RECEIVED

CLERK’S~OFFICE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

AU~°

0

August 30, 2005

V J

STATE OF ILLINOIs

ll’4

THE MATTER OF:

)

Pollution Control Board

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

R04-25

DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARD 35 ILL.)

(Rulemaking

-

Water)

ADM. CODE 302.206

)

HEARING

OFFICER ORDER

On August 25, 2005, in Chicago, the Board held the third hearing in this rulemaking. The

rulemaking proponent, the Illinois Association ofWastewater Agencies, seeks to amend the

Board’s rule establishing general use water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302.206). In this order, the hearing officer discusses two rulings made at the third hearing.

First, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) asked at hearing to have the

opportunity to continue stakeholder discussions regarding the dissolved oxygen standard and to

submit a status report on those discussions in two months. The hearing officer granted the

Agency’s request, and required that the Agency file the status report with the Board by

November 1, 2005. The hearing officer also noted that the “mailbox rule” (35 Ill. Adm. Code

101 .300(b)(2)) would not apply to this filing, and that, accordingly, the Board must receive the

Agency’s status report by November 1, 2005. This filing may be made electronically through the

Board’s Web-based Clerk’s Office On-Line (COOL) at www.ipcb.state.il.us. Any filing with the

Board must also be served on the hearing officer and on those persons on the Service List.

Second, the Illinois Department ofNatural Resources (DNR) stated at hearing that it

would not be presenting, at the third hearing, the witness for whom it had prefiled testimony, Dr.

David L. Thomas. DNR represented that it, like the Agency, wished to pursue stakeholder

discussions regarding the dissolved oxygen standard. DNR also stated that Dr. Thomas’ prefiled

testimony, filed with the Board on August 4, 2005, no longer represents DNR’s position. DNR

therefore made a motion to withdraw the prefiled testimony ofDr. Thomas, which the hearing

officer granted.

Although Dr. Thomas’ August 4, 2005 prefiled testimony is withdrawn, the filing itself

remains part ofand physically present in the official Clerk’s office record ofthis rulemaking

proceeding. Accordingly, when reading another document in this record that refers to Dr.

Thomas’ prefiled testimony, such as Public Comment 81, a member ofthe public will be able to

locate the referenced DNIR filing. To avoid any potential confusion, however, the R04-25 docket

sheet entry for Dr. Thomas’ prefiled testimony will reflect that the hearing officer granted DNR’s

motion to withdraw the prefiled testimony, as it no longer represents DNR’s position. For fUrther

---

2

clarity, the Clerk’s office has been instructed to physically and electronically attach this hearing

officer order to the front of Dr. Thomas’ August 4, 2005 prefiled testimony.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard R. McGi,

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-6983 mcgil1r4i~ipcb.state.il.us

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARLA

E CE IV ED

CLERK’S

OFFICE

AUG 04 2005

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF ILUNOIS

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

R 04-25

PollutIon

Control Board

DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANTARD

)

35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.206

)

)

NOTICE OF FILING

See attached Service List

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Wednesday, August 3, 2005, we filed the attached

Testimony ofDavid L. Thomas, PhD. with the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, a copy

of which is herewith served upon you.

Stanley Yonkauski, Jr.

Illinois Department ofNatural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, Illinois 62702-127 1

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF

NATURAL RESOURCES

By:

torn eys

This filling being submitted on recycled paper.

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Testimony was filed by hand deliver

to the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board and served upon the parties to whom said Notice

is directed by first class mail, postage prcpaid, by depositing in the U.S. Mail at One Natural

Resources, Springfield, Illinois on Wednesday, August 3, 2005.

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

Stan

ki, Jr.

---

SERVICE LIST

Fred L. Hubbard

415 North Gilbert Street

Danville, IL 62834-00 12

Benard Sawyer

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

6001 W. Pershing Rd.

Cicero, IL 60650-4112

Claire A. Manning

Posegate & Denes, P.C.

111 N. Sixth Street

Springfield, IL 62705

Deborah J. Williams

IEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Dorothy M. Gunn

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Frederick D. Keady

Vermilion Coal

1979 Johns Drive

Glenview, IL 60025

James T. Harrington

Ross & Hardies

150 North Michigan

Chicago, IL 6060 1-7567

John Donahue

City ofGeneva

22 South First Street

Geneva, IL 60 134-2203

Alex Messina

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

3150 Roland Avenue

Springfield, IL 62703

Charles W. Wesselhoft

Ross & Hardies

150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500

Chicago, IL 6060 1-7567

Connie L. Tonsor

IEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Dennis L. Duffield

City of Joliet

Department of Public Works and Utilities

921 E. Washington Street

Joliet, IL 60431

Erika K. Powers

Barnes & Thomburg

1 N. Wacker, Suite 4400

Chicago, IL 60606

James L. Daugherty

Thom Creek Basin Sanitary District

700 West End Avenue

Chicago Heights, IL 60411

Joel J. Stemstein

Office of the Attorney General

188 West Randolph,

20th

Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

William Richardson

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, IL 62702-127 1

Avenue, Suite 2500

---

Katherine D. Hodge

Hodge Dwyer Zeman

3150 Roland Avenue

P.O. Box 5776

Springfield, IL 62705-5776

Lisa Frede

Chemical Industry Council of

2250 E. Devan Avenue, Suite

Des Plaines, IL 600 18-4509

Matthew J. Dunn

Office of the Attorney General

188 West Randolph,

20th

Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

Mike Callahan

Bloomington Normal

Water Reclamation District

P.O. Box 3307

Bloomington, 16 1702-3307

Richard McGill

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Stephanie N. Diers

IEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Susan M. Franzetti

10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3600

Chicago, IL 60603

Vicky McKinley

Evanston Environment Board

23 Grey Avenue

Evanston, IL 60202

Lany Cox

Downers Grove Sanitary District

2710 Curtis Street

Downers Grove, IL 60515

Margaret Hedinger

2601 South Fifth Street

Springfield, IL 62703

Michael 0. Rosenberg, Esq.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

100 East Erie Street

Chicago, IL 60611

Richard Lanyon

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

100 East Erie Street

Chicago, IL 60611

Sanjay K. Sofat

EPA

1021 North Grand Avenue

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Sue Schultz

Illinois American Water company

300 North Water Works Drive

P.O. Box 24040

Belleville, IL 62223-9040

Tom Muth

Fox Metro Water Reclamation district

682 State Route 31

Oswego, IL 60543

W.C. Blanton

Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP

2300 Main Street, suite 1000

Kansas City, MO 64108

Illinois

239

---

Edward Hammer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

WQ-16J

77 W. Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL 60604

---

TESTIMONY

AUG 042005

David L. Thomas, PhD

STATE OF

IWN0IS

Chief, Illinois

Natural

History

Survey

POllutiOn Control Bo&tj

August 3, 2005

My name is David

L.

Thomas, and lam Chief of the Illinois Natural History Survey, a

Division of the Department of Natural Resources (Department). I received my Masters degree in

Ecology from the University of Illinois in 1967, where! worked on the Percina darters of the Kaskaskia

River for my thesis. I completed my PhD from Cornell in 1971 in Ecology and Systemmatics, and my

thesis was on the drums (Sciaenidae) ofthe upper Delaware Bay and lower Delaware River. I also

taught the laboratories for Ichthyology and Advanced Ichthyology whie at Cornell, and was curator of

the Cornell fish collection.

