Watershed Monitoring and Bioassessment Plan for the MSD ... · Watershed Monitoring and Bioassessment ... Watershed Monitoring and Bioassessment Plan for ... A growing awareness and

Peter A. Precario, Executive Director Dr. David J. Horn, Board President

WWaatteerrsshheedd MMoonniittoorriinngg aanndd

BBiiooaasssseessssmmeenntt PPllaann ffoorr tthhee

MMSSDD GGrreeaatteerr CCiinncciinnnnaattii

SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa

MMiiddwweesstt BBiiooddiivveerrssiittyy IInnssttiittuuttee

CCeenntteerr ffoorr AApppplliieedd BBiiooaasssseessssmmeenntt &&

BBiiooccrriitteerriiaa

PP..OO.. BBooxx 2211556611

CCoolluummbbuuss,, OOHH 4433222211‐‐00556611

CChhrriiss OO.. YYooddeerr,, PPrriinncciippaall IInnvveessttiiggaattoorr

mmbbii@@mmwwbbiinnsstt..ccoomm

Midwest Biodiversity InstituteCenter for Applied Bioassessment & Biocriteria

P.O. Box 21561 Columbus, OH 43221‐0561

MBI MSDGC M&A Bioassessment Plan June 7, 2011

ii

Watershed Monitoring and Bioassessment Plan for the MSD Greater Cincinnati Service Area

Hamilton County, Ohio

Technical Report MBI/05‐11‐3

May 23, 2011 (Revised June 7, 2011)

Prepared for:

MSD of Greater Cincinnati 1600 Gest Street

Cincinnati, Ohio 45204

Submitted by:

Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria Midwest Biodiversity Institute

P.O. Box 21561 Columbus, Ohio 43221‐0561 Chris Yoder, Research Director

[email protected]


iii

Table of Contents

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. iv INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 Strategic Role of Monitoring and Assessment ........................................................................ 1 The Relationship between Monitoring and Watershed Management .................................. 2 Context ................................................................................................................................ 3 Scope ................................................................................................................................... 3 Scale .................................................................................................................................... 3 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 4 An Adequate Watershed Monitoring Program ....................................................................... 4 Choosing Indicators and Parameters .................................................................................. 4 Monitoring Networks and Design............................................................................................ 7 Assessment of Monitoring Results .......................................................................................... 8 Hierarchy of Environmental Indicators for Water .............................................................. 8 Biological and Water Quality Surveys ............................................................................... 10 Watershed Monitoring Design .............................................................................................. 12 Analysis of Biological Assessment Options ........................................................................... 12 MSDGC SERVICE AREA WATERSHED BIOASSESSMENT .............................................................. 21 Credible Data Requirements .................................................................................................. 21 Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Combined Geometric and Targeted Design Sites ................................................................. 23 Indicators and Parameters ..................................................................................................... 24 Biological Methods ................................................................................................................. 26 Fish Methods ..................................................................................................................... 26 Determination of Sampleability ........................................................................................ 29 Macroinvertebrate Methods ............................................................................................. 29 Habitat Assessment .......................................................................................................... 30 Water Quality Assessment ................................................................................................ 30 Reference Sites .................................................................................................................. 30 LONG‐TERM MONITROING STRATEGY ........................................................................................ 31 A Rotating Basin Approach Planning Process ....................................................................... 31 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 37


iv

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary matrix of recommended environmental indicators for meeting management

objectives for status and trends of surface waters (a bold X is recommended as a primary indicator after ITFM 1993; other recommended indicators are designated by a

). The corresponding EPA indicator hierarchy level is listed for each suite of indicator groups. ................................................................................................................................ 6

Table 2. Hierarchy of ambient bioassessment approaches defined by Yoder (1995) that use

information about indigenous aquatic biological communities (NOTE: this applies to aquatic life use attainment only). ..................................................................................... 15

Table 3. Subwatershed areas in the MSDGC service area with biological and habitat sampling

(upper panel) and chemical (lower panel) site allocations for each of four years.. ......... 22 Table 4. Fish assemblage sampling method and gear specifications for the MSD service area

biological assessment by geometric site level. ................................................................. 27 Table 5. Macroinvertebrate assemblage sampling method and gear specifications for the MSD

service area biological assessment by geometric site level. ............................................ 28 Table 6. Important timelines and milestones in the planning and execution of annual

monitoring and assessment for the MSDGC watershed assessment program. ............... 32

List of Figures Figure 1. Core indicators and parameters and supplemental parameters organized by

designated uses; these comprise an adequate watershed monitoring and assessment approach (after Yoder 1997). .............................................................................................. 5

Figure 2. The five major factors which determine the integrity of water resources (modified

from Karr et al. 1986). ......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3. Hierarchy of indicators for determining the effectiveness of water quality

management and maintaining appropriate relationships and feedback loops between different classes of indicators (modified from U.S. EPA 1995a by Karr and Yoder 2004). . 9


v

List of Figures (continued) Figure 4. Geometric site selection design and outcomes used to assess small watersheds and

assure equitable spatial coverage (Sugar Creek basin in northeast Ohio is shown here as an example). ..................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 5. Major stressors in the MSDGC service area including industrial and municipal point

sources, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and low head dams. ........................................................................................................................ 23

Figure 6. Geometric sites draw for the MSDGC service area. ...................................................... 24 Figure 7. Gant chart showing tasks and subtasks and timeline for duration and completion of

each. .................................................................................................................................. 33


1

INTRODUCTION

The Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI) was contracted by the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) of Greater Cincinnati a watershed‐based monitoring and biological assessment plan for the MSD service area within Hamilton County, Ohio. This plan describes the spatial and temporal sampling design and the indicators and parameters that are to be collected at each sampling site. It also describes the type of biological sampling methods for fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages and habitat assessment that should be employed. In addition, chemical and physical measures are also included to provide supporting data and information for the biological assessment. This plan will be used to guide the development of detailed study plans for the actual field work and the subsequent data analysis for a baseline bioassessment in beginning in 2011.

The sampling design employs a combination of a geometric (stratified‐random) and targeted‐intensive surveys. These are employed to fulfill multiple management purposes and goals in addition to the determination of the existing status of the extant biological assemblages and their relationship to chemical, physical, and biological stressors. As such, the principles of adequate monitoring (ITFM 1995; Yoder 1998) were used in anticipation that the resulting biological assessment will be used to support the development of cost‐effective watershed management responses to existing and emerging issues. The following describes these principles in detail, which is followed by the recommended watershed‐based bioassessment design.

Strategic Role of Monitoring and Assessment

The generation of data and information via ambient environmental monitoring is inherently a strategic process, which requires an understanding of the broad goals and objectives about the use of such information in the management of water resources. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, renewed interest by federal and state agencies and research organizations resulted in a number of reviews and compendia about what constitutes an adequate and credible framework for the monitoring and assessment of the nation’s waters. The most comprehensive of these was the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) which produced a national strategy for water monitoring (ITFM 1995) and the establishment of the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC) in 1997. Other efforts included a revision of U.S. EPA’s basic guidance on surface water monitoring programs, a description of the important concepts and elements of an adequate watershed monitoring and assessment approach by U.S. EPA and the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA; Yoder 1998), the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (CALM) guidance of U.S. EPA, and the National Research Council’s review of science in the TMDL process (NRC 2001). Together, these provide strategic guidance and essential principles


2

by which a surface water monitoring program should be developed and conducted, including those of local and regional scope. MBI produced monitoring program plans and strategies based on these principles for three organizations, the Miami Conservancy District (Ohio), the state of Rhode Island DEM (MBI 2003a, 2003b), and the DuPage River salt Creek Working Group (DRSCWG; MBI 2006). The DRSCWG effort in particular reflects the implementation of these principles and concepts at regional and watershed scales of application. Most of what follows is a reflection of these products and experiences. In addition, the experience of Ohio EPA (1999) in developing and using a geometric monitoring site selection design is also used herein.

The Relationship between Monitoring and Watershed Management A growing awareness and appreciation that our air, land, and water resources are subject to a variety of effects of human activities on local, regional, national, and global scales has resulted in a proliferation of efforts to manage water resources at the watershed scale by a diversity of governmental and non‐governmental organizations. Most of these efforts are driven by an emphasis on the identification and implementation of management practices, frequently on the basis of prescription that is frequently lacking sufficient grounding in environmental criteria and data. An improved capability to more accurately measure the extent and severity of impairments and threats and understand the causes and sources associated with each is essential to formulating accurate, effective, and proportionate management responses. Adequate environmental monitoring and assessment is a key enterprise in enabling this process. Environmental monitoring of surface waters has been defined as the systematic collection and evaluation of data about the chemical, physical, and biological attributes of the aquatic environment and how both natural and human‐induced changes affect overall quality (Cooly 1976). Some estimates indicate that $500 billion to $1 trillion has been spent on water pollution abatement nationally since the early 1970s. Yet, with only a few notable exceptions, the effectiveness of these expenditures have largely gone undocumented in true environmental terms (ITFM 1992). The reason lies in the fact that only 0.2% of the amount spent on water pollution abatement and water quality management between 1970 and 1990 was devoted to ambient monitoring (ITFM 1992). Our challenge then is to more accurately measure, characterize, and understand the significance of these efforts, which is crucial to the effective management and protection of water resources. Comprehensive and adequate monitoring and assessment is an indispensable component of achieving this goal (ITFM 1992). Monitoring plays a key role in the management of surface water resources by driving the progression of events from initial problem identification and characterization through the making of management decisions in such areas as pollution abatement and water quality management programs to the enforcement of laws and regulations. The recent efforts to


3

revitalize the role of monitoring and assessment in state and federal water quality management programs were intended to provide the essential data and information needed to answer questions about the status and trends of water quality nationwide and guide the development of water quality management activities. At the same time, the ITFM process was intended to stimulate interest and activity at all levels of government, including local and regional entities. As such, there are four principal aspects of a complete and comprehensive monitoring strategy: Context Monitoring should be the foundation of water resource policy‐making and management. This means that monitoring information should not only be available to managers and policy makers, but also be sufficiently comprehensible and conclusive. A critical aspect is not just generating data, but providing an understandable assessment of what the data means (i.e., the essential conversion of data to useable information). This includes a determination of whether or not criteria, standards, and other management objectives are being achieved and the degree (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to which any are being exceeded or abrogated. This process requires the use of multiple classes of indicators, each used within their most appropriate role and in their proper relationship to each other (Yoder and Rankin 1998). Scope Monitoring includes the following activities: articulating objectives; collecting, storing, and interpreting data; conversion of data to information; preparing assessments of the information (what does it mean?); communication of assessment results; and evaluation of management program performance.

This progression allows water quality management programs to become more appropriately focused on the resource at issue, as opposed to the care‐taking of administrative systems and processes. It fosters an approach of “managing for environmental results” in which administrative processes function as tools to improve the environment, not as a final endpoint of success. Scale Monitoring should address the relevant scale(s) at which management is being applied. This can range from site‐specific investigations to watershed scale assessments to regional and national summaries of condition. Monitoring programs need to be constructed so that the baseline data and information supports assessments at the same scale at which management is being applied. The specific designs, indicators, and assessment tools used must be tailored to


4

the regional peculiarities in climate, soils, land use, geology, ecological resources (flora and fauna), socioeconomic influences, and geography. Thus, the indicators that are used need to be sufficiently developed and calibrated to reflect these influences and applied at the scales at which the management is being conducted. Objectives General monitoring objectives usually include: defining status and trends; identification of existing and emerging problems; support of water quality management policy and program development; evaluating management program effectiveness; responding to emergencies, and continued development and improvement of the understanding of the basic chemical,

physical, and biological processes that affect environmental quality. Effective monitoring and, by extension, water quality management programs require a supporting infrastructure in terms of personnel and logistical support to carry out monitoring from a “cost‐of‐doing‐business” standpoint. This means that monitoring resources must be tailored to meet the management needs of the statewide, regional, or local scale through space and time.

An Adequate Watershed Monitoring Program

The question of what constitutes an adequate watershed monitoring and assessment program was articulated in general by the ITFM (1992, 1995) and more specifically by Yoder (1998). Adequate monitoring and assessment is key to resolving current deficiencies and inequities within and between programs and questions about the reliability 303(d) listings, nonpoint source management, and water quality standards. The document entitled Important Concepts and Elements of an Adequate State Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program (Yoder 1998) outlined the important elements and concepts of adequate watershed monitoring and assessment. This document relied principally on the results of the ITFM process, EPA’s environmental indicators initiatives of the late 1980s and early 1990s, and state agency experiences in operating systematic and adequately funded programs over a period of years. Choosing Indicators and Parameters Different types of measurements comprise an adequate watershed monitoring and assessment approach. These consist of core and supplemental indicators and parameters (Figure 1). The core parameters form the basis of all monitoring and assessment and are collected at all sites since they represent the baseline attributes of an aquatic ecosystem. Fundamental to this


5

CORE INDICATORS• Fish Assemblage • Macroinvertebrates • Periphyton

(Use Community Level Data From At Least Two)

Physical Habitat Indicators• Channel morphology • Flow• Substrate Quality • Riparian

Chemical Quality Indicators• pH • Temperature• Conductivity • Dissolved O2

For Specific Designated Uses Add the Following:AQUATIC LIFEBase List:• Ionic strength• Nutrients, sedimentSupplemental List:• Metals (water/sediment)• Organics (water/sediment)

RECREATIONALBase List:• Fecal bacteria• Ionic strengthSupplemental List:• Other pathogens• Organics (water/sed.)

