a statistically Use 55 Spatial Bias 2000 random stream sampling design Attainment Small Stream Bias (1996 REMAP project) validate its 50 ability to provide reliable statewide Base estimates of quality and trends in quality. As such, it provides a rea- 45 sonable estimate of the condition of all of Ohio’s rivers and streams using a subsample of assessed 40 streams and rivers. 2000 Cycle Potential Factors: Stream Size, Declines in Attain- Figure 2. The attainment statistics for the 2000 assessment cycle and the ment, and Spatial Bias estimated apportioning of deviation from the projected trend based on the 1988-1998 assessment data.

The 2000 results for the data years Stream Size of this factor was less than 1% (Fig- 1997 and 1998 showed that 52.3% The inclusion of proportionately ure 2). of the assessed miles were in full more small streams in our basin Spatial Bias: Postponing Selected Basin attainment. This was 5.1% less than assessments beginning in 1998 was Assessments the 57.4% result reported in 1998 identified as one factor potentially The five-year basin approach (data years 1995 and 1996). It also affecting the 2000 results. When the intends that watersheds will be reg- represented a break in the trend of 2000 statistics are stratified by ularly assessed and reassessed on a steadily increasing full attainment stream size ranges, the inclusion of 5-10 year cycle. The resulting data- observed since 1988 and was signif- more small streams had only a base forms the basis for the biennial icantly different from that pre- minor effect on the overall statistics 305b statistics and the forecast anal- dicted by the 1998 forecast analysis and were similar to the 1998 results ysis. In 1998, the TMDL develop- (Figure 1). A major question raised for small streams. The contribution ment commitment resulted in some by these results is whether the observed change in the rate of restoration can be attributed to real changes in environment quality, whether it is within or outside of the range of expected deviation, or some combination of these factors. Several factors were examined to determine the extent of their influence on the changes in the rate of restoration and the forecast analysis. Several factors, in addition to an anticipated leveling off of the restoration rate, were identified as potentially being responsible for the 5.1% difference between the 1998 and 2000 two-year results. It is important to understand that we are con- cerned with changes in recent trends, recognizing that the aggregate database (1988-2000) showed Figure 3. Trend in non-attainment of aquatic life uses in Ohio streams and riv- an overall improvement. ers and illustrating the percent of non-attainment due to point sources, nonpoint sources, or a combination of point and nonpoint sources. previously scheduled watershed attaining and an increases in miles tially been accounted for in the reassessments being postponed. impaired. The total miles that 305b database. This conclusion is This shift towards monitoring declined (105.3 miles) contributed supported by examining the TMDL targeted watersheds could 3.2% to the 5.1% change between changes in impairment where point potentially induce a spatial bias to 1998 and 2000 (nearly two-thirds) sources are the sole problem (Fig- and was the greatest of the factors the biennial results by: 1) providing ure 3). The trend in these statistics examined (Figure 2). Most of the proportionately more data from leveled off between the 1996 and decline in formerly attaining waters impaired watersheds; and, 2) not occurred in the Little Miami River 2000 assessment cycles compared including data from watersheds and East Fork Little Miami River, to the greater improvements noted with proportionately higher levels both EWH designated rivers. It will in the 1988 to 1994 cycles. It seems of full attainment. be important in the future to deter- likely that the attainment statistics mine if similar high quality rivers will level off between 55-60% until Map 1 illustrates the 2000 cycle with major point sources and a rela- the remaining sources of impair- aquatic life attainment statistics by tively high proportion of effluent ment are addressed and those subbasin where at least 25 stream flow show similar results. results become evident in the statis- and river miles were assessed. tics. The TMDL process and other Three high quality subbasins (Big Conclusions management and funding programs Darby Creek, Kokosing River, Salt will assume much significance over Creek) scheduled for reassessment All of the factors examined had the next decade if we are to resume in 1997 and 1998 were bypassed for measurable effects on the 2000 the trend of restoration we observed the aforementioned reasons. In results and the changes noted from during the 1980s. order to examine the potential effect 1998. Of these, declines in attain- of this on the 2000 statistics, the ment status associated with point previous assessment results were sources was the largest factor, fol- carried forward and used to recalcu- lowed by spatial bias in watershed late the 2000 attainment statistics. selection, and stream size. How- For more information, contact: The addition of this information ever, these factors combined accounted for just over one-half of Ed Rankin or Chris Yoder added 1.4% to the 2000 cycle Ecological Assessment Section aquatic life attainment statistics, difference between the 2000 results and the forecast analysis of 1998. Division of Surface Water which is approximately one-fourth Ohio EPA The most reasonable interpretation of the 5.1% change from 1998 to 4675 Homer-Ohio Lane 2000 (Figure 2). of the data presented here is that the Groveport, OH 43125 trend of consistent linear increase 614-836-8772 Declining Attainment over the past decade is in reality Fax: 614-836-8795 On average, in reaches where we leveling off and that the progress have sampled during a previous made in abating point source pollu- e-mail: [email protected] assessment cycle there has been a tion the 1970s and 1980s has essen- web: www.chagrin.epa.state.oh.us/ trend of improving attainment statistics when the earliest versus latest data were compared. Generally this entails comparison of pre-1988 sur- veys with post-1988 results, which comprises the information for the Ohio 2010 goal tracking and the forecast analysis. The 1988 year is an important threshold as it represents the deadline for municipal wastewater treatment plants being in compliance with water quality- based permit limitations. Increas- ingly, data is available to compare the results of assessments and reassessments conducted since 1988, Populations of smallmouth bass, a premier sport fish in Ohio riv- thus assessing the maintenance of ers and streams, would benefit from the abatement of nonpoint the post-1988 gains in full attain- causes of impairment such as habitat, sediment, and nutrients ment. Approximately 16% of these resampled reaches in 1997 and identified in the Ohio Water Resource Inventory. 1998 showed declines in miles Sustainable Watershed Planning in Ohio