This testimony is presented on behalf of the Illinois DNR and based on my experience as a

trained ichthyologist, on my more than 35 years of evaluating the effects of various environmental

parameters on aquatic biota, and my first-hand knowledge and experience on Illinois fishes. I have

regularly measured DO as part ofthe physical/chemical parameters measured during field collections,

and

have

experience evaluating the effects of this parameter on aquatic resources in Illinois. I interact

with our Ichthyologist at the Survey on a regular basis, and have made numerous collections with him

over the last 5 years. I deal with a variety of issues with our fisheries staff, particularly regarding

invasive species. I have also conducted field work with DNR fisheries staff, and assisted in their basin

surveys.

The present DO standard requires that at no time shall concentrations decline below 5mg/Land

for at least 16 hours each day they must remain above 6 ma/L. The LAWA, based on testimony and

recommendations ofDrs. Garvey and Whiles, recommended the following changes to the DO standard:

A 1-day minimum* of 5.0 mg/L spring through summer (ie.. March 1 through June 30)

A 7-day mean** of 6.0 mg/L spring through early summer (i.e. March 1 through June 30)

A 1-day minimum of3.5 mg/L the remainder ofthe year (i.e., July 1 through February 28 or 29)

A 7-day mean minimum*** of4.0 mg/Lthe remainder ofthe year (i.e., July 1 through February

28 or 29)

*

I-day minimum is the lowest measured value of DO during a

24-hour

calendar day

**

7-day mean DO is the average of the daily mean DO values from the current and previous 6

calendar days.

---

~**

7-cla~’mean nzhiimunz is the arithmetic average oft/ic dat/v fninh?nlLni DO valuesfrom the current

cindprevious

6

calendar

days.

The DNR believes that while we should recognize that some rivers and streams could maintain

present aquatic populations under a revised standard like that proposed by the IAWA, there are many

streams and rivers in Illinois that would not be able to maintain present aquatic populations. If one

statewide standard is going to be put into place. it needs to be high enough to protect sensitive species.

The IAWA proposal does not accomplish this level of protection. We believe the present standard

should be maintained until

it

can be demonstrated that the biota in particular water bodies will not be

negatively affected by a lower standard.

Since the second hearing on this matter, conducted on August 12, 2004, the Department has

been actively participating in status conference calls and stakeholder meetings addressing the merits

of the rulemaking proposal. Though the stake holders meetings did not result in an agreed upon

regulatory proposal, it helped the DNR understand the state of knowledge in Illinois as it relates to

dissolved oxygen and aquatic life needs.

The DO standard in Illinois needs to account for the natural DO levels in the water body in

question and the presence or absence of DO sensitive species. Initially, the opposite approach was

attempted, that is, to designate streams that needed greater protection than proposed by the IAWA,

however, our level of knowledge of all streams and the species that they contain is not sufficiently

developed to come up with a complete list. Without a complete list of streams needing to maintain at

least the present standard, implementation ofa lower standard could prove to be detrimental to sensitive

aquatic species. Justification for needing greater protection (than those proposed by the IAWA) of

some of our aquatic resources are presented below.

There are a significant number of rivers and streams in Illinois that contain fish species

considered to be oxygen sensitive (see Table 1). This list represents 25 fish species that are sensitive

to low DO based on life history and distribution data for Illinois (Smith, 1979) andWisconsin (Becker,

1983). These species were considered good indicators for waters that contain DO sensitive aquatic

biota. Other species could be added to this list as indicated below.

A list of 30 “DO” tributaries and 10 “DO” major rivers is contained in Table 2. These were

selected based on the presence of at least 5 DO sensitive indicator fish species for major river

mainstems, and 4 DO sensitive indicator species for tributary streams, and represents the kinds of

streams that would need greater protection than the proposal from IAWA. All streams are perennial

according to 7Q10 flow maps from the Illinois State Water Survey. Rankin recently (2004) provided

data for Ohio that showed that Exceptional Warmwater Habitat streams (described below) maintained

fairly high DO levels and could have 10 or more sensitive species. Those streams with mean DO values

---

between 6-7 mg/I rarely had more than

5

intolerant species.

The Ohio EPA (1996) made a good rationale for why some warmwater streams needed a greater

level of protection, and higher DO standards, than other ~varmwaterstreams. This document developed

arationale for designation of DOcriteriaforExceptional \Varmwater Habitat (EWH), and theirstandard

for these streams was a 6.0 mg/I daily average and aS mg/I minimum. EWH designation was reserved

for waters which support ‘unusual and exceptional” assemblages of aquatic organisms which are

characterized by a high diversity of species, particularly those which are highly intolerant and/or rare,

threatened, endangered, or special status (i.e., declining species). These waters were characterized by

Index of Biotic Integrity (WI) values above 46. In a summary of individual Ohio streams and rivers

(page 17), they state the following: “The results ofthe comparison of continuously measured D.O. and

E’Wl-I attainment in six steams and rivers of varying sizes shows that the latter can he compatible with

minimum D.O. values less than 6 mg/I. However, values less that S mg/I were either infrequent, did

not frequently correlate with full EWH use attainment, or were measured only under extreme low flow

conditions. Thus, the analysis would appear to support a minimum EWU D.O. standard less that 6

mg/I, but not less than S mg/I.”

Illinois has many streams that meet the Ohio standard for Exceptional WarmwaterHabitat, and

we list 40 ofthese as “DO sensitive streams” based on the presence ofDO sensitive species. Eighteen

ofthe streams selected had IBI scores with an average weighted score of 50. Only two of these streams

had an IBI under 46 (one with a value of40 and one with a value of43). There were 29 other streams

on the larger list provided that had IBI values of over 46, and on closer examination these too might

be considered for greater protection.

There are other fishes found in Illinois, other than those listed in Table 1, that are found in

“higher” DO waters. Rankin (2004) produced a table of variOus fishes and the weighted mean DO

values at which they were captured. I went through the list and noted all fish species that I was sure

also occurred in Illinois that were found at DO levels areater than Smallmouth bass (which was found

at a weighted mean DO of 6.61 mg/I). This list is included as Table 3, and includes four species (Black

Redhorse, Blacknose Dace, Northern Hog Sucker and Rosyface Shiner) listed as DO sensitive in Table

1. One of the species on this list, the Slenderhead darter, was a species that I had worked on for my

master’s theses at University of Illinois. I found in tests I conducted that this species had a higher rate

ofrespiration, and was found in higheroxygen waters, than the Blacksided darter, another species that

I studied. In Ohio the weighted mean DO valuefor all collections ofSlenderhead darter was 6.7 mg/I,

whereas it was 5.6 mg/I for Blacksided darter.

The Department has given strong consideration to the Ohio data for this testimony because they

are on the same latitude as much ofIllinois, and have many of the same Ohio River drainage fishes as

are found in Illinois. Ohio EPA has developed one ofthe better databases that we have found on field

---

measurements of DO with individual fish collections. The Ohio data corroborates our field

observations in Illinois, and fish that are DO sensitive in Ohio, will be DO sensitive in illinois and

across their range.