WATER SUPPLYBase List:• Fecal bacteria• Ionic strength• Nutrients, sedimentSupplemental List:• Metals (water/sediment)• Organics (water/sed.)• Other pathogens

HUMAN/WILDLIFE CONSUMPTIONBase List:• Metals (in tissues)• Organics (in tissues)

Figure 1. Core indicators and parameters and supplemental parameters organized by designated uses; these comprise an adequate watershed monitoring and assessment approach (after Yoder 1998).

approach is the role of biological indicators as direct measures of ecosystem response supported by chemical and physical parameters as indicators of stress and exposure. These comprise the baseline of the adequate monitoring and assessment process and are directly linked to the data and information needs for answering fundamental assessment questions such as overall ecosystem status, water quality standards compliance, use attainability analyses, delineating associated causes/sources of threats and impairments, and basic reporting (305b report) and listing requirements (303d listings). Supplemental parameters (Figure 1) consist largely of chemical, physical, and biologically‐based indicators of stress and exposure and are added in accordance with the complexity of the setting and as the assessment needs (or questions) increase in diversity, quantity, and complexity. Table 1 shows


6

Table 1. Summary matrix of recommended environmental indicators for meeting management objectives for status and trends of surface waters (a bold X is recommended as a primary indicator after ITFM 1992, a plain X is

secondary; other recommended indicators are designated by a ). The corresponding EPA indicator hierarchy level is listed for each suite of indicator groups. _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Categories of Management Objectives _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Human Health Ecological Health Economic Concerns _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Consump‐ Public Recreation Aquatic & Industry/ Indicator tion of Fish/ Water (swimming, Semi‐aquatic Energy/ Agriculture/ Groups Shellfish Supply boating, fish life Transporta‐ Forestry Ing) tion _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Biological Response Indicators (Level 6)

Macroinvertebrates X X X X Fish X X X X X Semi‐aquatic animals X X X X Pathogens X X X X Phytoplankton X X X X X Periphyton X Aquatic Plants X X X X X Zooplankton X X X X _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Chemical Exposure Indicators (Levels 4&5)

Water chemistry X X X X X X Odor/Taste X X X X Sediment Chemistry X X X X X X Tissue Chemistry X X X X Biochemical Markers _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Physical Habitat/Hydrological Indicators (Levels 3&4)

Hydrological Measures X X X X X X Temperature X X X X X X Geomorphology X X X X X X Riparian/Shoreline X X X X X Habitat Quality _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Watershed Scale Stressor Indicators (Levels 3,4,&5)

Land Use Patterns X X X X X X Human Alterations X X X X X Watershed Imperm. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Pollutant Loadings Indicators (Level 3)

Point Source Loads Nonpoint Loadings Spills/Other Releases _____________________________________________________________________________________________


7

levels that are related to classes of possible management objectives. The data for some of these indicators may be accessed later in the analysis and reporting phases of the assessment process. The approach emphasizes cost‐effectiveness by carefully allocating sampling resources and by scaling the intensity and complexity of the monitoring in accordance with the complexity of the setting and the management questions and issues that need to be resolved. Such an approach also allows for more flexible management responses that are attenuated by the information revealed about the environmental complexity of the setting, the inherent quality of the aquatic resource, and the potential pollution problems that might be encountered. Effective implementation of this process is enhanced through experience and knowledge gained by conducting monitoring and assessment for many years and over a wide geographical area.

Monitoring Networks and Design Adequate monitoring employs a stepwise approach to the selection and use of the variety of chemical, physical, and biological indicators and measures that are currently available. The decision(s) about which indicators and parameters to use are based on the type of aquatic resource being assessed (i.e., headwater stream, wadeable stream, non‐wadeable large river, lake or reservoir, wetland, etc.), the environmental complexity of the setting (includes consideration of all potential stressors), and the water quality management objectives and purposes that are at issue. For example, in a small, headwater stream with only one or two potential stressors, a the two biological organism groups may be assessed using a relatively rapid bioassessment protocol accompanied by a qualitative habitat assessment, and comparatively limited chemical water quality sampling analyzing for field, demand, and nutrient series parameters. A relative few (e.g., 2‐3) sampling sites would suffice and the field sampling would be completed in the matter of a few hours with one visit for biology and habitat and 1‐3 samples for chemical/physical parameters. The resulting assessment could be turned around in a matter of a few days if necessary. In more complex watershed settings with multiple management issues, multiple and complex stressors, and the potential for the discovery of unknown and undocumented sources, the cumulative sampling requirements are more intensive, but may include many of the preceding example within a watershed. In addition, the bioassessment protocols are tailored to the resource that now includes mainstem rivers and streams. The accompanying habitat assessment remains much the same, but chemical water quality sampling includes more intensive and frequent sampling for heavy metals, other selected toxics, and organic scans of both the water column and bottom sediments. Continuous monitoring of temperature and D.O. would also be included in complex settings. The density and distribution of sampling sites would be in proportion to the size of the watershed and would also consider the location and entry of potential stressors into the aquatic ecosystem. A systematic sampling effort spans a summer‐fall index period (mid‐June


8

through mid‐October), requiring many sampling days and multiple field crews to complete. Data analysis and reporting culminate in the production of a comprehensive assessment months after the sampling is completed. This ensures that the careful analysis of multiple indicators and assignments of causes and sources is performed in accordance with sound indicator practice and procedures.

Assessment of Monitoring Results Hierarchy of Environmental Indicators for Water A carefully conceived ambient monitoring approach, using cost‐effective indicators comprised of biological, chemical, and physical measures, can ensure that all relevant pollution sources are judged objectively on the basis of quantifiable environmental results. Such an approach simultaneously assures that indicators will be representative of the elements and processes of the five factors which determine water resource integrity (Figure 2; Karr et al. 1986). An

FlowRegime

High/LowExtremes

Pr ecip itation &Runoff

Veloci ty

Land Use

GroundWater

ChemicalVariables

BioticFactors

EnergySource

HabitatStructure

Hardness

Turbidity

pH

D.O.Temperature

Alka linitySolubi lities

Adsorption

Nutrients

Organ ics

Reproduction

DiseaseParasitism

Feeding

Predation

Competition

Nutr ien ts

Sunl ight

Organic MatterInputs 1 and 2

Production

o o

SeasonalCycles

RiparianVegetation

Si ltation

CurrentSubstra te

Sinuosi ty

Canopy

InstreamCover

Gradient

ChannelMorphology

Bank Stabi li ty

Width/Depth

INTEGRITY OF THEWATER RESOURCE

“Principal Goal of the Clean Water Act

The Five Major Factors Which Determine the Integrity of Aquatic Resources

Figure 2. The five major factors which determine the integrity of water resources (modified from Karr et al. 1986).


9

indicators hierarchy first developed by U.S. EPA (1995a,b) provides a hierarchical framework within which the use of environmental indicators should take place (Figure 3). It offers a structured approach to assure that management programs are evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted based on sound environmental feedback. A comprehensive ambient monitoring effort that includes indicators representative of the key variables within the five factors that determine the integrity of a water resource (Figure 2) is essential to successfully implementing a true environmental indicators based approach. A hierarchical approach is used in attempting to link the results of management actions as evaluated by the response of true environmental measures (Yoder and Rankin 1998). This integrated framework uses the continuum of indicators within the discipline of stress, exposure, and response. The original framework developed by U.S. EPA (1995a) includes six “levels” of indicators as follows:

Figure 3. Hierarchy of indicators for determining the effectiveness of water quality management and maintaining appropriate relationships and feedback loops between different classes of indicators (modified from U.S. EPA 1995a by Karr and Yoder 2004).


10

Level 1 ‐ actions taken by regulatory agencies (e.g., permitting, enforcement, grants); Level 2 ‐ responses by the regulated community (e.g., construction of treatment works,

pollution prevention); Level 3 ‐ changes in discharged quantities (e.g., pollutant loadings); Level 4 ‐ changes in ambient conditions (e.g., water quality, habitat); Level 5 ‐ changes in uptake and/or assimilation (e.g., tissue contamination, biomarkers,

assimilative capacity); and, Level 6 ‐ changes in health, ecology, or other effects (e.g., ecological condition,

pathogenicity). In this process the results of administrative activities (levels 1 and 2) are followed by changes in pollutant loadings and ambient water quality (levels 3, 4, and 5), all of which leads to measurable environmental “results” (level 6). The process is multi‐directional with the level 6 indicators providing direct feedback about the completeness, accuracy, and effectiveness of the management process through the preceding levels. While the U.S. EPA (1995a) hierarchy employs point source terminology, it has been shown to be adaptable to nonpoint sources (Karr and Yoder 2004) and environmental media other than surface waters. Superimposed on this hierarchy is the concept of stressor, exposure, and response indicators (Figure 3) similar to that developed by the U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP; U.S. EPA 1991) and later described for water quality management by Yoder and Rankin (1998). Stressor indicators are the result of actions that have the potential to impair the aquatic environment; these include pollutant discharges, land use changes, and habitat modifications (level 3). Exposure indicators are those which measure the apparent effects of stressors and include chemical water quality criteria, whole effluent toxicity tests, tissue residues, bacterial levels, and biomarkers, each of which provides evidence of biological exposure to a stressor or bioaccumulative agent (levels 4 and 5). Response indicators include biologically‐based measures of the cumulative effects of stress and exposure and include measures of biological community, assemblage, and population response (level 6). Other response indicators could include target assemblages (e.g., rare, threatened, endangered, special status, and declining species). All of these indicators represent the essential technical elements for watershed‐based monitoring and management approaches. The key is to use the different indicators within the roles that are most appropriate for each. Historically, this has not always been done and it represents a national issue ‐ the inappropriate use of stressor and exposure indicators as substitutes for response. Response indicators are inherently better at evaluating attainment of designated uses which are the basis of State water quality standards. An example is relying on biological assemblage measures to evaluate designated aquatic life uses in lieu of elevating chemical data into this role. Biological and Water Quality Surveys A biological and water quality survey, or “biosurvey”, is an interdisciplinary monitoring effort


11

coordinated on a water body specific or watershed scale. Biological, chemical, and physical monitoring and assessment techniques are employed in biosurveys to meet three major objectives:

1) determine the extent to which use designations assigned in the state Water Quality Standards (WQS) or equivalent policies or procedures are either attained or not attained;

2) determine if use designations and/or goals set for or assigned to a given water body are appropriate and attainable; and,

3) determine if any changes in key ambient biological, chemical, or physical indicators have taken place over time, particularly before and after the implementation of point source pollution controls or best management practices.

The data gathered in a biosurvey is processed, evaluated, and synthesized in one of several assessment reports or outputs. This can range from a comprehensive, integrated watershed report to summaries compiled for state 305(b) reporting and extended products (e.g., 303[d] list). Each assessment also addresses recommendations for revisions to WQS, future monitoring needs, problem discovery, or other actions which may be needed to resolve impairments of or threats to designated uses. While the principal focus of a biosurvey is on the status of aquatic life uses, the status of other uses such as recreation and water supply, as well as human health concerns may also be addressed. Functional support provided by individual basin assessments for specific water quality management activities includes the 305(b) reporting process, TMDLs/303(d) listing, revising water quality standards (i.e., use designations, criteria refinements and modifications), and NPDES permit support. Support is also provided for other management issues including site‐specific 404/401 reviews, 319 projects, and enforcement actions. A positive consequence of this type of sustained, routine, and standardized effort is a database and informational resource, which supports ongoing water quality management efforts in the aggregate. This includes the development of new and improved assessment tools, improved and refined criteria, indicators development and use, concepts, policies, and rules. The critical concept is that by doing the level of monitoring and assessment that is required by the rotating basin approach, the basic informational infrastructure needed to support the entirety of water quality management is in place when the need for such support is realized. This demonstrates how this type of sustained approach is inherently anticipatory. Anticipatory monitoring and assessment is essential to maintaining and improving the overall water quality management process.


12

Watershed Monitoring Design

A key issue within watershed assessment is the selection of spatial and temporal monitoring designs. It is now widely recognized that fixed station designs that were once the mainstay of State monitoring programs are simply insufficient to meet the previously stated program objectives. However, this is not to conclude that fixed stations do not have an appropriate role in a monitoring program. Simply stated, they are alone insufficient to support management decision‐making at the local watershed scale. Selecting information‐effective spatial monitoring designs is a critical step in the process of developing an adequate watershed monitoring program. A relatively new design that has recently been implemented in Ohio is termed the Geometric Site Selection process ‐ it is used as part of the statewide five‐year rotating basin approach (Ohio EPA 1999). This design is employed within watersheds that correspond to the 11‐14 digit HUC scale in order to fulfill multiple water quality management objectives in addition to the conventional focus on status assessment. It is employed at a spatial scale that is representative of the scale at which watershed management is generally being conducted. In the Midwestern U.S., most HUC 11 watersheds drain approximately 150‐300 mi2. Sites within a watershed of this size are allocated based on a geometric progression of drainage areas starting with the area at the mouth of the mainstem river or stream and working “upwards” through the various tributaries to the primary headwaters (Figure 4). This approach allocates sampling sites in a semi‐random fashion and according to the stratification of available stream and river sizes based on drainage area. It is then supplemented by a targeted selection of additional sampling sites that are used to focus on localized management issues such as point source discharges, habitat modifications, and other potential impacts within a watershed. This design also fosters data analysis that takes into consideration overlying natural and human caused influences within the streams of a watershed. The example in Figure 3 also demonstrates the multiple management issues that are supported including the proportionate assessment of the member streams and rivers, applying tiered designated uses for aquatic life, the development of TMDLs that include the inter‐relationships of both pollutant and non‐pollutant stressors, and the development of a comprehensive spatially representative database through time. Other benefits of this design include the application of cost‐effective sampling methods on a watershed scale, development of a stratified database, and the enhanced ability to capture previously unassessed streams. The design has been particularly useful for watersheds that are targeted for TMDL development in that unassessed waters and incomplete or outdated assessments can be addressed prior to TMDL development.

Analysis of Biological Assessment Options Selection of the appropriate biological assessment method is primarily driven by defining appropriate data quality objectives (DQOs), which are determined by the cumulative array of


13

management goals and objectives, and standards set by state or federal agencies. For the MSDGC watersheds these are defined by the applicable protocols published by the Ohio EPA (1987; 1989a,b; 2006). Secondly, the management issues, which occur in the study area are varied and complex. MSDGC is under a consent decree to develop implementation plans to

reduce wet weather discharges via combined sewer overflows (CSOs) to service are rivers and streams by 2 billion gallons by 2018. As such the goals for the MSDGC program are to:

Develop a comprehensive, systemic tool for tracking and sharing water quality data, including trends, conditions and opportunities; and,

Use an Integrated Prioritization System (IPS) tool for capital planning and environmental program opportunities for maximum benefit to align with water quality needs.

Figure 4. Geometric site selection design and outcomes used to assess small watersheds and assure equitable spatial coverage (Sugar Creek basin in northeast Ohio is shown here as an example).