Measurable Parameters of Ecosystem Health: Habitat Assessment/Use Attainability Analysis Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Habitat/UAA

The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) QHEI Includes Six Major Categories of Macrohabitat • Substrate - types, origin, quality, embeddedness • Instream Cover - types and amounts • Channel Quality - sinuosity, development, stability • Riparian/Bank Stability - width, quality, bank erosion • Pool/Riffle/Run - max. depth, current types, morphology, substrate embeddedness • Gradient - local gradient (varies by drainage area) Source: The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (Rankin 1989)

QHEI: Qualititave Habitat Evaluation Index • Visual method of measuring habitat quality • Aid in designating aquatic life uses • Aid in assessing causes of impacts • Correlated with biological integrity • Depends on standardized definitions of habitat types (training is very important) • Reach-level habitat conditions also important (i.e., “covariate” to QHEI) Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Field Sheet QHEI Score:

River Code:______RM: _____ Stream______Date______Location______Scorers Initials:______Comments______1] SUBSTRATE (Check ONLY Two Substrate TYPE BOXES; Estimate % present); TYPE POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE SUBSTRATE ORIGIN SUBSTRATE QUALITY ❐ ❐-BLDR /SLBS[10]______❐ ❐-GRAVEL [7] ______Check ONE (OR 2 & AVERAGE)Check ONE (OR 2 & AVERAGE) ❐ ❐-BOULDER [9] ______❐ ❐-SAND [6] ______❐ -LIMESTONE [1] SILT: ❐ -SILT HEAVY [-2] ❐ ❐-COBBLE [8] ______❐ ❐-BEDROCK[5] ______❐ -TILLS [1] ❐ -SILT MODERATE [-1] Substrate ❐ ❐-HARDPAN [4] ______❐ ❐-DETRITUS[3] ______❐ -WETLANDS[0] ❐ -SILT NORMAL [0] ❐ ❐-MUCK [2] ______❐ ❐-ARTIFICIAL[0]______❐ -HARDPAN [0] ❐ -SILT FREE [1] ❐ ❐ ❐ ❐ -SILT [2] ______-SANDSTONE [0] EMBEDDED -EXTENSIVE [-2] Max 20 NOTE:(Ignore sludge originating from point-sources; ❐ -RIP/RAP [0] NESS: ❐ -MODERATE [-1] scoreon natural substrates) ❐-5 or More [2] ❐ -LACUSTRINE [0] ❐ -NORMAL [0] NUMBER OF SUBSTRATE TYPES: ❐-4 or Less [0] ❐ -SHALE [-1] ❐ -NONE [1] COMMENTS______❐-COAL FINES [-2]______2] INSTREAM COVER (see back for instructions for additional cover scoring method) AMOUNT: (Check ONLY One or Cover TYPE: (Check All That Apply) check 2 and AVERAGE) ❐ ___UNDERCUT BANKS [1] ❐ ___POOLS> 70 cm [2] ❐___OXBOWS, BACKWATERS [1] ❐ - EXTENSIVE > 75% [11] ❐ ___OVERHANGING VEGETATION [1] ❐ ___ROOTWADS [1] ❐___AQUATIC MACROPHYTES [1] ❐ - MODERATE 