The IAWA recommended an end date for the sensitive season (spawning and earlydevelopment

of fish) of June 30 statewide. This date will not be protective of many species that spawn up through

late June, or are summer spawners. Table 4 is a summary of Illinois fishes that spawn primarily in the

summer. This list does not include late spring spawners such as Smallmouth bass which may spawn

into late June. It also does not include the Channel catfish, although Simon and Wallus (2003) stated

that yolk-sac larvae andearlyjuveniles were collected mid-May through August with peaks in June and

July in the Tennessee and lower Ohio rivers. Six of the “summer” spawners in Table 4 are also listed

in Table 3 as being found in Ohio in higher oxygen waters

-

Emerald shiner, Ironcolor shiner. Bigmouth

shiner, Weed shiner, River redhorse, and Stonecat. One of these species, the Bigmouth shiner, was

studied by a student (Clinton Kowalik) atUniversity of Illinois that I helped advise. He found that peak

gonad development occurred on June26 and small young (under 20mm) were collected in July.

Ohio EPA (1996) stated that while Smg/l (their recommended minimum for Exceptional

Warmwater Habitat) is more stringent than that proposed by U.S. EPA (1986) for adults and juveniles,

it is necessary to protect younger life stages. They go on to state that “the EW’H DO. criterion that we

propose lies between the U.S. EPA recommended wanriwater and coldwaterlevels (non-embryonic life

stages only) of protection which also seems reasonable given that some of the sensitive warmwater

species that comprise the assemblages representative of EWH may well approach the sensitivity of

salmonids”. With the information provided, it is evident the standard, as proposed. will not he

protective for all the waters of the state.

The Ohio EPA document addresses an issue that we have struggled with in Illinois. and that is

that thereis a group of fishes that fall in DO sensitivity between cold-water andthe more typical warm-

water fauna. The Ohio Exceptional Warmwater Habitat category recognizes that a number of species

found in their biologically diverse warm water streams require very good water quality including well

oxygenated waters, We recognizethat Illinois also has waters that could be considered as needing extra

protection because theycontain diverse fish populations. threatened andendangered species. and many

DO sensitive species. If one statewide standard is going to be put in place, then it needs to he high

enough to protect these sensitive species. The IAWA proposal does not accomplish that and should

not be adopted.

The Ohio EPA document cites FWPCA (1968) as stating that “In some cases, good populations

of warmwater fish, including game and pan fishes, occur in waters in which dissolved oxygen may be

as low as 4 mg/I for short periods...(and)...Five and 4 mg/I are close to the borderline of oxygen

concentrations that are tolerable for extended periods. For a good population of game and pan fishes

---

the concentration should be considerably more than this.”

In light of the above statements it seems particularly important that we provide greater

protection for warm water streams that have high biotic integrity, good game and pan fishes, and

oxygen sensitive fishes.

The focus of this testimony has been on fishes, but there are a number of mussels and other

invertebrates that are also sensitive to low DO (see Rankin 2004). In addition, we have a number of

state threatened and endangered species in Illinois, and for many we know little about their oxygen

requirements. All of the above indicates that we should maintain our present standard, unless we can

show for particular water bodies that a lower standard will not negatively affect aquatic species in that

system.

References:

Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

lOS2p.

FederalWater Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA). 1968. Waterquality criteria. Report

of the National Technical Committee to the Secretary of Interior. Washington, D.C. 234p.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 1996. Justification andrationale forrevisions

to the dissolved oxygen criteria in the Ohio Water Quality Standards. OEPA Technical Bulletin

MAS.1995-12-S, 25p.

Rankin, E.T. 2004.

Notes on associations between dissolved oxygen and fish and

macroinvertebrate assemblages in wadeable Ohio streams. (Draft iact Sheet)

Simon, T.P. and R.Wallace. 2003. Ictaluridae

-

catfish and madtom. Vol 3, in Wallus, Yeager

and Simon. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. TVA.

Chattanooga, Tenn.

Smith, P.W. 1979. The Fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press. (Published forthe Illinois

Natural History Survey). 314p.

---

Table 1: Species of fish found in Illinois that require higher dissolved oxygen levels

Common Name

American brook

lamprey

Banded sculpin

Bigeye

chub

Bigeye shiner

Black redhorse

Blacknose dace

Brook stickleback

Fourhorn sculpin

lroncolor shiner

Least brook lamprey

Longnose dace

Mottled sculpin

Ninespine stickleback

Northern brook

lamprey

Northern hog sucker

Northern pike

Ozark minnow

River redhorse

Rock bass

Rosyface

shiner

Slimy sculpin

Southern redbelly dace

Spoonhead seulpin

Threespine stickleback

Weed

shiner

---

Table 2 - TESTIMONY OF DAVID L. THOMAS, AUGUST 2005

lB-BASIN

CATCHMENT NAME OR MAINSTEM

PROPOSED

DO

WATERS

DO

MAJOR

RIVER

NUMBER OF

HIGH DO

HIGH DO

FISH

FISH

DO

INDICATOR INDICATOR

TRIBUTARY SPECIES

SPECIES

IBI

ABASH RIVER MS

WABASH RIVER MS

X

X

X

6

53

~RMILION(SOUTH) RVR LITTLE VERMILION (SOUTH) RIVER

X

X

x

6

54

ERMILION (SOUTH) RVR VERMILION (SOUTH) RIVER MS

X

ERMILION (SOUTH) RVR SALT FORK

X

ERMILION (SOUTH) RVR MIDDLE FORK

X

\CKINAW RIVER

MACKINAW RIVER MS

X

\CKINAW RIVER

LITTLE MACKINAW RIVER

X

3 BUREAU CREEK

BIG BUREAU CREEK .