Sugar Creek Subbasin: Example of Geometric Site Selection Process

• Used in TMDL development 5 year basin watersheds• Increased miles of assessed streams & rivers annually• Resolve undesignated streams• Close 305b/303d listing gaps• Generate broader database for development of improved tools• Part of 15 yr. TMDL development schedule beginning in 1998• Augmented by 5 -year basin approach process (1980-1997)• Standardized biological, chemical, physical tools and indicators


14

As such MSDGC will require data that meets the specification of the Ohio WQS as it will be used to assess current aquatic life and recreational use designations, to determine the extent and severity of impairments, and document incremental changes that result from management intervention and abatement actions. Data Quality Objectives Approach A data quality objectives (DQO) process is recommended for the selection of the appropriate biological assessment method and protocol for a given situations. Table 2 illustrates a hierarchy of bioassessment methods from very simple, comparatively low resolution protocols to increasingly rigorous and reliable techniques practicable for most bioassessment programs. The level of the bioassessment is comparably defined by the skill or expertise level required by the operator, the standard methodology associated with each (appropriate QA/QC procedures included), the relative accuracy of the method in terms of making an accurate assessment, the discriminatory power (i.e., the ability to detect real changes in biological condition), and how this should influence policy decisions made with the resulting data and information. This type of matrix allows program managers to evaluate the need for comparative rigor in environmental decision making with the level of effort required for a given bioassessment technique. This can be both a programmatic and individual study decision in that a monitoring and assessment program needs to have available the appropriate suite of tiered methods (calibrated and verified) available before deciding which ones to apply to a particular management issue. Table 3 illustrates these same concepts in a different manner by showing the relative capabilities of commonly available bioassessment methods to fulfill and/or satisfy various management needs. Designations of excellent, good, fair, and poor indicate the relative accuracy and power of the bioassessment method to provide an adequate, cost‐effective, and sufficiently comprehensive assessment for each of several common management needs. The appropriate level of assessment and data collection that is needed to support a given situation can be evaluated using these criteria.


15

Table 2. Hierarchy of ambient bioassessment approaches defined by Yoder (1995) that use information about indigenous aquatic biological communities (NOTE: this applies to aquatic life use attainment only).

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ BIOASSESSMENT SKILL ORGANISM TECHNICAL ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL DISCRIMINATORY POLICY TYPE/LEVEL REQUIRED

1 GROUPS

2 COMPONENTS

3 COMPLEXITY

4 ACCURACY

5 POWER

6 RESTRICTIONS

7 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Stream Walk Non‐biologist None Handbook

8 Simple Low Low Many

(Visual Obser‐ vations)

2. Volunteer Non‐biologist Inverte‐ Handbook

9, Low Low to Low Many

Monitoring to Technician brates Simple equipment Moderate 3. Professional Biologist w/ None or Historical Low to Low to Low Many

Opinion (e.g., experience Fish/Inverts. records Moderate Moderate RBP Protocol V)

4. RBP Proto‐ Biologist w/ Inverte‐ Tech. Manual,

10 Low Low to Low to Many

col I&II training brates Simple equip. to Moderate Moderate Moderate 5. Narrative Aquatic Biolo‐ Fish &/or Std. Methods, Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Evaluations gist w/training Inverts. Detailed taxonomy & experience Specialized equip.

6. Single Dimen‐ (same) (same) (same) Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

sion Indices 7. Biotic Indices (same) Inverte‐ (same) Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

(HBI, BCI, etc.) brates to High to High to Few 8. RBP Proto‐ (same) Fish & Tech. Manual,

10 High Moderate Moderate Few

cols III&V Inverts. Detailed taxonomy, to High to High Specialized equip., dual organism groups

9. Regional (same) Fish & Same plus baseline High High High Few

Reference Inverts. calibration of multi‐ Site Approach metric indices &

dual organism groups

10. Comprehen‐ (same) All Orga‐ Same except all Highest High High Few sive Bioassess‐ nism organism groups ment Groups are sampled

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1 Level of training and experience needed to accurately implement and use the bioassessment type. 2 Organism groups that are directly used and/or sampled; fish and macroinvertebrates are most commonly employed

in the midwest states. 3 Handbooks, technical manuals, taxonomic keys, and data requirements for each bioassessment type. 4 Refers to ecological dimensions inherent in the basic data that is routinely generated by the bioassessment type. 5 Refers to the ability of the ecological end‐points or indicators to differentiate conditions along a gradient of

environmental conditions. 6 The relative power of the data and information derived to discriminate between different and increasingly subtle

impacts. 7 Refers to the relationship of biosurveys to chemical‐specific, toxicological (i.e. bioassays), physical, and other

assessments and criteria that serve as surrogate indicators of aquatic life use attainment/non‐attainment. 8 Water Quality Indicators Guide: Surface Waters (Terrell and Perfetti 1989) 9 Ohio Scenic River Stream Quality Monitoring (Kopec and Lewis 1983). 10 U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (Plafkin et al. 1989).


16

MSDGC SERVICE AREA WATERSHED BIOASSESSMENT

The MSD of Greater Cincinnati intends to use the results and analysis of the monitoring and bioassessment program to accomplish the following:

1. Determine the status of service area rivers and streams in quantitative terms, i.e., not only if the waterbody is impaired but the spatial extent and severity of the impairment;

2. Evaluate the appropriateness of existing aquatic life and recreational uses designations and make recommendation for any changes to those designations;

3. Determine the proximate stressors that result in observed impairments for the purpose of targeting management actions to those stressors; and,

4. Develop an Integrated Prioritization System (IPS) following the example of the IPS developed for the DuPage River Salt Creek Working Group (DRSCWG; Miltner et al. 2010). This will produce a quantitative model that focus on parameters and stressors that will most likely result in improved aquatic resource condition and water quality. It will assist MSD in making decisions about how to prioritize abatement projects.

To meet these objectives the MSDGC will need to develop data generated by methods and implementation consistent with the Ohio Credible Data Law (ORC 6111.51).

Credible Data Requirements In order to accomplish two of the key planned uses of the data and subsequent analyses the data and information must be in conformance with the provisions of the Ohio Credible Data Law (ORC 6111.51). Under the regulations that govern the Credible Data program at Ohio EPA, data and analyses must be performed under the direction of Level 3 Qualified Data Collectors (OAC 3745‐4) for certain purposes. MSDGC wishes to use the data to evaluate the attainability of aquatic life and recreational uses and determine the status of rivers and streams. As such, the sampling and analysis conducted herein must conform to these provisions if MSDGC wishes to use the data and analyses in that manner.

Scope The MSDGC study area consists of eleven subwatersheds and the Ohio River mainstem (Table 3). The watersheds are impacted by a variety of activities including municipal and industrial point source discharges of wastewater, habitat modifications in the form of run‐of‐river low head dams, riparian encroachment, and channelization, and widely differing degrees of urbanization form rural to intensive urban development. The urban impact gradient is strongest in Lower and Middle Mill Creek lessening somewhat in the Little Miami and Great


17

Table 3. Subwatershed areas in the MSDGC service area with biological and habitat sampling (upper panel) and chemical (lower panel) site allocations for each of four years.


18

Miami River subwatersheds. CSOs are the most prominent in Mill Creek and adjacent Little Miami River tributaries and some have subsumed historical streams (Figure 5).

Combined Geometric and Targeted Design Sites

The delineation of recommended sampling locations of the MSDGC watershed bioassessment was developed following a stepwise process. Since the MSDGC service area is fairly rich in current and historical Ohio EPA biological and chemical and MSDGC chemical sampling locations we delineated those sites first in the GIS coverage for the 11 subwatersheds. This was followed by a geometric draw that was then merged with the existing Ohio EPA and MSDGC sites. A total of eight drainage “panels” were derived from the geometric draw starting at 164 mi2 and subsequently halving each reduction down to 1.0 mi2 (Figure 6). Overlapping sites were merged and generally included sites greater than 10 mi2 resulting in the first allocation of potential sampling sites (Figure 7). The geometric draw yielded the most unique “new” sites at

Figure 5. Major stressors in the MSDGC service area including industrial and municipal point sources, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and low head dams.


19

drainage areas less than 5‐10 mi2. The merged sites were then apportioned by each of the 11 subwatersheds in spreadsheets that include the site coordinates, Ohio EPA stream and basin code, Ohio EPA river mile, and our assignments of biological, chemical, and physical sampling

(Figure 7; Appendix A). From these allocations we then developed an estimate of effort and cost (Appendix B). Additional targeted sites will be added during the detailed study planning that immediately precedes each year of sampling in order to position sites upstream and downstream from major discharges and dams and to provide a “pollution profile” of each major mainstem stream or river. Hence an additional number of contingency sites were allocated to each subwatershed area (Table 4) to assure enough resources to cover issues that will be better delineated during the detailed study planning.

Indicators and Parameters

The allocation of indicators and parameters was done following the principles outlined

Figure 6. Geometric sites draw for the MSDGC service area.


20

previously for the adequate monitoring framework (see Figure 2 and Table 1). The biological, chemical, and physical indicators listed in Appendix A are grouped by category in keeping with the concept of core and supplemental parameters. Fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages are recommended as the two biological indicator groups that comprise the core biological indicators. These are accompanied by a qualitative habitat assessment tool (QHEI; Rankin 1989, 1995; Ohio EPA 2006) and field measured chemical/physical parameters at all sites. Demand and nutrient parameters are to be collected at all sites, but at varying frequencies based on the inherent risk of variation due to stream size and local area complexity. Common heavy metals are to be collected at the mainstem and tributary sites and upstream and downstream of

Figure 7. All sites and stressors for the MSDGC service area.

significant discharges and other major stressors. Organic scans are recommended for 1‐3 water column samples at selected sites listed in Appendix A. Sediment chemical analysis for heavy metals and an organic scan are recommended for mainstem sites, larger tributaries, and upstream and downstream from significant discharges and other potential stressors. As such


21

the recommended indicator, parameter, and frequency coverage is risk based, i.e., analytical costs are incurred when there is a reasonable expectation of measuring effects.

Biological Methods Biological sampling for fish and macroinvertebrate assemblage data should follow established protocols of the Ohio EPA (1989a). An important assumption of this plan is that an economy of effort will be achieved in the level 7, 8, and 9 sites due to their smaller size. We estimate that at least 4‐6 of these sites can be sampled each field day with the appropriate methods. Appendix A indicates what we have estimated are the appropriate sampling protocols or the two best candidates, i.e., non‐wadeable vs. wadeable, generator‐powered vs. back‐pack electrofishing methods, qualitative vs. semi‐quantitative macroinvertebrate methods, etc. The specifications for the different equipment and methods are described in Tables 4 and 5. The Study design team will need to demonstrate a grasp of these concepts and prove the ability to make the correct equipment selection decisions in the field. This will be assured by utilizing Level 3 Qualified data Collectors. Fish Methods Fish sampling methods should follow the specifications in Table 4 and defer to the most effective method given the important site characteristics. For example, one of the generator‐pulsator methods is preferred in nearly every situation over a back‐pack unit. Specifications restricting the use of back‐pack units to situations where they will offer equal relative effectiveness will be written into the project QAPP. In this case we are recommending the use of pulsed D.C. generator powered methods in lieu of the electric seine method commonly employed by Illinois DNR. The principal reason for this recommendation is crew size which directly relates to sampling costs. The IDNR electric seine requires a crew size of 6 and the methods recommended here require a maximum crew of 3. Data comparing the two methods will be available from the 2004‐5 National Wadeable Streams survey bioassessment methods comparability project in mid‐2006. The methods in Table 4 are single gear approaches that do not require supplemental seining or other secondary methods. The determination of which sampling method and gear to use is ultimately a field decision made by an experienced crew leader. The ability to make these types of decisions will need to be demonstrated by the contractor. Deference should be given to the most powerful method in making these choices. For example, a small wadeable stream sampling site that is more than two times the depth or five times the width of the net ring (anode) should be sampled with the 1750 W generator powered long line method as opposed to using a back pack electrofishing unit. It may be easier to sample with the less powerful method, but ease of access is not a primary criterion. Access with this type of equipment should not be an issue in this study area.


22

Table 4. Fish assemblage sampling method and gear specifications for the MSD service area

biological assessment by geometric site level. _______________________________________________________________________________ Site Levels1 Parameter Levels 8‐9 Levels 2‐6 Levels 1‐2 _______________________________________________________________________________ Waterbody Size2 <1.0‐5.0 mi2 5.0‐75 mi2 75‐150 mi2 Channel <0.3‐0.5m depth; 0.5‐1.0m depth; >1.0m depth; Dimensions:3 1‐2m width 2‐10m width 10‐100m width Platform: Backpack or Tow boat or 12’ boat Bank set/long line Bank set/long line Power Source:4 12v battery or 1750‐2500W 3500‐5000 W 300W alternator;5 alternator alternator 1750 W alternator6 Amperage Output: 1.5‐2A; 4‐8A 8‐20A 2‐4A Volts D.C. Output: 100‐200; 150‐300; 500‐1000 150‐300 300‐1000 Anode Location: Net ring Net ring Boom w/droppers; w/assist netters w/assist netters bow netter Sampling Direction: Upstream Upstream Downstream Distance Sampled: 0.10‐0.15km 0.15‐0.20km 0.5km CPUE Basis:7 per 0.3km per 0.3km per 1.0km Time Sampled 1800‐3600 sec 1800‐3600 sec 2500‐3500 sec Time of Sampling: Daylight Daylight Daylight Crew Size1 2‐3 3 3

1 Site levels described under Watershed Monitoring Design and described for each site in Tables 7‐9. 2 Watershed size upstream from the sampling site. 3 Size dimensions are approximate and may vary by site – these should not be used as primary criteria. 4 Wattage (W) is sustained output (not peak output). 5 Back pack units can be either battery or generator powered. 6 This is used with the long line sampling method. 7 Basis for determining relative abundance parameters.