25-75% [7] ❐ ___SHALLOWS (IN SLOW WATER) [1] ❐ ___BOULDERS [1] ❐___LOGS OR WOODY DEBRIS [1] ❐ - SPARSE 5-25% [3] Max 20 ❐ ___ROOTMATS [1] COMMENTS:______❐ - NEARLY ABSENT < 5%[1] 3] CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY: (Check ONLY One PER Category OR check 2 and AVERAGE) SINUOSITY DEVELOPMENT CHANNELIZATION STABILITY MODIFICATIONS/OTHER Channel ❐ - HIGH [4] ❐ - EXCELLENT [7] ❐ - NONE [6] ❐ - HIGH [3] ❐ - SNAGGING ❐ - IMPOUND. ❐ - MODERATE [3] ❐ - GOOD [5] ❐ - RECOVERED [4] ❐ - MODERATE [2] ❐ - RELOCATION ❐ - ISLANDS ❐ - LOW [2] ❐ - FAIR [3] ❐ - RECOVERING [3] ❐ - LOW [1] ❐ - CANOPY REMOVAL ❐ - LEVEED Max 20 ❐ - NONE [1] ❐ - POOR [1] ❐ - RECENT OR NO ❐ - DREDGING ❐ - BANK SHAPING RECOVERY [1] ❐ - ONE SIDE CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS COMMENTS:______4]. RIPARIAN ZONE AND BANK EROSION-(check ONE box per bank or check 2 and AVERAGE per bank) ★River Right Looking Downstream★ RIPARIAN WIDTH FLOOD PLAIN QUALITY (PAST 100 Meter RIPARIAN) BANK EROSION Riparian L R (Per Bank) L R (Most Predominant Per Bank) LR L R (Per Bank) ❐ ❐˙-WIDE > 50m [4] ❐ ❐-FOREST, SWAMP [3] ❐ ❐-CONSERVATION TILLAGE [1] ❐ ❐ -NONE/LITTLE [3] ❐ ❐ - MODERATE 10-50m [3] ❐ ❐-SHRUB OR OLD FIELD [2] ❐ ❐ -URBAN OR INDUSTRIAL [0] ❐ ❐ -MODERATE [2] ❐ ❐˙-NARROW 5-10 m [2] ❐ ❐-RESIDENTIAL,PARK,NEW FIELD [1] ❐ ❐ -OPEN PASTURE,ROWCROP [0] ❐ ❐ -HEAVY/SEVERE[1] Max 10 ❐ ❐˙- VERY NARROW <5 m[1] ❐ ❐ -FENCED PASTURE [1] ❐ ❐ -MINING/CONSTRUCTION [0] ❐ ❐˙- NONE [0] COM- MENTS:______5.]POOL/GLIDE AND RIFFLE/RUN QUALITY Pool/ MAX. DEPTH MORPHOLOGY CURRENT VELOCITY [POOLS & RIFFLES!] Current (Check 1 ONLY!) (Check 1 or 2 & AVERAGE) (Check All That Apply) ❐ - >1m [6] ❐˙-POOL WIDTH > RIFFLE WIDTH [2] ❐˙-EDDIES[1] ❐˙-TORRENTIAL[-1] ❐ - 0.7-1m [4] ❐ -POOL WIDTH = RIFFLE WIDTH [1] ❐˙-FAST[1] ❐˙-INTERSTITIAL[-1] Max 12 ❐ - 0.4-0.7m [2] ❐˙-POOL WIDTH < RIFFLE W. [0] ❐˙-MODERATE [1] ❐˙-INTERMITTENT[-2] ❐ - 0.2- 0.4m [1] ❐˙-SLOW [1] ❐ - < 0.2m [POOL=0] COMMENTS:______Riffle/Run CHECK ONE OR CHECK 2 AND AVERAGE RIFFLE DEPTH RUN DEPTH RIFFLE/RUN SUBSTRATE RIFFLE/RUN EMBEDDEDNESS ❐ -* Best Areas >10 cm [2] ❐ - MAX > 50 [2] ❐-STABLE (e.g.,Cobble, Boulder) [2] ❐ - NONE [2] ❐ - Best Areas 5-10 cm[1] ❐ - MAX < 50[1] ❐-MOD. STABLE (e.g.,Large Gravel) [1] ❐ - LOW [1] Max 8 ❐ - Best Areas < 5 cm ❐-UNSTABLE (Fine Gravel,Sand) [0] ❐ - MODERATE [0] Gradient [RIFFLE=0] ❐ - EXTENSIVE [-1] COMMENTS:______❐ - NO RIFFLE [Metric=0] Max 10 6] GRADIENT (ft/mi): ______DRAINAGE AREA (sq.mi.):______%POOL: %GLIDE:

*Bestareas must be largeenough to support a populationof riffle-obligatefish species. %RIFFLE: %RUN: EPA 4520 7/16/98 Major Suspected Sources of Is Sampling Reach Representative of the Stream (Y/N)___ If Not, Explain: Impacts (Check All That Apply): None ❐ Industrial ❐ WWTP ❐ Ag ❐ Livestock ❐ Silviculture ❐ Construction ❐ Urban Runoff ❐ CSOs ❐ Gear: Distance: Water Clarity: Water Stage: Canopy -% Open Suburban Impacts❐ Mining ❐ First Channelization ❐ Sampling Pass Riparian Removal ❐ Landfills ❐ Stream Measurements: Natural ❐ Subjective Aesthetic Average Average Maximum Av. Bankfull Bankfull Mean W/D Bankfull Max Floodprone Entrench. Rating Dams ❐ Rating Width Depth Depth Width Depth Ratio Depth Area Width Ratio ❐ (1-10) (1-10) Other Flow Alteration Gradient: Other:______❐ ❐ - Low, ❐ - Moderate, ❐ -High Stream Drawing:

Instructions for Scoring the Alternate Cover Metric: Each Cover Type Should Receive a Score of Between 0 and 3, Where: 0 - Cover type absent; 1 - Cover type present in very small amounts or if more common of marginal quality; 2 - Cover type present in moderate amounts, but not of highest quality or in small amounts of highest quality; 3 - Cover type of highest quality in moderate or greater amounts. Examples of highest quality cover include very large boulders in deep or fast water, large diameter logs that are stable, well developed rootwads in deep/fast water, or deep, well-defined, functional pools. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Habitat/UAA

BIOLOGICAL CONDITION IS CORRELATED WITH HABITAT QUALITY: IBI

<30 30-44 45-59 60-74 >75 (V. Poor) (Poor) (Fair-Good) (Good) (Excellent) Q H E I

Abundance of Cover Types Affects the Ability to Meet Designated Uses

Channel Condition Affects the Ability to Meet Designated Uses Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Habitat/UAA Substrate Condition Affects the Ability to Meet Designated Uses

BIOLOGICAL CONDITION IS CORRELATED WITH HABITAT QUALITY: DELT Anomalies

<30 30-44 45-59 60-74 >75 (V. Poor) (Poor) (Fair-Good) (Good) (Excellent) Q H E I Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)

WWH Attributes MWH Attributes High Influence Moderate Influence

Key QHEI Components

River Gradient Mile QHEI (ft/mile)