X

ERMILION (NORTH) RVR VERMILION (NORTH) RIVER MS

X

X

x

5

45

x

5

51

X

X

4

5~

X

X

7

55

Xx

6

X

x

6

50

x

X

5

48

)X RIVER

FOX RIVER Ms

X

X

X

7

40

)X RIVER

INDIAN CREEK

X

X

X

4

)X RIVER

BIG ROCK CREEK

X

X

X

4

)X RIVER

NIPPERSINK CREEK

X

X

X

4

\NGAMON RIVER

KICKAPOO CREEK

X

X

X

4

XNKAKEE RIVER

KANKAKEE RIVER MS

X

X

X

10

so

\NKAKEE RIVER

FORKED CREEK

X

X

X

4

45

\NKAKEE RIVER

HORSE CREEK

X

X

X

4

5Q

\NKAKEE RIVER

ROCK CREEK

X

X

X

4

5~

OOUOIS RIVER

IROOUOIS RIVER MS

X

X

X

5

OQUOIS RIVER

BEAVER CREEK

X

X

X

4

OOUOIS RIVER

SUGAR CREEK

X

X

X

5

~PLERIVER

APPLE RIVER MS

X

X

X

5

‘PLE RIVER

FURNACE CREEK

X

X

X

6

~PLERIVER

SOUTH FORK

X

X

X

6

3PLE RIVER

CLEAR CREEK

X

~______

X

X

5

JCK RIVER

GREEN RIVER

X

X

X

5

JCK RIVER

FRANKLIN CREEK

X

X

X

6

JCK RIVER

LEAF RIVER

X

X

X

5

50

OCK RIVER

KYTE RIVER

X

X

X

4

43

OCK RIVER

STILLMAN CREEK

X

X

X

6

OCK RIVER

KISHWAUKEE RIVER

X

X

X

7

56

OCK RIVER

KILLBUCK CREEK

X

X

X

7

OCK RIVER

PISCASAW CREEK

X

X

X

5

51

OCK RIVER

COON CREEK

X

X

X

5

OCK RIVER

RUSH CREEK

X

X

X

5

56

OCK RIVER

SOUTH BRANCH-EAST KISHWAUKEI

X

X

X

6

OCK RIVER

NORTH BRANCH-KISHWAUKEE RVR

X

X

X

4

OCK RIVER

PINE CREEK

X

X

X

4

OCK RIVER

SUGAR RIVER

X

X

X

4

51

OCKRIVER

ROCKRIVERMS

X

-

X

X

5

TOTALS BY

CATEGORY =

40

10

30

---

Table 3: The weighted mean DO

for various

fishes collected in Ohio streams. Fish listed are

ones that occur in Illinois, and were found at DO levels equivalent to or higher than for

Smallmouth Bass*

Weighted DO Means (MglI) for Ohio Streams

Smallmouth Bass

6.61

Central Stoneroller

6.62

Black

Crappie

6.63

Golden Redhorse

6.70

Slenderhead Darter

6.71

Silver Redhorse

6.72

Silverjaw Minnow

6.81

Hornyhead Chub

6.52

Emerald Shiner

6.83

Black Redhorse

6.93

Shorthead Redhorse

6.96

Blacknose Dace

6.96

Northern Hog Sucker

7.02

Rosyface Shiner

7.18

Bigmouth Shiner

7.22

Stonecat Madtom

7.41

River Chub

749

*Rankin E,T. 2004. Draft Notes on Associations between Dissolved Oxygen and Fish and

Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Wadeable Ohio Streams.

---

Table 4. Summary of the fishes of Illinois thought to spawn through summer (based in

part on Smith 1979. The Fishes of Illinois)

Table 1. List of summertime (June —August) fish spawners in Illinois.

Scaphirhynchus albus

LyEhrurus furn eus

Pallid shiner

Ribbon shiner

Dorosorna cepedian urn

Gizzard shad

Lythrurus urn bratilis

Redfin shiner

Notetnigonus crysoleucas

Golden shiner

Macrh vbopsis hyostoma

Shoal chub

Pirnephales notatus

Bluntnose minnow

Pirnephales prornelas

Fathead minnow

Platygobio gracilis

Flathead chub

Pimephales vigilax

Bullhead minnow

Phenacobius rnirabills

Suckermouth minnow

Carpiodes carpio

River carpsucker

Notropis atherinoides

Emerald shiner

Carpiodes ve4fer

Highfin carpsucker

Notropis blennius

River shiner

Moxostorna carinaturn

River redhorse

Noturusfiavus

Stonecat

Fundulus olivaceus

Spotted topminnow

Gambusia affInis

Western

mo~qtuitofis~~

Notropis boops

Bigeye shiner

Notropis buchanani

Ghost shiner

Notropis chalybaeus

Ironcolor shiner

Labidesthes sicculus

Brook silverside

Notropis dorsalis

Bigmouth shiner

Notropis heterodon

Blackchin shiner

Men idia beryllina

Inland silverside

Notropis shwnardi

Silverband shiner

Lepornis cyanellus

Green sunfish

Lepornis gibbosus

Pumpkinseed

Notropis strarnineus

Sand shiner

Lepornis gulosus

Warmouth

Notropis texanus

Weed shiner

Opsopoeodus emiliae

Pugnose minnow

Lepornis hurnilis

Orangespotted sunfish

Cyprinella lutrensis

Red shiner

Lepornis rniniat:.is

Redspotted sunfish

Cyprinella spiloptera

Spotfin shiner

Arnmocrypta clara

Western sand darter

Cyprinella whipplei

Steelcolor shiner

---

REFERENCES

---

FISHES

The University of Wisconsin Press

---

Published 1983

The University of Wisconsin Press

114 North

Murray Street

Madison, Wisconsin 53715

The University of Wisconsin Press. Ltd.

1 Gower Street

London WC1E 6HA, England

Copyright © 1983

The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Al) rights reserved

First printing

Printed in the United States of America

For LC CII’ information see the colophon

ISBN 0—299—08790—5

Work on this book was funded in part by the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant

College Program under a grant from the Office of Sea Grant, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, and by the State

of Wisconsin (Fed. grant #NASOAA—D—00086, Project #E/E—5). The U.S. government

is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for government purposes not-

withstanding any copyright notation that may appear hereon.

---

Water

Quality Criteria

Report of the

National Technical Advisory Committee

to the

Secretary of the Interior

APRIL I, 1968

WASHINGTON, D.C.

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

---

.,unencaeict’.(t:C:cec

ct’e:v:u

•cc number ot

aud carrot:

destrcvec. c:’’.uiote

‘‘tod if this resource is to be preserred:

I) Inland trout streams, headwatert of

cams, trout and salmon lakes and reservoir’s. roe’ the

polirnnior. of lakes one reservoirs containtag so.-

‘usnids should not be warmed, No heated e~stents

!,ould be discharged in the vicinity of sPawning areas.

For other types and reaches of cold-xvesier streams,

‘-~on’oirs, and lakes, the following restrictions ore

ircommended,

(2) During any month of the vet:’. neaL should cc-

added to a stream in excess of the amount that v-il:

ike the temperature of the ,‘,ater mere thor. S 1°

hosed on the minimum expected flow for that month).

in

lakes and reservoirs, the temperature of the api-

iilunion should not be raised more than 3 F by the ad-

dillon of heat of artificial origin.

(3) The normal daily and seasonal tomperature

lisictuations that existed before the addition of heat due

ii

other than natural causes should be maintained.

(4)

The recommended maximum temperatures that

•‘re not

to he exceeded for various speoiec of cold water

lish

are

given in toble Ill—h

NoTE—For streams, totai added heat

(ir,

ETU’s..

‘night be specified as an allowable increase in tempera-

lure of the minimum daily flow expected for the month

nr period in question. This would ahoy addition of a

constant amount of heat throughout the period. Ap-

proached in this Way for all periods of the year, sea-

ronal variation, would be maintained. For lakes thc

‘ituation is more complex and cannot he spocified in

~imple terms.

TABLE Ill—i

‘‘royjsjonal maximum temperatures recommended as compati.

bie with the weII.being of various species of fish and

their associated btotaj

V~

F: Growth of

catfish,

gar, white or yellow bass,

spotted bass,

buffalo, carpsucker, threadfin shad.

and gizzard shad.

‘G F: Growth of largemouth bass, drum, bluegill, and

crappie.

‘4 F: Growth of pike, perch,

walleye, sniallmouth bass,

and

sauger.

.0 F: Spawning and

egg development of

catfish.

buffalo,

threadfin shad, and gizzard shad.