23

Table 5. Macroinvertebrate assemblage sampling method and gear specifications for the MSD

service area biological assessment by geometric site level. _______________________________________________________________________________ Site Levels2 Parameter Levels 8‐9 Levels 7‐9 Levels 1‐6 _______________________________________________________________________________ Waterbody Size3 <1.0‐5.0 mi2 5.0‐75 mi2 75‐150 mi2 Channel <0.3‐0.5m depth; 0.5‐1.0m depth; >1.0m depth; Dimensions:4 1‐2m width 2‐10m width 10‐100m width Protocol: Qualitative Dip‐ Artificial Substrate Artificial Substrate Net, handpick or or Qualitative Dip‐ PHWH method Net, handpick Collection device: D‐frame dip net Modified Hester‐ Modified Hester‐ & Dendy sampler or Dendy sampler Dip net for PHWH D‐frame dip net Effort: 30 minutes and 6 weeks H‐D5 6 weeks H‐D >until no new taxa 30 minutes and >until no new taxa CPUE Basis:6 No. individuals No. individuals No. ind./site; per site per site No./m2 Subsample: Time based Proportioned; Proportioned Time based Taxonomic Resolution: Lowest Lowest Lowest Practicable practicable practicable Crew Size7 2 2 2 ______________________________________________________________________________

1 Crew consists of a qualified crew leader and field technicians. 2 Site levels described under Watershed Monitoring Design and described for each site in Appendix A. 3 Watershed size upstream from the sampling site. 4 Size dimensions are approximate and may vary by site – these should not be used as primary criteria. 5 Artificial substrates used in sites that are deeper and wider; used as primary method. 6 Basis for determining relative abundance parameters. 7 Crew consists of an OCDL L3 qualified crew leader and one field technician.


24

The choice between wadeable and non‐wadeable gear will necessarily be made in the field, but here also deference should be given to the more powerful boat‐mounted method. Sites with extended pools greater than 1 meter average depth will likely require a boat or raft platform. Where this type of approach has been employed, there is an area of overlap between boatable and wadeable methods where either can produce acceptable results. Navigability and accessibility issues may be a secondary determinant in this decision. Most fish will be field processed in the field therefore the crew leader will need to be a skilled taxonomist with experience with the fish fauna of the region, all of which comes with the OCDL Level 3 certification. The QAPP will outline specific field procedures for the retention of voucher specimens. In addition to the baseline relative abundance data (counts, biomass, and identifications) specified by the QAPP, the identification and enumeration of external anomalies will be also required per Ohio EPA (1989a). Determination of Sampleability In the smallest headwater streams, particularly the level 8 and 9 sites, the issue of “sampleability” will need to be addressed. Some of these streams will likely have intermittent or ephemeral flows during the summer‐fall index period. The guidelines to be followed for determining if a biological or chemical sample should be collected is simply based on the presence of sufficient water from which a sample can be collected. Sites with intermittent flows should be sampled provided there are pools of at least 20 cm depth. The established protocols should be followed for determining a sampling reach regardless of intermittency. For example, the fish sampling protocol calls for site reach lengths of 100‐150 meters. If flow at the site is intermittent, the dry areas between the intermittent pools should be included in the contiguous reach even though the dry areas would not be directly sampled. The same philosophy applies to the qualitative macroinvertebrate protocols as well. Macroinvertebrate Methods Macroinvertebrate sampling methods will follow Ohio EPA (1989a) methods and will be based on a preference for the modified Hester‐Dendy (HD) artificial substrate method as the preferred approach (Table 5). A qualitative dip net/hand pick method that includes a determination of relative abundance will be employed in lieu of HDs in the smaller wadeable streams (i.e., level 7, 8, and 9 sites). As stated in the fish methods section, we expect that some of the smallest sites will not be amenable to evaluation with the Ohio fish and macroinvertebrate assemblage protocols due to small size, a temporal fish assemblage, and a lack of sufficient water quantity and/or depth. In such instances the Ohio Primary Headwater Habitat methodology (Ohio EPA 2002) will be employed in lieu of the two assemblage approach just outlined. Appendix A list this as an alternate approach for sites <2.5 mi2. Preference will be given to sampling fish and macroinvertebrates, but if this is not applicable the PHWH


25

methodology will be employed. This determination will be made by the macroinvertebrate crew during the second half of the summer‐fall seasonal index period. Macroinvertebrate laboratory procedures will also follow Ohio EPA methods. For artificial substrates the laboratory processing includes the production of a sample by the disassembly and cleaning of the artificial substrates and subsampling procedures as followed by Ohio EPA. The qualitative dip net/hand pick samples will not require an initial laboratory reduction. Taxonomic resolution will be at the lowest practicable resolution for the common macroinvertebrate assemblage groups such as mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, midges, and crustaceans and in keeping with the practices of Ohio EPA. A reference collection will also need to be maintained by the contractor. Again, this will be done by a QDCL Level 3 certified macroinvertebrate taxonomist. Habitat Assessment The QHEI (Rankin 1989, 1995; Ohio EPA 2006) will be employed as it has been proven to be adequate for the stated purposes of this study. The protocol will need to be accomplished as part of the fish assemblage method in order to produce the data quantity required by the study design. This will be performed by the MBI fish crew leader who will be certified as an L3 OCDL habitat assessor. Water Quality Assessment All water quality samples will be collected as grabs during normal summer‐fall flow conditions. Because chemical/physical data is being used in a supporting role and as an exposure indicator, the statistical rigor needed to validate water quality criteria exceedences is reduced. The frequency and parameter requirements have been scaled to the risk or likelihood of detecting a particular substance or parameter. We have also reserved the ability to add other parameters not included in the core demand, nutrient, or heavy metal parameter groups in Appendix A. We also recommend that Datasondes be deployed in specific mainstem and tributary segments with suspected or known D.O. and nutrient enrichment issues. These should consist of multiple Datasondes deployed at the biological sites in a longitudinal “pollution survey” design to develop and understand the D.O. profile. The deployments should also be done during the lowest flow and highest temperature weeks of the study period which generally occur between mid‐July and early September. The segments and number of sites will be determined during detailed study planning. Reference Sites We recommend that least impacted reference sites be located both within and outside of the MSDGC service area for biological, habitat, and chemical/physical data. This may require the addition of as many as 6‐10 sites outside of the study area if insufficient analogs are available


26

within the service area. The first choice will be to locate existing Ohio EPA reference sites within the service area and immediately outside with respect to keeping similarities in ecoregions and subregions as a guiding principle.

LONG‐TERM MONITROING STRATEGY The DuPage‐Salt Creek also requested an outline for a long‐term monitoring strategy. This also included a request for information about resources and costs for implementing an in‐house approach. The following outlines a suggested process, schedule, and an estimate of the infrastructure that will be needed to support it.

Goals and Objectives for the MSDGC Watershed Assessment Program MSDGC has clearly expressed an interest in implementation a sustained watershed assessment approach. As such, the goals and objectives described previously are essentially the same. To meet that objective there will be a need to develop and maintain a capacity and infrastructure to generate data, manage information, and develop assessments. Maintaining adherence to OCDL Level 3 requirements should assure data and assessments that meet these objectives.

A Rotating Basin Approach Planning Process This plan establishes a systematic process by which each subwatershed will be assessed. By choosing to base the monitoring strategy on a subwatershed basis it is amenable to a rotating approach through time. That is expressed in Table 3 with the subwatersheds aggregated into a four‐year time frame. Within this approach there is flexibility in terms of which parts of each subwatershed are the subject of what kind of sampling, i.e., problem areas or “hot spots” identified by the baseline assessment could be followed up with specific types and designs of biological, chemical, and physical monitoring and assessment and other types of follow‐up investigations. The sequence of events within a given year from the initial screening of issues to detailed study planning through the production of a final assessment report is described in Table 6. This includes the major milestones and activities including the selection of specific subwatershed areas for monitoring, planning the monitoring activities, conducting the monitoring, data custody, data management, QA/QC, transformation of data into information, assessment and interpretation of the results, and the making of conclusions and recommendations via formal report. The major milestones are arranged sequentially and by major task. The process operates in a continuous cycle such that work will take place on as many as 2 or 3 different years of monitoring at any given time, i.e., while year 1 reports are being completed, year 2


27

Table 6. Important timelines and milestones in the planning and execution of annual monitoring and assessment for the MSDGC watershed assessment program.

__________________________________________________________________________________ Milestone Description of Activity __________________________________________________________________________________ November ‐ January: Screening of the major hydrologic areas takes place by soliciting input (Months 1‐3) from the various program offices. February ‐ April: Final prioritization of issues and definition of study areas. Resource (Months 4 thru 6) allocation takes place and study team assignments are made. May ‐ June: Study planning takes place and consists of detailed map reconnaissance, (Months 7 thru 8) review of historical monitoring efforts, and initial sampling site selection

by the study team. Final study plans are used to develop logistics for each field crew.

July ‐ October: Field sampling takes place with field crews operating somewhat (Months 9 thru 12) independently on a day‐to‐day basis, but coordinated by the study plan and team leader. Study team communication takes place as necessary, especially to resolve unexpected situations. October ‐ February: Laboratory sample analysis takes place for chemical and biological (Months 12 thru 16) parameters. Raw data is entered into relational databases for reduction

and analysis. The study team meets to review monitoring information and to coordinate the data analysis and reporting effort.

November ‐ May: Information about indicator levels 3‐6 is retrieved, compiled, and used (Months 13 thru 17) to produce analyses which will support the evaluation of status and trends and causal associations within the study area. Integration of the information is initiated. May ‐ July: The assessment process is completed by producing working (Months 17 thru 19) copies of the assessment for review by the study team and a final edit for internal review. Final assessment approved by work group for supporting 305b /303d, NPDES, water quality standards (e.g., use designation revisions), and other programs. __________________________________________________________________________________


28

planning is underway, etc. The process should be coordinated by the same personnel who develop the detailed plan of study and who also manage and oversee the reporting and analysis of the results. A written study plan, which delineates the study area boundaries, the scope and objectives, specific sampling locations, indicators, parameters, frequencies, and index sampling periods, is prepared for each subwatershed year. This plan serves as the blueprint for the data collection phase. Individual teams involved in the sampling are each responsible for assuring data quality, integrity, and adherence to chain‐of‐custody procedures. Data collected via this process is validated in accordance with an approved QAPP. The first year bioassessment will be conducted in the 3 Mill Creek subwatersheds. Following the general template and timeline outlined above a Gant chart that matches the tasks and subtask outlined in the detailed budget for year 1 (Appendix B) was developed (Figure 7).

Figure 8. Gant chart showing tasks and subtasks and timeline for duration and completion of each.


29

REFERENCES Cooly, J.L. 1976. Nonpoint pollution and water quality monitoring. J. Soil Water Cons., March‐

April: 42‐43. Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM). 1992. Ambient water

quality monitoring in the United States: first year review, evaluation, and recommendations. A report to the Office of Budget and Management, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. 26 pp. + appendices

ITFM (Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality). 1995. The strategy for

improving water‐quality monitoring in the United States. Final report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, Washington, D.C. + Appendices.

Karr, J.R. and C.O. Yoder. 2004. Biological assessment and criteria improve TMDL planning and

decision‐making. Journal of Environmental Engineering 130(6): 594‐604. Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing

biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5: 28 pp.

Kopec, J. and Lewis, S. 1983. Stream quality monitoring, Ohio Department of Natural

Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, Scenic Rivers Program, Columbus, Ohio, 20 pp.

Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI). 2003a. Establishing a biological assessment program at

the Miami Conservancy District. MBI Tech. Rept. 01‐03‐2. Columbus, OH. 26 pp. Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI). 2003b. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

five‐year monitoring strategy 2004‐2009. MBI Tech. Rept. 02‐07‐3. Columbus, OH. 41 pp. + appendices.

Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI). 2004. Region V state bioassessment and ambient

monitoring programs: initial evaluation and review. Report to U.S. EPA, Region V. Tech. Rept. MBI/01‐03‐1. 36 pp. + appendices (revised 2004).

Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI). 2006. Bioassessment Plan for the DuPage and Salt Creek

Watersheds, DuPage and Cook Counties, Illinois. Technical Report MBI/03‐06‐1. The Conservation Foundation, Naperville, IL. 45 pp. + appendices.


30

Miltner, R.J., R.M. Mueller, C.O. Yoder, and E.T. Rankin. 2011. Priority Rankings based on

Estimated Restorability for Stream Segments in the DuPage‐Salt Creek Watersheds. Technical Report MBI/2010‐11‐6. DuPage River Salt Creek Working Group, Naperville, IL. 64 pp.

National Research Council (NRC). 2001. Assessing the TMDL approach to water quality

management. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Methods for assessing habitat in flowing waters:

using the qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI). Division of Surface Water, Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, OH. 23 pp.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Ohio EPA Five Year Monitoring Surface Water

Monitoring and Assessment Strategy, 2000‐2004. Ohio EPA Tech. Bull. MAS/1999‐7‐2. Division of Surface Water, Monitoring and Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio’s Primary

Headwater Habitat Streams. Final Version 1.0. Division of Surface Water, Columbus, OH. 60 pp.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic

life. volume III: standardized biological field sampling and laboratory methods for assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Addendum to biological criteria for the

protection of aquatic life. volume II: users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters, Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic

life: volume II. users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio.

Plafkin, J. L. and others. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in rivers and streams:

benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/4‐89‐001. U.S. EPA. Washington, D.C.