(04-130) Little Auglaize River Year: 1983 41.1 22.0 2.23 ■ 12● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 91.50 6.00 37.4 22.0 1.48 ■ ■ 23● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 51.33 3.00 34.2 29.0 1.36 ■ ■ 22● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 71.00 3.33 29.5 22.0 1.06 03● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 84.00 *.** 18.8 37.0 3.23 ■ ■ ■ 32● ● ▲ ▲ ▲▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 70.75 2.50 17.6 36.0 3.50 ■ ■ 23● ● ● ▲ ▲▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 81.33 4.00 14.2 37.0 1.71 ■ ■ 22● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 71.00 3.33 7.8 40.0 2.66 ■ 12● ● ▲ ▲ ▲▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 81.50 5.50 2.0 26.0 0.10 ■ ■ 23● ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 61.33 3.33

(14-500) Twin Creek Year: 1986 35.5 84.5 9.26 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 10 0 0 0.09 0.09 35.0 92.0 9.26 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 9 0 0 0.10 0.10 31.7 71.0 5.56 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 8 0 ▲ ▲ 2 0.11 0.33 27.0 88.0 9.62 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 9 0 0 0.10 0.10 26.7 80.0 8.55 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 80 ▲ 10.11 0.22 23.9 88.5 13.70 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 10 0 0 0.09 0.09 19.2 90.5 8.00 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 10 0 0 0.09 0.09 18.3 89.5 8.00 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 10 0 0 0.09 0.09 16.9 73.0 5.21 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 9 ● 1 0 0.20 0.20 9.8 90.5 4.93 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 10 0 0 0.09 0.09 0.2 73.5 13.16 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 60▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 40.14 0.71

01/08/20 1 Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Habitat/UAA

Use Attainability Analysis I: Are CWA Goal Uses Attainable? U.S. EPA regulations allow lower than CWA goal uses where precluded by: • naturally occuring pollutant levels; • natural flow conditions (i.e., ephemeral)**; • human-induced conditions which cannot be remediated; • hydrological modififcations (dams, diversions, channel modifications) which cannot be operated in a manner consistent with the CWA goal use; • natural physical features (substrate, flow, depth); • controls to attain use would cause widespread, socioeconomic impacts. ** - does not apply when flow is augmented by an.effluent discharge. Source: 40 CFR Part 131.10 (g)(1-6)

Use Attainability Analysis II: Process and Information Requirements** Use attainability analysis requires the following information and knowledge: • existing status of waterbody based on biocriteria; • habitat assessment to evaluate potential; • reasonable relationship between impaired state and precluding activity based on assessment of multiple indicators used in appropriate roles; • recommendation subject to WQS ruelmaking process • reviewable every three years - a "temporary" designation. ** - All data collection and analysis must conform to Ohio WQS and Five-Year Monitoring Strategy data and design quality objectives. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Habitat/UAA

WWH Recommended EWH Segment

Using Indicators to 60 EWH Bio- Russells Point criterion WWTP (IBI = 48) Demonstrate 50

Improvements 40 MCD N. Regional WWH Bio- WWTP criterion 30 Troy (IBI = 42) Great Miami River: WWH WWTP Sidney 20 Use (existing) WWTP Piqua 1994 IBI Quincy WWTP 1982 IBI EWH Use (recommended) 12 WWTP INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY (IBI) 8090100110120130140150160 Major Point Sources: RIVER MILE 500 Sidney WWTP Piqua WWTP 001 Effluent Annual Loadings 50th percentile Piqua WWTP 400 95th percentile Troy WWTP MCD N. Regional WWTP 300

200 Current Permit Key Indicators: (Levels Load (30 day avg.) Ammonia-N (kg/day) 3&6) Biological [IBI, ICI] 100

WWTP Loadings 0

[Ammonia-N] 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Habitat/UAA

ALL IMPACT TYPES IBI vs. % Urban Land Use

• Typical threshold for WWH attainment at 25-30% urban land use. • No attainment at >60% urban land use. • Attainment "outliers" occur at 40-60% urban land use. SELECTED IMPACT TYPES • Characteristics common to outliers are good riparian, sustained flow, or <20 years of urban development.