‘5 F:

Spawning and egg development of largernouth

bass,

white, yellow, and spotted bass,

SF: Growth

or migration routes of salmonids and for

egg development

of perch and smallmouth bass.

• 5 F: Spawning

and egg

development

of

salmon, and

trout

(other

than

lake trout).

18 F:

5pawning

and egg

development

of lake trout.

walleye,

northern

pike,

sauger.

and Atlantic

salmon.

Note.~Recornmended temperatures icr other species, ncr

t5d above, may be established if and when necessary in-

,,rmaticn becomes available

Dissolved oxygen

Oxygen requirements ot actuatic life have beer.

•:xtensively studied, Excellent survey papers ate

and

1-f

i0H~

(AuCIT

on :imuera:ot’o

:00:100 F~CPt5

050 cc:-

siders oxygen or5o those iriiiio.granhies are eettaiiv

‘•;aiuob~e.

Most oi’ the research concerning oxygen require-

ments for freshwater organisms deals with fish, loot:

since fiSh depend upon other aquatic species

tot

food and would no: remain inar~area war. ar

adequate food supPly. it seems reasonable to as-

sunie that a requirement for fisfl would serve also

for the rest of the conarnunity. The fish themsel’’es

oar be srouped into three categories according

t:neir temperature ar.d oxygen requirements:

0) the cold-water fish (e.g.. salmon and trout:’.

(2)

the warm~watergame and pan fish (e.g.. bass

and sunfish). and (3) the warm-water “coarse”

flsh (e.g.. carp and buffalo). The cold-water fish.

seem to require higher oxygen concentrations than

the warm-water varieties. The reason is not knowr,,

but it may be related to the fact that, for half

saturation, trout hemoglobin requires an oxygen

partial pressure thrce or four times that required

by carp hemoglobin under similar circumstances.

Warm-water game and pan fish seem to require a

higher concentration than the “coarse” fish, prob-

ably because the former are more active and

predatory.

Relatively little of the research on the oxygen

requirements of fish in any of these three categories

is applicable to the problem of establishing oxygen

criteria

because the endpoints have usually been

too crude. It is useless in the present context tc

know how long an animal can resist death by as-

phyxiation at low’ dissolved oxygen concentrations;

we must know instead the oxygen concentration

that will permit an aquatic population to thrive. We

need data on the oxygen requirements for egg de-

velopment, for newly hatched larvae, for normaj

growth and activity, and for completing all stages

of the reproductive cycle. It is only recently that

experimental -work has been undertaken on the

effects of oxygen concentration on these more

subtle endpoints. As yet, only a few species have

been studied.

One of the first signs that a fish is being affected

by a reduction of dissolved oxygen (DO) concen-

tration is an increase in the rate at which it r’er.ti-

lates its gills. a process. accomplished in part by an

increase in the frequency of the opercular move-

men

The half dozen or so species (chiefly

warm-water game and pan flsh) that have beer

t-eported so far snot’: o significant increase 1: fre-

quency as the DO concentration is reduced from

6 to

5

mg/i (at about

F, and a greater increase

---

from 5 to

4

mg/i. If the opereular rate is taken as

the criterion by which the adequacy of an oxygen

concentration is to he judged, then such evidence

as we have indicates 6 mu/I as the required dis-

solved oxygen concentration. Several field studius

have shown, however, that good and diversified

fish populations can occur in waters in which the

dissolved oxygen concentration is bettveen 6 and

S

mg/I in the summer, suggesting that a minimum

of 6 mg/I is probably more stringent than neces-

sary for warm-water fishes. Because the oxygen

content of a body of water does not remain con-

stant, it follows that if the dissolved oxygen is

never less than 5 mg/I it must be higher part of

the time. In some cases, good populations of

warm-water fish, including game and pan fishes,

occur in waters in which the dissolved oxygen may

be as low as

4

mg/I for short periods. Three mg/I

is much too low, however, if normal growth and

activity are to be maintained. It has been reported

that the growth of young fish is slowed markedly if

the oxygen concentration falls to 3 mg~lfor part

of the day, even if it rises as high as S mg 1 at

other times, It is for such reasons as this that oxy-

gen criteria cannot be based on averages. Five and

4 mg/I

are close to the borderline of oxygen con-

centrations that are tolerable for extended periods.

For a good population of game and pan fishes,

the concentration should be considerably more

than this.

The requirements of the different stages in thc

life cycles of aquatic organisms must he taken into

account. An oxygen concentration that can he

tolerated by an adult animal, with fully developed

respiratory apparatus, less intense metabolic re-

quirements, and the ability to move away from

adverse conditions, could easily be too lo’v for eggs

and larval stages. The eggs are especially vulner-

able to oxygen lack because they have to depend

upon oxygen diffusing into them at a rate sufficient

to maintain the developing embryos. Hatching,

too, is a critical time; recently hatched young need

relatively more oxygen than adults, but until they

become able to swim for themselves (unless they

are in flowing water) they must depend upon the

oxygen supply in the limited zone around them.

These problems are not as great among species

that tend their eggs and young, suspend their eggs

from plants, or have pelagic eggs, as they are for

salmonids. Salmonids bury their eggs in the gravel

of the stream away from the main flow of the water

thereby requiring a relatively high oxygen concen-

tration in the water that does reach them.

Recommendation: In view of the above considerations

and with the nroviso that future research may make

revision necessary, the following environmental con-

ditions are considered essential for maintaining

fl

tive populations of fish and other aquatic life,

(I) For a diversified warm’water biota, includir

came fish, daily DO concentration should be abo’

S

mg/i, assuming that there are normal seasonal ar

daily variations above this concentration. Under

trenie conditions, however, and with the same stipul.

lion for seasonal and daily fluctuations, the DO mE

range between 5 mg/I and 4 mg/I for short periods

linac, provided that the water quality is favorable

alt other respects. In stratified eutrophic and dystroph

lakes, the DO requirements may not apply to ti

h~polininion.In shallow unstratified lakes, they shou

apply to the entire circulating water mass.

These requirements should apply to all waters

cept administratively established mixing a.ones. In lake

such mixing zones must be restricted so as to limit tl

effect on the biota. In streams, there must be no bloc

to migration and there must be adequate and sa

passageways for naigrating forms. These zones of pa

sage must be extensive enough so that the majority

plankton and other drifting organisms are protecti

see section on zones of passage).

(2) For the cold water biota, it is desirable that D

concentrations be at or near saturation. This is esp

cially important in spawning areas where DO leve

must not be below

7

mg/I at any time, For good grow

and the general well-being of trout, salmon, and oth

species of the hiota, DO concentrations should not

below 6 mg/I. Under extreme conditions they ml

range between 6 and S mg/I for short periods providt

that the water quality is favorable and normal dai

and seasonal fluctuations occur. In large streams th

have some stratification or that serve principally as

if

gratory routes, DO levels may be as low as

S

mg/I

periods up to 6 hours, but should never be below

ing/lat any tnae or place.

13) DO levels in the hypolim::,on of oligotropt’

small inland lakes and in large lakes should not I

lowered below 6 mg/I at any time due to the additit

of oxygen-demanding wastes or other materials.