MBI MSDGC M&A Bioassessment Plan May 23, 2011

Appendix A

Sites Allocations and Biological, Physical, and Chemical Indicators for Each of 11 Subwatersheds in the MSD Greater Cincinnati Service Area

Basin Stream River_Stream Name Lat Long RM SubWater Watershed_ SubType Bio Site Chem Site Ohio EPA Year(s) Near_Inter

23 001 Mill Creek 39.104400 ‐84.545000 0.30 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X 1992, 1997

23 001 Mill Creek 39.110000 ‐84.544700 0.70 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X 1997

23 001 Mill Creek 39.10068 ‐84.54382 0.05 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek MSDGC X X R.R. Trestle‐Queensgate

23 001 Mill Creek 39.144200 ‐84.547800 3.10 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X 1992, 1997

23 001 Mill Creek 39.14896 ‐84.54642 3.50 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek MSDGC X X Mill Creek Road

23 001 Mill Creek 39.15721 ‐84.53783 4.25 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek MSDGC X X Pipeline Walkway/Dooley Bypass


23 001 Mill Creek 39.16340 ‐84.51649 5.52 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek MSDGC X Clifton Avenue

23 001 Mill Creek 39.18328 ‐84.49855 7.45 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek MSDGC X R.R. Trestle Winton Place



23 001 Mill Creek 39.20146 ‐84.47118 10.00 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek MSDGC X X Anthony Wayne Avenue

23 004 West Fork Mill Creek 39.161400 ‐84.571900 2.50 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X X 1991

23 Congress Run 39.20663 ‐84.48324 0.2 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Caldwell Dr and Forestwood Dr in Hartwell Country Club

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.20762 ‐84.45658 0.3 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Sunnybrook Dr and Reading Road

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.18111 ‐84.48150 1.0 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Fishwick Dr and Tower Street, most likely dry

23 004 West Fork Mill Creek 39.163900 ‐84.572200 2.70 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X X 1991

23 004 West Fork Mill Creek 39.16866 ‐84.57540 3.0 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X West Fork Rd, Mount Airey Forest

23 Bold Face Creek 39.09419 ‐84.57677 0.1 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Off Delphi Rd/ Embshoff Naature Preserve

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.19815 ‐84.44881 0.4 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Elbrook Ave and Section Ave

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.19492 ‐84.43937 1.0 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Fair Oaks Drive and Section Dr

23 013 Trib to West Fk 39.162200 ‐84.573300 0.10 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X X 1991

23 Congress Run 39.21321 ‐84.48703 0.8 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Ronald Regan Highway and Ridgeway Rd

23 Unnamed Trib to Congress Run 39.20940 ‐84.47765 0.3 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X May St and Ridgeway Rd

23 Unnamed Trib 39.16301 ‐84.57755 0.3 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Diehl Rd, Mount Airey Forest

23 Unnamed Trib to BoldFace Creek 39.09734 ‐84.58265 0.5 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Off 3949 Delphi Rd

23 Unnamed Trib 39.15561 ‐84.56949 0.3 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Montana Rd and Baltimore Ave

23 004 West Fork Mill Creek 39.17717 ‐84.58726 3.5 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Kleeman Court and West Fork Dr

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.17898 ‐84.55632 0.3 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Glenview Rd and Kirby Ave

23 Bold Face Creek 39.09981 ‐84.58117 0.2 S. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Off Rosemont Ave/Breuning Park

28 24

Sites Summary:

Level 1 (>300 mi2):

Level 2 (164 mi2): 3

Level 3 (82 mi2): 7

Level 4 (42 mi2):

Level 5 (21 mi2):

Level 6 (10 mi2):

Level 7 (5.0 mi2): 7

Level 8 (2.5 mi2): 7

Level 9 (1.0 mi2): 4

Total Sites: 28

Mill Creek Lower Mill Creek & Tribs.

Sampler_Type Drain. Area Geo. Level Fish1 Macroinverts.2 Habitat3 Field Chem.4 Demand5 Nutrients6 Metals7 Organic8 Supplemental9 Sed. Metals10 Sed. Organics11

A 166 2 P HD QHEI

A 165 2 P HD QHEI

165 2 P HD QHEI Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐Weekly 3X Bact (Wkly) X X

D 155 3 P HD QHEI



D 136 3 P HD QHEI

132 Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐Weekly 3X Bact (Wkly) X X


D 126 3 D HD QHEI

D 124 3 D HD QHEI

115 3 D HD QHEI Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐Weekly 3X Bact (Wkly) X X

F 4.48 7 E,F QL QHEI 2X 2X 2X 2X 1X Bact (2X) X X

3.8 7 E,F QL QHEI 2X 2X 2X 2X 1X Bact (2X)



F 2.83 7 E,F QL QHEI 2X 2X 2X 2X 1X Bact (2X)



2.46 8 E,F QL/PH QHEI/HHEI 1X 1X 1X

1.76 8 F QL/PH QHEI/HHEI 1X 1X 1X

F 1.7 8 F QL/PH QHEI/HHEI 1X 1X 1X




1 8 F QL/PH QHEI/HHEI 1X 1X 1X





Fish:

P (2X) ‐ 7 3.5 days Weekly: 96 Biweekly: 48 3X: 18 Weekly: 96

D&E (2X) ‐ 3 2 days 2X: 14 2X: 14 1X: 7 2X: 14

E,F (1X) ‐ 18 4 days 1X: 11 Total: 62 Total: 25 Total: 110

Total: 121

Bugs:

HD ‐ 10

QL ‐ 7

QL/PH ‐ 11

Mill Creek Lower Mill Creek & Tribs.


23 001 Mill Creek 39.213300 ‐84.459400 12.20 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek OH EPA X X 1988

23 004 West Fork Mill Creek 39.213300 ‐84.458900 0.20 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek OH EPA X X 1992

23 004 West Fork Mill Creek 39.221700 ‐84.457500 1.10 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek OH EPA X 1988, 1992


23 004 West Fork Mill Creek 39.236400 ‐84.465800 3.10 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek OH EPA X 2002

23 004 West Fork Mill Creek 39.253800 ‐84.470600 4.50 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek OH EPA X X 1992, 2002




23 004 West Fork Mill Creek 39.22723 ‐84.57340 13.3 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X Neptune and Pipin Drive


23 Unnamed Trib to West Fork Mill Creek 39.24706 ‐84.55703 0.9 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X Hudeohol Ln, Beech Creek Golf Course

23 Unnamed Trib to West Fork Mill Creek 39.22793 ‐84.53403 3.4 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X Desoto Dr and Madeline Circle

23 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to West Fork Mill Cre 39.22417 ‐84.52770 0.8 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X Hempstead Dr and Monsanto Dr in Brentwood Park

23 Unnamed Trib to West Fork Mill Creek 39.27157 ‐84.55948 2.4 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X Hamilton and Roosevelt Ave

23 Unnamed Trib to West Fork Mill Creek 39.25187 ‐84.49708 0.5 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X At Lakeridge Rd bridge

23 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to West Fork Mill Cre 39.26588 ‐84.53443 0.2 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X Springdale Rd and Valley View Dr, Winton Woods

23 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to West Fork Mill Cre 39.24202 ‐84.57097 0.2 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X Ridgemoor and Tampico Dr

23 Unnamed Trib to West Fork Mill Creek 39.23854 ‐84.46729 0.1 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X Hwy 4 and Vale Ave

23 Unnamed Trib 39.27674 ‐84.51237 0.1 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X Embassy Dr and West Sharon Rd, Winton Woods

23 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to West Fork Mill Cre 39.21669 ‐84.53255 1.4 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X Daily Rd and West Galbraith Rd

23 Unnamed Trib to West Fork Mill Creek 39.24761 ‐84.58167 3.3 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X Deshler road from the west, and Mario Rd to the east

23 Unnamed Trib to W. Fk. Mill Cr. 39.21365 ‐84.57438 0.1 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X Clover Crest Dr and Pipen Rd

23 Unnamed Trib to West Fork Mill Creek 39.22654 ‐84.55500 4.7 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X LaBoiteaux and Park Ave

23 004 West Fork Mill Creek 39.20671 ‐84.56670 15.2 W. Branch Mill CreekMill Creek Geometric X X Goldway Dr and Banning Court ‐ most likely dry

24 20

Sites Summary:

Level 1 (>300 mi2):

Level 2 (164 mi2):

Level 3 (82 mi2): 1

Level 4 (42 mi2): 6

Level 5 (21 mi2):

Level 6 (10 mi2): 2

Level 7 (5.0 mi2): 2

Level 8 (2.5 mi2): 4

Level 9 (1.0 mi2): 9

Total Sites: 24

Mill Cr. W. Fork & Middle Mill Creek


D 73 3 D HD QHEI Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (Weekly) X X

E 36.4 4 E HD QHEI Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (Weekly) X X

D,E 36 4 E HD QHEI


E 34 4 E HD QHEI


D 30 4 E HD QHEI

D 10 6 E QL QHEI 4X 4X 4X 4X 1X Bact (4X) X X

D 5.3 6 E QL QHEI

4X 4X 4X 4X 1X Bact (4X) X X

D 3.5 7 E,F QL QHEI

2.67 7 E,F QL QHEI 2X 2X 2X 2X 1X Bact (2X) X X














Fish:

D&E (2X) ‐ 9 6 days Weekly: 64 Biweekly: 32 3X: 12 Weekly: 64

E,F (1X) ‐ 15 4 days 4X: 8 4X: 8 1X: 3 4X: 8

2X: 2 2X: 2 Total: 15 2X: 2

Bugs: 1X: 13 Total: 42 Total: 74

HD ‐ 7 Total: 87

QL ‐ 4

QL/PH ‐ 13

Mill Cr. W. Fork & Middle Mill Creek


23 001 Mill Creek 39.21198 ‐84.45465 11.30 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek MSDGC X Galbraith Road/Arlington Heights

23 001 Mill Creek 39.23114 ‐84.44448 12.88 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek MSDGC X Smalley Avenue/Reading

23 001 Mill Creek 39.229200 ‐84.446100 13.20 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X 1992

23 001 Mill Creek 39.246400 ‐84.428900 14.80 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X 1988, 1992, 1997, 2002

23 001 Mill Creek 39.25432 ‐84.42577 14.80 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek MSDGC X Glendale‐Milford Express Way

23 001 Mill Creek 39.26942 ‐84.43217 16.00 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek MSDGC X Sharon Road

23 001 Mill Creek 39.270000 ‐84.432200 16.60 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X 1995, 2009


23 001 Mill Creek 39.291100 ‐84.435300 18.10 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X 2009

23 001 Mill Creek 39.29936 ‐84.43434 18.20 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek MSDGC X East Crescentville Road

23 001 Mill Creek 39.31225 ‐84.43491 19.10 Mill Creek Mill Creek MSDGC X X Rialto Road (SE Butler County)


23 005 Sharon Creek 39.260000 ‐84.423300 0.20 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X X 1988, 1992

23 006 East Fork Mill Creek 39.298100 ‐84.429700 0.70 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X 2009

23 006 East Fork Mill Creek 39.29882 ‐84.42951 0.70 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek MSDGC X East Fork‐Crescentville Road

23 006 East Fork Mill Creek 39.289700 ‐84.432800 0.10 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X X 2003, 2002

23 006 East Fork Mill Creek 39.292200 ‐84.431100 0.30 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X X 2003, 1992, 1995, 1997, 2002

23 006 East Fork Mill Creek 39.291100 ‐84.431900 0.20 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X 2009

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.23377 ‐84.42014 1.0 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Hunt and Siebenthal Ave

23 005 Sharon Creek 39.28204 ‐84.38965 2.7 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Off Buckley Falls Dr in Sharon Woods

23 006 East Fork Mill Creek 39.32774 ‐84.41163 3.3 Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Nearest 9078 Cincinnati Dayton Rd

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.29491 ‐84.44781 0.8 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Chesterdale Blvd and Chesterwood Court

23 023 Beaver Creek 39.295600 ‐84.452800 1.00 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X X 1997

23 Unnamed Trib 39.28469 ‐84.42771 0.3 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X East Kemper and Mosteller Rd

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.27493 ‐84.43749 0.3 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Crowne Point Dr and East Sharon Dr, north on Dowlin Dr

23 006 East Fork Mill Creek 39.33354 ‐84.39095 7.7 Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Nearest 7000 Barret Rd

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.23703 ‐84.44004 0.1 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Smalley Rd and Cavett Rd

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.22240 ‐84.41585 1.8 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Nearest 1397 Fuhrman Rd

23 005 Sharon Creek 39.29201 ‐84.38536 3.6 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Fields Ertel Rd and Village Woods Dr, in Sharon Woods

23 Unnamed Trib to Sharon Creek 39.26685 ‐84.39326 1.4 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Creek Rd and Sharondale Rd

23 Unnamed Trib to East Fork Mill Creek 39.32135 ‐84.40918 0.7 Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Dimmick Rd of Cincinnati Dayton Rd

23 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.21864 ‐84.40951 0.4 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Ronald Regana Highway and Eldora Dr

23 005 Sharon Creek 39.296400 ‐84.378900 4.30 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X X 1988, 1991

23 010 Town Run 39.272200 ‐84.448900 1.00 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek OH EPA X X 2002

23 Unnamed Trib to East Fork Mill Creek 39.32339 ‐84.39500 1.6 Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Keehner Park off Barret Rd

23 Unnamed Trib to Sharon Creek 39.28267 ‐84.37741 0.6 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X East Kemper Dr and Reed Hartman Highway in Sharon Woods

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.25322 ‐84.43904 1.4 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Glendale Dr and Evendale Dr

23 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.22704 ‐84.41049 0.3 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Hunt and Waxwing Dr

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.28547 ‐84.47534 2.8 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Lawnview Ave and Olde Gate Dr

23 Unnamed Trib 39.28448 ‐84.41938 0.8 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Nearest 3196 East Kemper Rd

23 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.29320 ‐84.48802 0.2 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Glensprings and Rose Dr

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.27428 ‐84.45592 1.4 E. Branch Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Glendale and East Sharon Rd

23 Unnamed Trib to Mill Creek 39.31559 ‐84.48390 2.0 Mill Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Fairfield Business Center, Muhlauser Dr

37 34

Sites Summary:

Level 1 (>300 mi2):

Level 2 (164 mi2):

Level 3 (82 mi2): 6

Level 4 (42 mi2): 2

Level 5 (21 mi2): 2

Level 6 (10 mi2): 5

Level 7 (5.0 mi2): 9

Level 8 (2.5 mi2): 8

Level 9 (1.0 mi2): 7

Total Sites: 43

Mill Cr E. Fk. & Upper Mill Cr.


73.9 3 D HD QHEI Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (Weekly) X X

72.2 3 D HD QHEI Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (Weekly) X X

D 72 3 D HD QHEI

D 64 3 D HD QHEI

61.3 Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (Weekly) X X

50.5 Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (Weekly) X X

D 50 3 D HD QHEI

D 46 3 D HD QHEI

D 32.4 4 D,E HD QHEI

27 Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (Weekly) X X

26.5 4 D,E HD QHEI Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (Weekly) X X

D,E 20.8 5 E HD QHEI

E 10.5 5 E QL QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X

D 9.53 6 E QL QHEI

9.52 4X 4X 4X 4X 1X Bact (4X) X X

D 9.4 6 E QL QHEI 4X 4X 4X 4X 1X Bact (4X) X X

F,D,E 9.3 6 E QL QHEI 4X 4X 4X 4X 1X Bact (4X) X X

D 9.3 6 E QL QHEI


4.92 7 E,F QL QHEI



E 4.1 7 E,F QL QHEI 2X 2X 2X 2X 1X Bact (2X)










E 1.7 8 F QL/PH QHEI/HHEI 1X 1X 1X











Fish:

D&E (2X) ‐ 15 10 days Weekly: 96 Biweekly: 48 3X: 21 Weekly: 96

E,F (1X) ‐ 24 6 days Bi‐weekly: 8 4X: 12 1X: 8 6X: 6

4X: 12 2X: 10 Total: 29 4X: 12

Bugs: 2X: 10 Total: 70 2X: 10

HD ‐ 9 1X: 19 Total: 124

QL ‐ 11 Total: 145

QL/PH ‐ 19

Mill Cr E. Fk. & Upper Mill Cr.