• Removal of habitat, sewer overflow, and legacy impacts helped clarify IBI/urban land use relationship. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Habitat/UAA

Using Biocriteria to Assess Small Urban Streams in Ohio •Data from statewide Ohio EPA database at urban and suburban sites <100 mi2 drainage area. •No more than 35-40% of sites in any major municipal area attained the WWH IBI criterion. •The additive effect of multiple stressors in urban watersheds was evident in consistently lower IBI scores. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Habitat/UAA

HABITAT THRESHOLDS FOR DESIGNATED USE ATTAINMENT 50 QHEI > 60 40 QHEI 46-60 QHEI < 46 30

FREQUENCY (%) 10

0 MWH WWH EWH 12-15 16-19 20-23 24-27 28-31 32-35 36-39 40-43 44-47 48-51 52-55 56-60 IBI INTERVALS

Habitat Attributes of Warmwater and Modified Streams

Warmwater Streams Modified Streams 1. No channel mod./recovered Recent channel mod./recovered 2. Boulder/cobble/gravel substrtates Silt/muck Substrates 3. Silt Free or Silt Normal Heavy/moderate Silt Covering 4. Good/Excellent Development Fair/Poor Development 5. Moderate/High Sinuosity Low/No Sinuosity 6. Extensive/moderate Cover Only 1-2 Cover Types 7. Fast Current w/Eddies No Fast Current 8. Low/Normal Embeddedness High Embeddedness 9. Maximum Depth >40 cm Maximum Depth <40 cm 10. Intermittent/interstitial Flow

Source: The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (Rankin 1989)

Influence of Modified Habitat Attributes on the IBI and Biological Integrity

14 N = 666 Sites 12 10 8 6 4 2

RATIO OF MODIFIED:WARM- 0

WATER HABITAT ATTRIBUTES VERY POOR POOR FAIR GOOD EXCEPT. 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-60 IBI Range Sustainable Watershed Planning

Measurable Parameters of Ecosystem Health: Program Management Concepts Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Program Management

Two Paths to Watershed Management

PROGRAM RESOURCE BASED BASED APPROACH APPROACH

Goal: Program Performance Environmental Performance

Measures: Administrative Actions Indicator End-points (Permits, Funding, Rules) (Biological, Chemical, Physical)

Results: Improve Programs Programs are Tools to (Reduce backlogs, Improve the Environment improve timeliness) (Admin. actions followed by positive changes in indicators)

Two Approaches to Water Quality Management

Pollutant Driven • Dilution scenarios - critical design conditions • Do not exceed the "speed limit". • Limited toolbox - limited accuracy. Resource Driven • Chemical, physical, biological attributes • What are the critical relationships? • What is to be restored, enhanced, preserved? • Indicators used determines accuracy. Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Program Management

TMDL: CWA Section 303[d] Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) "Letter of the Law" • PS Pollutants + NPS Pollutants + Safety Margin = TMDL Pollutant Focused Approach "Spirit of the Law" •Restoration of impaired waters based on attainment of designated uses Resource Focused Approach

Essential Technical Elements of a Watershed Approach Three major classes of environmental indicators: • Stressor Indicators (e.g., loadings, land use, habitat) • Exposure Indicators (e.g., chemical-specific, biomarkers, toxicity) • Response Indicators (e.g., biological community condition) Landscape partitioning framework: • Ecoregions and/or subecoregions (other than hydrologic units). Measurable Parameters of Watershed Health: Program Management

What Biocriteria Can Bring to Watershed Management Incorporating Biocriteria Can Result in the Following: • Watershed Approach to Monitoring, Assessment, and Management • Integrated Point, Nonpoint, and Habitat Assessment and Management • Cumulative Effects • Biodiversity Concerns • Interdisciplinary Focus • Sound Science Measureable Paraneters of Watershed Health: Introduction & Concepts

The Role of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the TMDL Process: I Biocriteria and allied tools serve the following functions in the 303d process: • as a principal arbiter of attainment status (303d listing). • key tool for determining the appropriate designated use. • biological data provides information to describe causes and sources of impairments. • key effectiveness end-point for assessment of TMDL implementation. • important vector for development of "new" criteria for TMDL modeling outputs.

The Role of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the TMDL Process: II Using Biocriteria Indices as an end-point for TMDL development can: • incorporate the cumulative effect of all chemical, physical, and biological stressors in a watershed as opposed to a focus on individual pollutants alone. • appropriately integrate factors that influence the fate of pollutants (e.g., habitat and nutrients). • provide a more direct link between the TMDL process and attainment of designated uses.