Carbon dioxide

An excess of “free” carbon dioxide (as disti

guished from that present as carbonate and bica

bonate) may have adverse effects on aquatic ar

mals. These effects range from avoidance reactio:

and changes in respiratory movements at low co

centrations, through interference with gas e

change at higher concentrations, to narcosis ai

death if the concentration is increased further. TI

respiratory effects seem’ the most likely to be

concern in the present connection,

Since the carbon dioxide resulting from met

holic processes leaves the organisms by diffusio

an increase in external CO2 concentration w

make it more difficult for it to diffuse out of tl

organism. Thus, it begins to accumulate internall

The consequences of this internal accumulatb

are best known for fish, but presumably the print

pIes are the same for other organisms. As the C(

accumulates, it depresses the blood pH, and U

44

---

C

t

a

E

—

—.

a-

E~

a

P

r

n

S

a

g

~

~

a-

a

c1Q

a

C

0

E

—

a

0~

p

t~

—

a

o

r

‘1

a-

•

a

U

S

a

—.

0

a

~-fD

C

Co

=m

0

tsfD

C

—u

-a

IC.

00

~

•.~

..g

-‘a

~0

C)

i~

O

Ca

—.

—S

C

ci

0

---

Criteria in the Ohio Water Quality Standards

OEPA Technical Bulletin MAS/1995-12-5

January31, 1996

State of

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Division ofSurface Water

Monitoring & Assessment Section

1685 Westbelt Drive

Columbus, Ohio 43228

---

MAS/ 1995-12-5

D.O. Criteria Revision

Justification

January 3!, 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOTICE TO USERS

iii

Summary and Conclusions

v

Introduction

~.

.

Dissolved

Oxygen Criteria

2

The Need for A Revised EWH D.O. Criterion....

...~,

RationalefortheCurrentEWHD.O. Criterion

Rationale for A Revised EWH D.O. Criterion.

6

Analysis ofthe Statewide Database

.

6

Observations in Individual Rivers and Streams

7

Scippo Creek

9

Big

Darby

Creek

9

Upper Great Miami River

12

Little Micrnii River

12

Waihonding River

16

Scioto River

16

Summary of Individual Streams and Rivers

16

Synthesis of Information

20

REFERENCES

23

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

24

ii

---

MAS/L995-12-5

0.0. Criteria Revision Justification

January 31, 1996

NOTICE

TO USERS

Ohio EPA incorporated biological criteria into the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS; Ohio

Administrative Code 3745-1) regulations inFebruary 1990 (effective May 1990). These criteria

consist ofnumeric values forthe Index ofBiotic Integrity (IBJ) and Modified Index ofWell-Being

(MIwb), both ofwhich are based on fish assemblage data, and the Invertebrate Community Index

(id), which is based on macroinvertebrate assemblage data. Criteria for each index are specified

for each of Ohio’s five ecoregions (as described by Omernik 1987), and are further organized by

organism group, index, site type, and aquatic life use designation. These criteria, along with the

existing chemical and whole effluent toxicity evaluation methods and criteria, figure prominently

in the monitoring and assessment ofOhio’s surface water resources.

The following Ohio EPA documents support the use of biological criteria by outlining the

rationale for using biological information, the methods by

which

the biocriteria were derived and

calculated, the field methods by which sampling must be conducted, and the process for

evaluating results:

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

life: Volume!. The role ofbiological data in water quality assessment. Division ofWater

Qual. Monit. & Assess.~Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environm~nta1Protection Agency. 1987b. Biological criteria for the protection ofaquatic

life: Volume II. Users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters.

Division of Water Qual. Monit. & Assess., Surface Water

Section, 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 Qua!. Plan. & Assess., Ecological Assessment

Section, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989c. 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 Plan. &

Assess., Ecot. Assess. Sect., Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. The use of biological criteria in the Ohio EPA

surface water monitoring and assessment program. Division of Water Qua!. Plan. &

Assess., Ecol. Assess. Sect., Columbus, Ohio.

Rankin, E.T. 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale,methods, and

application. Division of Water Qual. Plan. & Assess., Ecol. Assess. Sect., Columbus,

Ohio.

III

---

MAS/ 1995-12-5

D.O. Criteria

Revision Justification

January

31,

1996

Since the publication of

the

preceding guidance documents

new

publications by Ohio EPA

have

become

available.

The following publications

should also

be consulted

as

they represent the

latest

information

and

analyses

used

by Ohio

EPA

to

implement

the

biological

criteria.

Deshon, J.D. 1995. Development and application of the invertebrate community index (Id),

pp. 2 17-243. in W.S. Davis and T. Simon (eds.). Biological Assessment and Criteria:

Tools for Risk-based Planning

and

Decision Making. Lewis Publishers,

Boca

Raton, FL.

Rankin, E. T. 1995. The use of habitat assessments in water resource management programs,

pp. 181-208. in W. Davis and T. Simon (eds.). Biological Assessment and Criteria:

Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,

FL.

Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin.

1995.

BioLogical criteria program development and

implementation in Ohio, pp. 109-144. in W. Davis and T. Simon (eds.). Biological

Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making.

Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Yoder, CD. and E.T. Rankin. 1995. Biological response signatures and the area of degradation

value: new tools for interpreting multimetric data, pp. 263-286. in W. Davis and T.

Simon (eds.). Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning

and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Yoder, CO.

1995.

Policy issues and management applications for biological criteria, pp. 327-

344.

in W. Davis and T. Simon (eds.). Biological Assessment

and

Criteria: Tools for

Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Yoder, CO. and E.T. Rankin. 1995. The role of biological criteria in water quality monitoring,

assessment,

and

regulation. Environmental Regulation in Ohio: How to Cope With the

Regulatory Jungle. Inst. of Business Law, Santa Monica, CA. 54 pp.

These documents and this report can be obtained by writing to:

Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water

Monitoring and Assessment Section

1685 Westbelt Drive

Columbus, Ohio 43228-3809

(614) 728-3377

iv

---

MAS/ 1995-12-5

DO. Criteria Revision Justification

January 31. 1996

Several of the major water quality criteria compendia

(e.g..

U.S. EPA 1986) were also examined

during the course of this study. The information contained in this literature strongly suggests

that the proposed revision to the EWH D.O. criterion is both protective and appropriate. Based

on the information presented by U.S. EPA (1986) there is also justification for bringing the Cold

Water Habitat (CWH) DO. criterion (presently 6 mg/I minimum only) into line with the two-

number average/minimum hierarchy of the Ohio WQS. In practical terms the proposed two-

number criteria for EWH and CWH

are

consistent with the hierarchy of D.O. criteria between the

WWH, MWH, and LRW use designations. The adoption of a 6 mg/i daily average, 5 mg/i

minimum two-number D.O. criterion for EWU and a 7 mg/I daily average, 6 mg/I minimum two-

number D.O. criterion for CWH is supported by the scientific evidence (both field and

laboratory) examined by this study.

vi

---

MASR99S-12-5

DO. Criteria Revision Justification

January 31. 1996

Summary

and Conclusions

The principal

objective

of this study

is to

present a rationale for revising

the

existing 6 mg/I

minimum dissolved oxygen

(DO.) criterion

for the Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH) use

designation. The need for a revised EWH

D.O.