Basin Stream River_Stream Name Lat Long RM SubWater Watershed_ SubType Bio Site Chem Site Date Near_Inter

23 007 Muddy Creek 39.13189 ‐84.70808 0.16 Muddy Creek Lower Great Miami MSDGC X X Route 50

23 007 Muddy Creek 39.123300 ‐84.678600 2.70 Muddy Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1991

23 007 Muddy Creek 39.12254 ‐84.68707 1.95 Muddy Creek Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Hillside Ave

23 007 Muddy Creek 39.135000 ‐84.651400 5.30 Muddy Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1991

23 008 Rapid Run 39.10310 ‐84.65902 0.8 Rapid Run Mill Creek Geometric Nearest 6316 Bender Rd

23 008 Rapid Run 39.102200 ‐84.654400 1.10 Rapid Run Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1991, 1994

23 007 Muddy Creek 39.13336 ‐84.63928 6.10 Muddy Creek Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Sidney Ave/Beech Grove

23 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to Muddy Creek 39.15149 ‐84.69523 0.8 Muddy Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Enter from Church Rd on west or Fairway Glen Dr on east

23 007 Muddy Creek 39.13569 ‐84.63596 6.2 Muddy Creek Mill Creek Geometric X Muddy Creek/Westbourne Dr

23 012 Wulff Run 39.101400 ‐84.640000 0.60 Rapid Run Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1991

23 007 Muddy Creek 39.14181 ‐84.63134 6.95 Muddy Creek Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Westbourne and Werk

23 007 Muddy Creek 39.14886 ‐84.63450 7.2 Muddy Creek Mill Creek Geometric X Off Andres Lane ‐ may be dry

23 019 Indian Creek 39.154400 ‐84.726400 1.20 North Bend Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1996

23 019 Indian Creek 39.156900 ‐84.726700 1.40 North Bend Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1996

23 012 Wulff Run 39.09395 ‐84.62820 1.3 Rapid Run Mill Creek Geometric X X Nearest 5500 Delphi Rd


23 Unnamed Trib 39.15705 ‐84.72369 1.5 North Bend Mill Creek Geometric X X Aston Golf Club, access at 51 Oaks Dr

23 019 Indian Creek 39.158300 ‐84.716700 1.80 North Bend Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1996

23 Unnamed Trib to Muddy Creek 39.14277 ‐84.69425 1.6 Muddy Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Deer Run Country Club, upstream Fiddlers Green Rd

23 Unnamed Trib to Muddy Creek 39.14106 ‐84.70992 0.6 Muddy Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Off Church Rd, behind Addyson Baptist Church

23 Unnamed Trib to Muddy Creek 39.14195 ‐84.64339 0.5 Muddy Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Werk and Qualhill

23 Unnamed Trib to Muddy Creek 39.12861 ‐84.68141 0.4 Muddy Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Nearest 1401 Van Blaricum


23 020 Trib to Indian Creek 39.150000 ‐84.725800 0.40 North Bend Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1996

23 020 Trib to Indian Creek 39.150600 ‐84.727500 0.30 North Bend Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1996

23 020 Trib to Indian Creek 39.151400 ‐84.729400 0.20 North Bend Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1996

23 008 Rapid Run 39.11617 ‐84.64694 2.6 Rapid Run Mill Creek Geometric X X Off Hickory Lake Dr ‐ most likely dry

23 Unnamed Trib to Muddy Creek 39.14256 ‐84.63479 6.8 Muddy Creek Mill Creek Geometric X X Andres Lane/Werk Rd

24 20

Sites Summary:

Level 1 (>300 mi2):

Level 2 (164 mi2):

Level 3 (82 mi2):

Level 4 (42 mi2):

Level 5 (21 mi2): 3

Level 6 (10 mi2): 4

Level 7 (5.0 mi2): 1

Level 8 (2.5 mi2): 10

Level 9 (1.0 mi2): 10

Total Sites: 24

Ohio River Muddy Creek & Rapid Run


16.6 5 E HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X

E 12.3 5 E HD QHEI

12.1 5 E HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X

E 6.7 6 E QL QHEI

5.99 6 E QL QHEI

E,F 5.8 6 E QL QHEI 2X 2X 2X 2X 1X Bact (2X) X X

5.41 6 E QL QHEI 2X 2X 2X 2X 1X Bact (2X) X X



E 2.2 8 E,F QL/PH QHEI/HHEI 1X 1X 1X



D 1.5 8 F QL/PH QHEI/HHEI 1X 1X 1X
















Fish:

A (2X) ‐ 0 Bi‐weekly: 16 Biweekly: 16 3X: 6 6X: 12

D&E (2X) ‐ 10 5 days 2X: 6 2X: 6 1X: 3 2X: 6

E,F (1X) ‐ 18 4.5 days 1X: 20 Total: 22 Total: 9 Total: 18

Total: 42

Bugs:

HD ‐ 3

QL ‐ 5

QL/PH ‐ 20

Ohio River Muddy Creek & Rapid Run


14 001 Great Miami River 39.120800 ‐84.818900 1.80 Dugan Gap Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1995

14 001 Great Miami River 39.15297 ‐84.79469 5.45 Dugan Gap Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Lawrenceburg Road/Elizabethtown

14 001 Great Miami River 39.131700 ‐84.804200 3.90 Dugan Gap Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1995, 2007


14 001 Great Miami River 39.151700 ‐84.796400 5.50 Dugan Gap Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 2007


14 001 Great Miami River 39.16987 ‐84.75845 8.40 Hooven Cleves Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Route 50 and 128/Hooven

14 001 Great Miami River 39.163600 ‐84.773600 7.20 Hooven‐Cleves Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 2007

14 001 Great Miami River 39.166100 ‐84.760600 8.20 Hooven‐Cleves Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1989, 2010, 2007


14 001 Great Miami River 39.186100 ‐84.749400 11.40 Hooven‐Cleves Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1995


14 003 Jordan Creek 39.17812 ‐84.73347 0.8 Hooven‐Cleves Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Off Jordan Street, Mitchell Forest

Unnamed Trib to the Great Miami River 39.20729 ‐84.74165 0.4 Hooven‐Cleves Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Nearest 5217 Hamiliton Cleves Pike

Unnamed Trib to the Great Miami River 39.13040 ‐84.80102 0.1 Dugan Gap Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Nearest 10656 Lawrenceburg Rd ‐ Hamilton Cty Park ‐ boat ramp?

Unnamed Trib to the Great Miami River 39.15873 ‐84.76107 0.2 Hooven‐Cleves Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Off Miami View Rd/ Gulf Community Park

Unnamed Trib to the Whitewater River 39.16387 ‐84.79318 0.4 Dugan Gap Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Off US 50

Unnamed Trib to the Great Miami River 39.13707 ‐84.79653 0.7 Dugan Gap Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Nearest 10656 Lawrenceburg Rd ‐ Hamilton Cty Park

14 003 Jordan Creek 39.18161 ‐84.71778 2.0 Hooven‐Cleves Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Behind private residence, access at 8658 Jordan Rd

Unnamed Trib to the Great Miami River 39.16649 ‐84.75016 0.4 Hooven‐Cleves Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Off Morgan St

14 182 Trib. to GMR 39.201700 ‐84.720000 0.40 Hooven‐Cleves Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 2000

19 11

Sites Summary:

Level 1 (>300 mi2): 12

Level 2 (164 mi2):

Level 3 (82 mi2):

Level 4 (42 mi2):

Level 5 (21 mi2):

Level 6 (10 mi2):

Level 7 (5.0 mi2):

Level 8 (2.5 mi2): 6

Level 9 (1.0 mi2): 3

Total Sites: 19

Lower GMR Lower GMR & Hooven Cleves


A 5370 1 A HD QHEI

5360 1 A HD QHEI Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐Weekly 3X Bact (Wkly) X X

A 5357 1 A HD QHEI

A 5356 1 A HD QHEI

P 5356 1 A HD QHEI

A 5356 1 A HD QHEI


A 3880 1 A HD QHEI

A,P 3879 1 A HD QHEI

A 3872 1 A HD QHEI

A 3872 1 A HD QHEI

A 3865 1 A HD QHEI










Fish:

A (2X) ‐ 12 8 days Weekly: 32 Biweekly: 16 3X: 6 Weekly: 32

D&E (2X) ‐ 0 0 days 1X: 9

E,F (1X) ‐ 9 2.5 days Total: 41 Total: 16 Total: 6 Total: 32

Bugs:

HD ‐ 12

QL ‐ 0

QL/PH ‐ 9

Lower GMR Lower GMR & Hooven Cleves

Basin Stream River_Stream Name Lat Long RM SubWater Watershed_ SubType Bio Site Chem Site Date Near_Inter

14 300 Whitewater River 39.173600 ‐84.790300 0.80 Harrison Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1995

14 300 Whitewater River 39.16661 ‐84.78774 0.17 Harrison Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Route 50

14 300 Whitewater River 39.18314 ‐84.79268 1.52 Harrison Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Suspension Bridge Road


14 300 Whitewater River 39.225600 ‐84.790000 5.40 Harrison Lower Great Miami OH EPA 1989


14 300 Whitewater River 39.24877 ‐84.82014 8.30 Harrison Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Jamison Road Bridge

14 300 Whitewater River 39.239200 ‐84.806700 7.20 Harrison Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1989, 1995, 1996

14 300 Whitewater River 39.27214 ‐84.81489 7.9 Harrison Lower Great Miami Geometric Downstream of I‐74, Brooks Rd

14 300 Whitewater River 39.245600 ‐84.810800 7.70 Harrison Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1995, 1996, 1997

14 302 Dry Fk. Whitewater R 39.193300 ‐84.781900 0.50 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1996

14 302 Dry Fk. Whitewater R 39.19341 ‐84.77930 0.52 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Kilby Ave

14 302 Dry Fk. Whitewater R 39.234200 ‐84.763100 4.40 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1996

14 302 Dry Fk. Whitewater R 39.23774 ‐84.76579 4.32 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Harrison Ave

14 302 Dry Fk. Whitewater R 39.26600 ‐84.74854 6.95 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami MSDGC X X Mt. Hope

14 302 Dry Fk. Whitewater R 39.282800 ‐84.729700 9.00 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1996

14 302 Dry Fk. Whitewater R 39.29637 ‐84.73072 9.98 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Atherton Ave

14 307 Jameson Creek 39.23760 ‐84.81004 0.3 Harrison Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Behind residence at 9173 Lawrence Rd

14 307 Jameson Creek 39.24397 ‐84.82011 1.0 Harrison Lower Great Miami Geometric X X At Lawrence Rd

14 303 Lee Creek 39.30081 ‐84.79531 4.6 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Lees Creek Rd and New Biddinger Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Dry Fork Whitewater River 39.25998 ‐84.74679 0.3 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Downstream Harbor Ridge Rd bridge

14 304 Howard Creek 39.30456 ‐84.76247 2.9 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Downstream Howard Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Dry Fork Whitewater River 39.24529 ‐84.72828 1.8 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Upstream Strimple Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Sand Run 39.18274 ‐84.80660 0.1 Harrison Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Unknonn subdivision off 11166 Sand Run Rd

14 Unnamed Trib 39.26675 ‐84.77766 1.0 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Off Baughman Rd in Circling Hills Golf Course

14 Unnamed Trib to Dry Fork Whitewater River 39.27587 ‐84.75923 1.4 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami Geometric X X At Baughman Rd bridge

14 301 Sand Run 39.18787 ‐84.80995 2.4 Harrison Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Behind residence at 1117 Sand Run Rd

14 Unnamed Trib 39.26950 ‐84.77572 1.0 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Access from Starspray Dr west or Sugardale St on east

14 Unnamed Trib 39.27763 ‐84.72790 0.1 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Behind residence immed north of New Haven Rd

14 Fox Run 39.19083 ‐84.79695 0.2 Harrison Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Behind residence at 5156 Lawrenceburg Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Lee Creek 39.30056 ‐84.78613 0.4 Dry Fork Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Bridge at Lees Creek Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Whitewater River 39.19972 ‐84.79728 0.4 Harrison Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Off residence access road to 5611 Lawrenceberg Rd

24 24

Sites Summary:

Level 1 (>300 mi2): 10

Level 2 (164 mi2):

Level 3 (82 mi2): 7

Level 4 (42 mi2):

Level 5 (21 mi2):

Level 6 (10 mi2): 2

Level 7 (5.0 mi2): 3

Level 8 (2.5 mi2): 5

Level 9 (1.0 mi2): 5

Total Sites: 24

Lower GMR Whitewater River & Dry Fork


A 1483 1 A HD QHEI



A 1382 1 A HD QHEI

A 1381 1 A HD QHEI

A 1370 1 A HD QHEI


A 1370 1 A HD QHEI Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐Weekly 3X Bact (Wkly) X X

1369 1 A HD QHEI

A 1369 1 A HD QHEI

D 82 3 D HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X

81.5 3 D HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X

D 79 3 D HD QHEI



D 50 3 D HD QHEI

















Fish:


D&E (2X) ‐ 12 6 days Bi‐weekly: 40 2X: 10 1X: 5 6X: 30

E,F (1X) ‐ 10 2.5 days 2X: 10 Total: 82 Total: 32 2X: 10

1X: 10 Total: 104

Bugs: Total: 124

HD ‐ 17

QL ‐ 5

QL/PH ‐ 10

Lower GMR Whitewater River & Dry Fork

Basin Stream River_Stream Name Lat Long RM SubWater Watershed_ SubType Bio Sites Chem Sites Ohio EPA Year(s) Near_Inter

14 001 Great Miami River 39.247200 ‐84.706400 18.70 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 2007

14 001 Great Miami River 39.242500 ‐84.717500 18.20 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1980, 2007

14 001 Great Miami River 39.263300 ‐84.693900 20.00 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1995, 2010, 2007

14 001 Great Miami River 39.26320 ‐84.66767 21.30 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Blue Rock Road/New Baltimore