criterion has been recognized by Ohio EPA for

more than a decade. DO. criteria have traditionally been expressed as a period average (usually

daily) along with a minimum below which D.O. values should not fall. The need for both is

evident in the literature on the effects of D.O. on aquatic life. Such a two-number criterion is

exemplified by the current Wamiwater Habitat (WWH), Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWI-I),

and Limited Resource Water (LRW) DO. criteria, an approach which is recognized as

appropriate by U.S. EPA (1986). Unlike these criteria, the existing EWH and Coidwater Habitat

(CWH) DO. criteria were adopted in 1978 as minimum only values. One reason cited by Ohio

EPA for needing a two-number D.O. criterion, the daily average value in particular, was a more

meaningful target for steady-state D.O. modeling efforts. The very nature of D.O. regimes in

warmwater rivers and streams also substantiates the need for a two-number criterion. DO.

concentrations are subject to natural, did changes which are influenced by the daily cycles of algal

photosynthesis and respiration. The magnitude of change between the minimum and maximum

D.O. during any 24-hour period is dependent on several factors including flow, ambient

temperature, solar insolation, and the abundance and activity of photosynthetic algae andlor

higher aquatic plants. In the warmwater rivers and streams of Ohio and the midwest U.S. a did

swing of as much as 3-5 mg/I may be considered “typicaL” during normal summer low flow and

ambient temperature conditions. Thus, the relationship of the dynamic D.O. regime to an average

value over a24-hour period is as important as the minimum.

The need for a revised EWH DO. criterion is also indicated by the frequent and widespread

observation of hill attainment of the EWH biological criteria where D.O. values less than the

current 6.0 mgIl (minimum) criterion have been measured. The results of comparing continuously

measured D.O. data and EWH use attainment in six streams and rivers of varying size shows that

the latter is compatible with D.O. values less than 6 mg/I. However, values less than 5 mgIl were

either infrequent, did not correlate with full EWH use attainment, or were measured only under

extreme low flow conditions. The results of this analysis tends to support a minimum EWH

DO. criterion of less than 6 mg/I, but not less than

5

mg/I.

V

---

MAS/1995-12-5

DO. Criteria Revision

Justilication

January 31,

1996

Criteria in the Ohio Water Quality Standards

Chris

0.

Yoder

Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water

Monitoring & Assessment Section

1685 Westbelt Drive

Columbus, Ohio 43228

Introduction

The Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS; Ohio Administrative Code 3745-1) consist of

designated uses and chemical, physical, and biological criteria designed to represent measurable

properties of the environment that are consistent with the goals specified by each use

designation. Use designations consist of two broad groups, aquatic life and non-aquatic life uses.

In applications of the Ohio WQS to the management of water resource issues in Ohio’s rivers and

streams, the aquatic life use criteria frequently result in the most stringent protection and

restoration requirements.

The five major aquatic life uses which have broad application

throughout Ohio are currently defined in the Ohio WQS. A brief description of each follows:

1)

Wannwater Habitat (WWH)

-

this use designation defines the “typical” warmwater

assemblage

of

aquatic organisms for Ohio rivers and streams and represents the principal

restoration target for water resource management efforts.

2)

Exceptional Wannwater habitat (EWH)

-

this use designation is reserved for waters which

support “unusual and exceptional” assemblages of aquatic organisms which are characterized

by a high diversity of species, particularly those which are highly intolerant and/or nrc,

threatened, endangered, or special status

(i.e.,

declining species); this designation usually

represents a protection target for water resource management efforts.

3)

Coidwater Habitat (C WI!)

-

this use is intended for waters which support assemblages of

cold water organisms and/or those which are stocked with salmonids with the intent of

providing a put-and-take fishery on a year round basis which is further sanctioned by the

Ohio DNR, Division of Wildlife; thisuse should not be confused with the Seasonal Salmonid

Habitat (SSI-I) use which applies to the Lake Erie tributaries which support periodic “runs”

of salmonids during the spring, summer, and/or fall.

4)

Mod(/Ied Warmwater Habitat (MW!!)

-

this use applies to streams and rivers which have

been subjected to extensive, maintained, and essentially permanent hydromodifications such

that the biocriteria for the WWH use are not attainable; the representative aquatic

assemblages are generally composed of species which are tolerant to low dissolved oxygen,

silt, nutrient enrichment, and poor quality habitat.

---

MAS/995-1 2-5

D.O. Criteria Revision

Justification

January 31, 1996

5) Limited Resource Water (LRW)

-

this use applies to streams (usually 3 mi.2 drainage area)

which have been irretrievably altered to the extent that no appreciable assemblage of aquatic

life can be supported; such streams generally occur in extensively urbanized areas and/or

completely lack water during normally recurring dry weather periods; other waters subjected

to acidic runoff from past surface mining activities may also be designated LRW.

Chemical, physical, and/or biological criteria are generally assigned to each use designation in

accordance with the broad goals defined by each. As such the system of use designations

employed in the Ohio WQS constitutes a “tiered” approach in that varying and graduated levels

of protection are provided by each. This hierarchy is especially apparent for parameters such as

dissolved oxygen, ammonia-nitrogen, temperature, and the biological criteria.

For other

parameters such as heavy metals, the technology to construct an equally graduated set of criteria

has been lacking, thus the same criteria may apply to two or more different use designations.

Dissolved Oxygen Criteria

Dissolved oxygen (D.Oj is one of the most important parameters in the protection and

management of aquatic ecosystems since all of the higher life forms

(i.e.,

vertebrates.

macroinvertebrates including Unionidac) are dependent on minimum levels of oxygen not only

for survival, but critical life cycle lIrnctions such as growth, maintenance, and reproduction. As

such, the DO. criteria for each of the beneficial aquatic life uses1 have been established in light of

these protection end points. The DO. criteria for the MWH and LRW use designations (Ohio

EPA 1987a) are. designed to maintain generally tolerant and lower value aquatic assemblages and

for the prevention of nuisance conditions

(e.g.,

anoxia, odors, fish kills). The current DO.

criteria for each aquatic life use designation is listed in Table 1. The principal objective of this

analysis is to present a rationale for revising the DO. criterion for the Exceptional Warmwater

Habitat (EWH) use designation. However, the lack of a daily average D.O. criterion for the Cold

Water Habitat (CWH) use designation was also examined.

The Need for A Revised

EWH D.O. Criterion

The need for a revised D.O. criterion for the EWH use designation has been sporadically

recognized and considered by Ohio EPA for more than a decade. Dissolved oxygen (DO.)

criteria have traditionally been expressed as a period average (usually daily) along with a

minimum below which 0.0. values should not fall. This is exemplified by the current WWH,

MWH, and LRW DO. criteria (Table 1), an approach which is also recognized as appropriate by

U.S. EPA (1986). The current WWH DO. criterion was originally adopted in the

1985

revisions

A

beneficial use meets either

the interim fishable/swimmable or biological integrity goals specified by the Clean

WaterAct (Section 1O1I(2).

In the

Ohio WQS. the

following aquatic life usesare considered beneficial:

EWH, WWH,

and

CWH.