14 001 Great Miami River 39.285600 ‐84.654400 23.40 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1989, 1995, 2010



14 001 Great Miami River 39.30349 ‐84.64292 26.14 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Colerain Road/Ross

14 005 Paddys Run 39.266400 ‐84.690000 0.20 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1995

14 005 Paddys Run 39.296400 ‐84.698100 2.80 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1995

14 006 Bluerock Creek 39.256400 ‐84.662800 0.50 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1990

14 012 Banklick Creek 39.29466 ‐84.59263 2.7 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Bank Rd/West Kemper

14 Unnamed Trib to Blue Rock Creek 39.24656 ‐84.61624 2.1 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Off Sheits Road, Newberry Wildlife Sanctuary

14 008 Dunlap Run 39.28992 ‐84.63967 0.8 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Dunlap and Gosling Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Banklick Creek 39.28986 ‐84.59412 0.2 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Bank and Hughes Rd

14 007 Owl Creek 39.27251 ‐84.64184 1.0 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Nearest 6237 Day Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Pleasant Run 39.30469 ‐84.55809 0.4 Pleasent Run Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Brookway Dr and West Kemper Dr north into subdivision

14 Unnamed Trib to Pleasant Run 39.30357 ‐84.53362 2.2 Pleasent Run Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Forester Dr and Pleasant Run Dr into subdivision

14 012 Banklick Creek 39.29002 ‐84.58992 3.1 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Crest and Bank Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to the Great Miami River 39.30588 ‐84.63565 0.3 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Colerain Ave and East Miami River Road

14 Unnamed Trib to the Great Miami River 39.25255 ‐84.70774 0.4 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Downstream Hamiliton Cleves Rd, gravel pit ‐ prob dry

14 Unnamed Trib to Paddy's Run 39.28843 ‐84.69556 0.2 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X At Paddy's Run bridge

14 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to Blue Rock Creek 39.25104 ‐84.60703 0.2 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Frontage rd to I‐275, behind Meier

14 013 Pleasant Run 39.30312 ‐84.55539 5.6 Pleasent Run Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Brookway Dr and West Kemper Dr north into subdivision

14 006 Bluerock Creek 39.23840 ‐84.64224 2.2 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Nearest 6102 Blue Rock Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Banklick Creek 39.29775 ‐84.59146 0.3 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Bank Rd/West Kemper

14 Unnamed Trib to Paddy's Run 39.27381 ‐84.68615 0.2 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Downstream New Haven Rd/Hwy 128

14 Unnamed Trib to Paddy's Run 39.29058 ‐84.68890 0.2 New Baltimore Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Within unknown facility off 7200 Wiley Rd

27 22

Sites Summary:

Level 1 (>300 mi2): 9

Level 2 (164 mi2):

Level 3 (82 mi2):

Level 4 (42 mi2):

Level 5 (21 mi2): 2

Level 6 (10 mi2): 1

Level 7 (5.0 mi2): 1

Level 8 (2.5 mi2): 10

Level 9 (1.0 mi2): 6

Total Sites: 27

Lower GMR Upper GMR & New Baltimore


P 3834 1 A HD QHEI

A 3834 1 A HD QHEI

A 3831 1 A HD QHEI


A 3814 1 A HD QHEI

A 3796 1 A HD QHEI

A 3793 1 A HD QHEI

A 3793 1 A HD QHEI


E 16 5 E HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X

E 11 5 E HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X



















Fish:



E,F (1X) ‐ 16 4 days 2X: 4 Total: 36 Total: 14 2X: 4

1X: 16 Total: 48

Bugs: Total: 68

HD ‐ 11

QL ‐ 2

QL/PH ‐ 16

Lower GMR Upper GMR & New Baltimore

Basin Stream River_Stream Name Lat Long RM SubWater Watershed_ SubType Bio Sites Chem Sites Ohio EPA Year(s) Near_Inter

14 001 Great Miami River 39.214900 ‐84.703000 15.40 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 2010

14 001 Great Miami River 39.21629 ‐84.70358 15.34 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami MSDGC X Harrison Road/Miamitown

14 001 Great Miami River 39.232800 ‐84.703300 16.90 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1995

14 001 Great Miami River 39.233600 ‐84.702200 17.10 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1980, 2007

14 004 Taylor Creek 39.216400 ‐84.686100 0.80 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 2010

14 004 Taylor Creek 39.212200 ‐84.676100 1.60 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1990, 1991, 2010

14 149 Wesselman Creek 39.211100 ‐84.684200 0.40 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 2010

14 148 Briarly Creek 39.200900 ‐84.659500 0.20 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 2010

14 148 Briarly Creek 39.208300 ‐84.651900 1.30 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1990, 1991

14 South Fork Taylors Creek 39.18070 ‐84.68575 2.9 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X South of Wessel Rd

14 004 Taylor Creek 39.198300 ‐84.660800 3.40 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X 1991

14 004 Taylor Creek 39.19827 ‐84.65897 3.3 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X Johnson and Sheed Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Briarly Creek 39.20676 ‐84.64856 0.1 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Sheed anad Brierly Creek

14 149 Wesselman Creek 39.180500 ‐84.682100 3.00 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 2010

14 150 Steel Creek 39.210300 ‐84.645000 0.40 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1991

14 150 Steel Creek 39.209700 ‐84.639700 1.00 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1988

14 004 Taylor Creek 39.188900 ‐84.642500 4.60 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1988

14 Unnamed Trib to South Fork Taylors Creek 39.17979 ‐84.67961 0.2 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Off Wesselman Rd

14 004 Taylor Creek 39.18558 ‐84.63928 4.8 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Nearest 6176 Johnson Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Briarly Creek 39.21492 ‐84.63083 1.8 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Dennler and Sheed

14 148 Briarly Creek 39.202500 ‐84.645000 1.80 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1990

14 Unnamed Trib to Taylor Creek 39.21733 ‐84.67269 0.3 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Forfeit Run Rd/ Harrison Rd, Nearest 8701 Forfeit Run Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Briarly Creek 39.22046 ‐84.62561 2.3 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Desert Gold Dr and Sheed Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to Briarly Creek 39.20943 ‐84.62759 0.4 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Nearest 5547 Hubb Rd

14 004 Taylor Creek 39.17552 ‐84.62545 6.2 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Race and Reemlin, nearest 4217 Reemlin Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Taylor Creek 39.18638 ‐84.63401 0.3 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Behind residences at 5208 Haft Rd

14 South Fork Taylors Creek 39.16713 ‐84.67499 4.1 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Hillview and Wesserman Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Taylor Creek 39.21140 ‐84.66841 0.4 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Harrison and Mullen Rd, nearest 6936 Mullen Rd

14 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to Briarly Creek 39.21535 ‐84.62528 0.1 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Hanley Rd/ Squirrel Creek Lane

14 Unnamed Trib to South Fork Taylors Creek 39.17651 ‐84.64684 1.1 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Behind businesses off Clearwater Place, subdiv off Nathanial Glen Dr

14 Unnamed Trib to Taylor Creek 39.22177 ‐84.68437 0.4 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Eagle Creek and Harrison Rd

14 148 Briarly Creek 39.19610 ‐84.61870 3.5 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X Nearest residence at 5756 Farhaven Dr

14 164 Trib. to Steel Creek 39.235000 ‐84.613300 0.30 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami OH EPA X X 1988

14 Unnamed Trib to the Great Miami River 39.24344 ‐84.67862 1.7 Taylor Creek Lower Great Miami Geometric X X West of Thompson Rd

32 30

Sites Summary:

Level 1 (>300 mi2): 3

Level 2 (164 mi2):

Level 3 (82 mi2):

Level 4 (42 mi2): 1

Level 5 (21 mi2): 1

Level 6 (10 mi2): 3

Level 7 (5.0 mi2): 7

Level 8 (2.5 mi2): 8

Level 9 (1.0 mi2): 9

Total Sites: 32

Lower GMR Taylor Creek


A 3840 1 A HD QHEI


A 3836 1 A HD QHEI

A 3835 1 A HD QHEI

D 26.5 4 E HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X

D,E 14.3 5 E HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X

E 7.6 6 E QL QHEI 2X 2X 2X 2X 1X Bact (2X) X X




E 5 7 E QL QHEI
























Fish:

A (2X) ‐ 4 1 day Weekly: 16 Biweekly: 24 3X: 9 Weekly: 16

D&E (2X) ‐ 13 4.5 days Bi‐weekly: 16 2X: 10 1X: 10 6X: 12

E,F (1X) ‐ 17 4 days 2X: 20 Total: 44 Total: 19 2X: 20

1X: 17 Total: 86

Bugs: Total: 69

HD ‐ 6

QL ‐ 11

QL/PH ‐ 17

Lower GMR Taylor Creek

Basin Stream River_Stream Name Lat Long RM SubWater Watershed_ SubType Bio Site Chem site Ohio EPA Year(s) Near_Inter

11 001 Little Miami River 39.08551 ‐84.42150 1.10 California Little Great Miami MSDGC X Kellog Ave

11 001 Little Miami River 39.085300 ‐84.419700 1.60 California Little Great Miami OH EPA X 1983, 1993, 2007

11 001 Little Miami River 39.109700 ‐84.400800 3.70 California Little Great Miami OH EPA X 1998, 2007

11 001 Little Miami River 39.108900 ‐84.401700 3.50 California Little Great Miami OH EPA 1993, 1998, 2007

11 001 Little Miami River 39.104700 ‐84.408900 3.00 California Little Great Miami OH EPA X 2007

11 001 Little Miami River 39.10923 ‐84.40176 3.32 California Little Great Miami MSDGC X Beechmont Levy

11 001 Little Miami River 39.15268 ‐84.30007 11.60 Dry Run Little Great Miami MSDGC X X East Fork‐S. Milford and Round Bottom

11 002 Clough Creek 39.106300 ‐84.397200 0.40 California Little Great Miami OH EPA X X 2007

11 Five Mile Creek 39.04561 ‐84.38944 0.1 Five Mile Creek Twelve Mile Creek Geometric X X Downstream Rd to US 52

11 005 Dry Run 39.12536 ‐84.33018 2.5 Dry Run Little Great Miami Geometric X X Batavia and Dry Run Rd

11 005 Dry Run 39.105600 ‐84.318900 4.20 Dry Run Little Great Miami OH EPA X X 1991

11 Five Mile Creek 39.05584 ‐84.35951 2.4 Five Mile Creek Twelve Mile Creek Geometric X X Markley and Five Mile Rd

11 002 Clough Creek 39.093600 ‐84.365000 3.20 Clough Little Great Miami OH EPA X X 1991

11 Unnamed Trib to McCullough Run 39.12039 ‐84.38135 0.1 Newton Little Great Miami Geometric X X Batavia and Webb Rd, nearest 5501 Batavia

11 Unnamed Trib 39.07730 ‐84.42499 0.1 California Little Great Miami Geometric X X Nearest 4609 Kellogg Ave

11 Four Mile Creek 39.05619 ‐84.39932 0.8 Four Mile Creek Twelve Mile Creek Geometric X X At Four Mile Run Road

11 Trib to Eight Mile Creek 39.04650 ‐84.33451 0.2 Eight Mile Creek Twelve Mile Creek Geometric X X Upstream Eight Mile Rd

11 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to Clough Creek 39.08642 ‐84.37224 0.1 Clough Little Great Miami Geometric X X Berkshire Club Dr and Berkshire Rd

11 Unnamed Trib to Dry Run 39.10372 ‐84.32151 4.4 Dry Run Little Great Miami Geometric X X Nearest 2401 8 Mile Rd

11 Unnamed Trib to Clough Creek 39.08308 ‐84.36685 1.0 Clough Little Great Miami Geometric X X Paddison Road/ Robinway Dr

11 003 McCullough Run 39.11569 ‐84.35971 2.5 Newton Little Great Miami Geometric X X Church Rd and Ragland Rd, 7031 Ragland Rd

11 Eight Mile Creek 39.05486 ‐84.31888 2.0 Eight Mile Creek Twelve Mile Creek Geometric X X Eight Mile and Greenleaf (to deadend of Greenleaf)

11 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to Clough Creek 39.08134 ‐84.36787 0.1 Clough Little Great Miami Geometric X X Paddison Road/ Robinway Dr

20 19

Sites Summary:

Level 1 (>300 mi2): 7

Level 2 (164 mi2):

Level 3 (82 mi2):

Level 4 (42 mi2):

Level 5 (21 mi2):

Level 6 (10 mi2): 1

Level 7 (5.0 mi2): 3

Level 8 (2.5 mi2): 7

Level 9 (1.0 mi2): 5

Total Sites: 20

LMR Clough Creek & Ohio R. Tribs.



A 1754 1 A HD QHEI

A 1752 1 A HD QHEI

A 1752 1 A HD QHEI

A 1752 1 A HD QHEI






F 2.9 7 E,F QL QHEI 2X 2X 2X 2X 1X Bact (2X) X X


F 2.1 8 E,F QL/PH QHEI/HHEI 1X 1X 1X











Fish:



E,F (1X) ‐ 10 2.5 days 1X: 12 Total: 32 Total: 13 Total: 56

Total: 68 Total: 56

Bugs:

HD ‐ 7

QL ‐ 4

QL/PH ‐ 12

LMR Clough Creek & Ohio R. Tribs.

Basin Stream River_Stream Name Lat Long RM SubWater Watershed_ SubType Bio Site Chem Site Ohio EPA Year(s) Near_Inter Sampler_Type Drain. Area

11 001 Little Miami River 39.13896 ‐84.37478 6.83 Indian Hill Little Great Miami MSDGC X X R.R. Trestle/Mariemont 1720

11 001 Little Miami River 39.136700 ‐84.351900 8.20 Indian Hill Little Great Miami OH EPA X 2007, 2008 A 1710

11 001 Little Miami River 39.13705 ‐84.35304 8.15 Indian Hill Liltle Great Miami MSDGC X Newton Road/Bass Island

11 001 Little Miami River 39.150000 ‐84.313300 10.90 Indian Hill Little Great Miami OH EPA X 1998 A 1707

11 001 Little Miami River 39.172500 ‐84.298600 13.10 Indian Hill Little Great Miami OH EPA X 1983, 2007, 2008 A 1203

11 001 Little Miami River 39.180600 ‐84.290600 13.30 Indian Hill Little Great Miami OH EPA 1993 A 1200

11 001 Little Miami River 39.177500 ‐84.296100 13.50 Indian Hill Little Great Miami OH EPA X 1998 1199

11 001 Little Miami River 39.21089 ‐84.31201 18.40 Indian Hill Liltle Great Miami MSDGC X Camargo Road


11 001 Little Miami River 39.21081 ‐84.29334 17.41 Indian Hill Liltle Great Miami MSDGC X Glendale‐Milford


11 001 Little Miami River 39.213100 ‐84.313600 18.50 Indian Hill Little Great Miami OH EPA X 1983, 1993, 1998 A 1187

11 004 Duck Creek 39.117300 ‐84.408100 3.40 Duck Creek Little Great Miami OH EPA X 2007 E 15.2


11 004 Duck Creek 39.12055 ‐84.40970 0.80 Duck Creek Liltle Great Miami MSDGC X Little Miami River Park

11 004 Duck Creek 39.121400 ‐84.410600 0.70 Duck Creek Little Great Miami OH EPA X 1983 D 14.7


11 004 Duck Creek 39.14062 ‐84.40438 2.45 Duck Creek Little Great Miami MSDGC X Red Bank Road

11 004 Duck Creek 39.143300 ‐84.404700 2.80 Duck Creek Little Great Miami OH EPA X 1994 F 11.6

11 004 Duck Creek 39.15633 ‐84.40772 3.9 Duck Creek Little Great Miami Geometric X Eerie and Rosslyn Dr, north on access 9.56

11 004 Duck Creek 39.16037 ‐84.41668 4.58 Duck Creek Little Great Miami MSDGC X Steel Place

11 005 Dry Run 39.13643 ‐84.35547 0.5 Indian Hill Little Great Miami Geometric X X Turtleview and Newtown Rd 5.29

11 Unnamed Trib to LMR 39.16671 ‐84.30599 12.98 Indian Hill Liltle Great Miami MSDGC X X Route 50 Milford/Water Street 3.4

11 Unnamed Trib to Duck Creek 39.16452 ‐84.42777 1.5 Duck Creek Little Great Miami Geometric X X Off Ridge Ave 3.18

11 Unnamed Trib to Little Miami River 39.17158 ‐84.31619 1.2 Indian Hill Little Great Miami Geometric X X Wooster Pike and Given Rd 2.96

11 Unnamed Trib to Duck Creek 39.16181 ‐84.43735 2.1 Duck Creek Little Great Miami Geometric X X Duck Creed Rd and Harris Rd 2.26

11 004 Duck Creek 39.16167 ‐84.43787 6.10 Duck Creek Little Great Miami MSDGC X Norwood/Harris Ave

11 051 East Fork Duck Creek 39.163100 ‐84.402200 0.50 Duck Creek Little Great Miami OH EPA X X 1994 F 2.2

11 004 Duck Creek 39.16762 ‐84.39904 5.0 Duck Creek Little Great Miami Geometric X Gentlewind Dr and Symmescreek Dr 1.91

11 Unnamed Trib to Duck Creek 39.16750 ‐84.42015 5.00 Duck Creek Little Great Miami MSDGC X X Kennedy Avenue 1.4

11 Unnamed Trib to Duck Creek 39.18311 ‐84.36986 0.9 Duck Creek Little Great Miami Geometric X X Camargo Rd and Shawnee Rd 1.4

11 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to Duck Creek 39.17396 ‐84.42354 0.7 Duck Creek Little Great Miami Geometric X X Acomb Ave and Ridge Rd 1.25

11 Unnamed Trib to Little Miami River 39.18554 ‐84.29433 0.4 Indian Hill Little Great Miami Geometric X X Mohawk Trail and Happy Hollow Trail 1.14

11 Unnamed Trib to Duck Creek 39.14654 ‐84.39260 1.2 Duck Creek Little Great Miami Geometric X X High Street and Watterson Ave 1.13

11 Unnamed Trib to Little Miami River 39.17124 ‐84.34130 2.6 Indian Hill Little Great Miami Geometric X X Drake and Grave Rd 0.6

11 Unnamed Trib to Little Miami River 39.15548 ‐84.35815 1.2 Indian Hill Little Great Miami Geometric X X Walton Creek Rd and Wooster Pike 0.48

11 004 Duck Creek 39.18709 ‐84.40059 6.5 Duck Creek Little Great Miami Geometric X Odin Ave and Plainfield Rd 0.29

11 Unnamed Trib to Duck Creek 39.15989 ‐84.38088 2.4 Duck Creek Little Great Miami Geometric X X Camargo Road and East Fork Ave 0.22

30 22

Sites Summary:

Level 1 (>300 mi2): 9

Level 2 (164 mi2):

Level 3 (82 mi2):

Level 4 (42 mi2):

Level 5 (21 mi2): 5

Level 6 (10 mi2): 1

Level 7 (5.0 mi2): 3

Level 8 (2.5 mi2): 8

Level 9 (1.0 mi2): 4

Total Sites: 30

LMR Duck Cr & Indian Hill Terrace

Geo. Level Fish1 Macroinverts.2 Habitat3 Field Chem.4 Demand5 Nutrients6 Metals7 Organic8 Supplemental9 Sed. Metals10 Sed. Organics11

1 A HD QHEI Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐Weekly 3X Bact (Wkly) X X

1 A HD QHEI

Weekly Weekly Weekly Bi‐Weekly 3X Bact (Wkly) X X

1 A HD QHEI

1 A HD QHEI

1 A HD QHEI

1 A HD QHEI


1 A HD QHEI


1 A HD QHEI

1 A HD QHEI

5 E HD QHEI

5 E HD QHEI

HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X

5 E HD QHEI

5 E HD QHEI

HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X

5 E HD QHEI

6 E QL QHEI

QHEI 2X 2X 2X 2X 1X Bact (2X) X X

6 E QL QHEI 2X 2X 2X 2X 1X Bact (2X) X X




8 E,F QL/PH QHEI/HHEI 1X 1X 1X

8 E,F QL/PH QHEI/HHEI 1X 1X 1X

8 F QL/PH QHEI/HHEI 1X 1X 1X










Fish: Weekly: 64 Biweekly: 48 3X: 18 Weekly: 64

A (2X) ‐ 9 5 days Bi‐weekly: 16 2X: 10 1X: 5 6X: 12

D&E (2X) ‐ 2X: 10 Total: 58 Total: 23 2X: 10

E,F (1X) ‐ 22 4.5 days 1X: 12 Total: 86

Total: 102

Bugs:

HD ‐ 16

QL ‐ 5

QL/PH ‐ 12

LMR Duck Cr & Indian Hill Terrace

Basin Stream River_Stream Name Long RM SubWater Watershed_ SubType Bio Site Chem Site Ohio EPA Year(s) Near_Inter

11 001 Little Miami River 39.235600 ‐84.299200 20.60 Sycamore Little Great Miami OH EPA X 2007, 2008

11 001 Little Miami River 39.246900 ‐84.294700 21.50 Sycamore Little Great Miami OH EPA X 1993, 2007

11 001 Little Miami River 39.22544 ‐84.31905 19.40 Sycamore Liltle Great Miami MSDGC X Route 126 (Glendale Milford) Remington Road

11 001 Little Miami River 39.253100 ‐84.280800 22.30 Polk Run Little Great Miami OH EPA X 2007



11 001 Little Miami River 39.24673 ‐84.29521 21.62 Polk Run Liltle Great Miami MSDGC X Branch Hill

11 001 Little Miami River 39.26868 ‐84.26053 24.18 Polk Run Liltle Great Miami MSDGC X Loveland

11 001 Little Miami River 39.268900 ‐84.260800 23.90 Polk Run Little Great Miami OH EPA X 1993, 1998

11 007 Sycamore Creek 39.223300 ‐84.326400 0.50 Sycamore Little Great Miami OH EPA X X 2007

11 007 Sycamore Creek 39.225800 ‐84.322500 0.10 Sycamore Little Great Miami OH EPA X X 1983, 1986, 2007

11 008 N. Br. Sycamore Cr. 39.22486 ‐84.32057 0.1 Sycamore Little Great Miami Geometric X X Newton Rd and Turtleview Rd


11 009 Polk Run 39.250800 ‐84.298900 0.30 Polk Run Little Great Miami OH EPA X X 1991

11 008 N. Br. Sycamore Cr. 39.22782 ‐84.33248 1.0 Sycamore Little Great Miami Geometric X X Creekside Dr and Remington Rd


11 008 N. Br. Sycamore Cr. 39.245600 ‐84.321900 2.20 Sycamore Little Great Miami OH EPA X X 2002

11 Unnamed Trib to Sycamore Creek 39.21622 ‐84.33615 0.2 Sycamore Little Great Miami Geometric X X Nearest 8174 Loveland Maderia Dr

11 049 Trib To Sycamore Cr. 39.216400 ‐84.333300 0.10 Sycamore Little Great Miami OH EPA X X 1991

11 007 Sycamore Creek 39.19996 ‐84.34059 1.7 Sycamore Little Great Miami Geometric X X Kugler Mill Rd and Loveland Maderia Rd

11 008 N. Br. Sycamore Cr. 39.25392 ‐84.34036 4.2 Sycamore Little Great Miami Geometric X X Thistlewood Court and Weller Rd

11 Unnamed Trib to Sycamore Creek 39.21558 ‐84.34907 1.2 Sycamore Little Great Miami Geometric X X Upstream Blome Rd bridge

11 007 Sycamore Creek 39.18946 ‐84.35607 2.8 Sycamore Little Great Miami Geometric X X Euclid and Carmargo

11 008 N. Br. Sycamore Cr. 39.25012 ‐84.35990 5.5 Sycamore Little Great Miami Geometric X X Adventure Ln and Storybrook Ln

11 009 Polk Run 39.27862 ‐84.31772 3.0 Polk Run Little Great Miami Geometric X X Downstream bridge at Montgomery Rd

11 048 W. Br. Polk Run 39.280600 ‐84.320000 1.40 Polk Run Little Great Miami OH EPA X X 1991

11 Unnamed Trib to Polk Run 39.26650 ‐84.31417 0.2 Polk Run Little Great Miami Geometric X X East Kemper Rd and Terwilligers Run Dr

11 Unnamed Trib to Sycamore Creek 39.21564 ‐84.36543 2.4 Sycamore Little Great Miami Geometric X X Glenover Dr and Raiders Run

11 Unnamed Trib to Little Miami River 39.27201 ‐84.26505 0.3 Polk Run Little Great Miami Geometric X X Wall and Park St

11 Unnamed Trib to Polk Run 39.28914 ‐84.33759 3.0 Polk Run Little Great Miami Geometric X X Fields Ertlel Road and School Rd

11 Unnamed Trib 39.24934 ‐84.37114 6.3 Sycamore Little Great Miami Geometric X X Hickory Point Dr and Pfeifder Rd

11 Unnamed Trib to North Branch Sycamore Creek 39.23620 ‐84.33394 0.4 Sycamore Little Great Miami Geometric X X Remington Rd and Creekside Dr

11 Unnamed Trib to Unnamed Trib to Polk Run 39.27622 ‐84.30279 0.1 Polk Run Little Great Miami Geometric X X Enyart Rd and Stratford Ct

11 Unnamed Trib to Little Miami River 39.25259 ‐84.29115 0.2 Polk Run Little Great Miami Geometric X X 10708 Loveland Maderia Rd

11 Unnamed Trib to Polk Run 39.27711 ‐84.29911 1.9 Polk Run Little Great Miami Geometric X X W Loveland Ave and Glen Lake Rd

11 Unnamed Trib to North Branch Sycamore Creek 39.26824 ‐84.33208 1.7 Sycamore Little Great Miami Geometric X X Upstream US 22 bridge

11 Unnamed Trib to Polk Run 39.26150 ‐84.29677 0.7 Polk Run Little Great Miami Geometric X X McKinney Rd and Woodcrest Dr

34 31

Sites Summary:

Level 1 (>300 mi2): 7

Level 2 (164 mi2):

Level 3 (82 mi2):

Level 4 (42 mi2): 3

Level 5 (21 mi2): 5

Level 6 (10 mi2): 4

Level 7 (5.0 mi2): 7

Level 8 (2.5 mi2): 8

Level 9 (1.0 mi2): 4

Total Sites: 34

LMR Sycamore & Polk Run


A 1161 1 A HD QHEI

A 1160 1 A HD QHEI


A 1150 1 A HD QHEI

A 1150 1 A HD QHEI

A 1148 1 A HD QHEI



A 1145 1 A HD QHEI

E 24 4 D HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X

S,D 24 4 D HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X


E 12.5 5 E HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X

E 10.8 5 E HD QHEI Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly Bi‐weekly 3X Bact (6X) X X


F 9.4 6 E QL QHEI 2X 2X 2X 2X 1X Bact (2X) X X










E 2.4 8 E,F QL/PH QHEI/HHEI 1X 1X 1X












Fish: Weekly: 48 Biweekly: 64 3X: 24 Weekly: 48

A (2X) ‐ 7 4 days Bi‐weekly: 40 2X: 22 1X: 11 6X: 30

D&E (2X) ‐ 3 2 days 2X: 22 Total: 86 Total: 35 2X: 22

E,F (1X) ‐ 25 4 days 1X: 12 Total: 100

Total: 122

Bugs:

HD ‐ 12

QL ‐ 11

QL/PH ‐ 12

LMR Sycamore & Polk Run

Basin Stream River Lat Long RM SubType Near_Inter Ohio EPA Year(s) Fish1 Macroinverts.2 Habitat3 Field Chem.4 Demand5 Nutrients6 Metals7 Organic8 Supplemental9 Sed. Metals10 Sed. Organics11

25 001 Ohio River 39.02661 ‐84.33713 456.1 ORSANCO





25 001 Ohio River 39.04528 ‐84.38278 459 ORSANCO












25 001 Ohio River 39.083300 ‐84.432200 464.00 OH EPA




25 001 Ohio River 39.121100 ‐84.455600 466.70 OH EPA 1992









25 001 Ohio River 39.140300 ‐84.765000 487.20 OH EPA 1986‐1996






















Ohio River MainstemOhio River Mainstem

Documents

Watershed Monitoring and Bioassessment Plan for the MSD ... · Watershed Monitoring and Bioassessment ... Watershed Monitoring and Bioassessment Plan for ... A growing awareness and