2

---

MAS11995-12-5

0.0. Criteria Revision Justification

January 3!, 1996

Table 1.

Current dissolved oxygen (DO.)

criteria

for the major aquatic life use designations as

presently codified

in

the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS: Ohio Administrative

Code 3745-1).

Daily Aver-

Minimum

Use Designation

age (mg/i)

(mg/i)

Protection Endpoint

Coidwater Habitat

-

6.Oa

Coidwater organisms;

periodic stocking of

salmonids (maintenance,

growth).

Exceptional Warmwater

-

6.Oa

Highly sensitive aquatic

organisms; growth and

reproduction of recreationally

and commercially important

species; maintenance of

populations of imperiled

S~CC

‘Cs.

Warmwater Habitat

5.0

4.0

Maintenance of typically

representative warmwater

aquatic organisms and

recreationally important

species.

Modified Warmwater

4.0

3.0

Maintenance of moderately

and generally tolerant species

which are

common in highly

modified stream habitats.

Limited Resource Water

3.0

2.0

Prevention of nuisance

conditions (odors, anoxia,

acute toxicity).

a the

present criterion is expressed as a minimum value

only -

no

avenge is

specified.

3

---

MAS/ 995-12-5

0.0. Criteria Revision

Justification

January

3!, 1996

to

the Ohio

WQS and emanated from the original

introduction of tiered aquatic life

uses in the

1978

WQS revisions. The current MWH

and

LRW

criteria were

adopted in the May

1990

revisions

to the Ohio WQS.

The existing EWH

and

CWH

D.O. criteria were adopted in 1978 as

minimum only values.

The need for a “two-number” D.O. criterion for each designated aquatic life use was recognized

when Ohio EPA initiated the adoption of two-number criteria for most of the heavy metals and

other toxic constituents for which a sufficient database existed (bC by Dick Robertson dated

August 8. 1983). The principal reason cited was that a two-number criterion, the daily average

value in particular, would result in a more meaningful target for the steady-state D.O. modeling

efforts which were widely employed by Ohio EPA in the early and mid 1980s. The present

policy employed for water quality modeling is to target a daily average criterion value under an

assumed set of critical, steady-state stream flow and discharge conditions. In the case of the

existing D.O. criteria for EWH and CWH, a default value 0.5 mg/I above the daily minimum

criterion is used as the target for steady-state modeling efforts. However, an average criterion is

best suited for the steady-state modeling techniques which are commonly employed in the

wasteload

allocation process.

In addition to the aforementioned practical reasons for a two-number criterion forD.0., the very

nature of DO. regimes is more amenable to this type of approach. DO. concentrations are

subject to natural, did changes which are influenced by the daily cycles of algal photosynthesis

and respiration. The highest DO. values in a 24-hour period occur during the daylight hours

(usually in the late afternoon) and the lowest values occur in the early morning, pre-dawn hours.

This naturally occurring cycle is sometimes referred to as the “did D.O. swing”. The extent or

size of the “swing” between the minimum and maximum D.O. concentration recorded during a

24-hour

period is dependent on several factors including stream or river flow, ambient

temperature, solar insolation, and the relative abundance and activity of photosynthetic algal

and/or higher aquatic plants. In Ohio’s warmwater rivers and streams, a diel swing of as much as

2-4 mg/I may be considered “typical” during normal summer low flow and ambient temperature

conditions. Variations outside of this range likely signify increased nutrient enrichment and the

potential for negative effects to aquatic life, particularly for the most sensitive assemblages

(i.e.,

those representative of EWH). However, the relationship of the dynamic D.O. regime to an

average value over a 24-hour period is also important. Thus, in using ambient DO. data to

analyze the causes of aquatic life use impairment, it is also important to consider the average in

relation to minimum and maximum values

and

the width ofthe did variation.

The need for a revised DO. criterion for the EWH use designation is also evident in the repeated

observation of fi.ill attainment of the EWH biological criteria when D.O. values less than the

current 6.0 mg/I (minimum) criterion have occurred. Several examples from the Ohio EPA

4

---

MAS11995-12-5

0.0. Criteria Revision Justification

January 31, 1996

biological

and water quality assessment database were used to illustrate this point.

Rationale for the Current F 0W 110. Criterion

In attempting to determine the origin of the current 6 mgil minimum criterion, several sources

were consulted. The Ohio EPA WQS files contained little explicit information about the origins

of the 6 mg/I criterion and much of the documentation found pertained to justifications for the S

mg/I average/4 mg/I minimum criterion for the WWH designation. There were references to the

CWH and EWH DO. criteria needing to be more stringent than WWFI

“.

in order to give

protection to more sensitive fish species” (bC by Bob Monsarrat dated February 8, 1978).

Ohio has had a 6 mg/I criterion (applied to specific rivers and streams) since 1967 (Ohio Water

Poll. Contr. Sd. Resolutions), but the origins and level of protection specified remain unclear.

Some of the contemporary water quality criteria compendia of that time period allude to the

range of D.O. between

5

mg/i and 6 mg/I as being a critical threshold for sensitive fish species,

especially coidwater species (FWPCA 1968). This same study also established a hierarchy of

decreasing sensitivity from coidwater fish

(e.g.,

salmon, trout) to warmwater game and pan fish

(e.g.,

bass, sunfish) to warmwater “coarse” fish

(e.g.,

carp, buffalo). While some of these

categorizations do not necessarily parallel a species sensitivity

(i.e.,

“coarse” fish, several of

which are actually sensitive species) the hierarchy remains an appropriate way to categorize

levels of protection consistent with that specified by the Ohio EPA aquatic life uses

(e.g.,

CWHEWFLWWHMWHLRW).

Thus, a hierarchical set of D.O. criteria consistent with the

hierarchy of the designated aquatic life uses seems appropriate.

None of this, however, sheds much more than indirect light on the origins of the EWH 6 mgIl

minimum D.O. criterion. The FWPCA (1968) summary on D.O. was one of the documents

available to Ohio EPA to support the development of the 1978 WQS which is where the EWH

DO. minimum of 6 mg/I first appeared. This study indicates that one of the first signs of stress

on fish from declining DO. concentrations is increased respiration

(i.e..

gill movement) and that

this becomes evident for the “half-dozen or so warmwater game and pan fish” as DO. is reduced

from 6 mg/i to 5 mg/I and the effects are further exacerbated from 5 mg/I to 4mg/I. However, the

FWPCA (1968) report also stated the following:

“Several field studies have shown that good and diversified fish populations can occur in

waters in which the dissolved oxygen concentration is between 6 and 5 mg/I in the

summer,

suggesting that a minimum of 6 mg/i is probably more stringent than necessary

Jbr warrnwaterJishes

(italics added). Because the oxygen content of a body of water does

not remain constant, it follows that if the dissolved oxygen is never less than 5 mg/I it

must be higher part of the time. In some cases, good populations of warmwater fish,

including game and pan fishes, occur in waters in which the dissolved oxygen may be as

5

---

MAS/995-12-5

0.0. Criteria Revision Justification

January 31, 1996

low as 4 mg/I for short periods.

.

(and).

Five and 4 mg/I are close to the borderline of

oxygen concentrations that are tolerable for extended periods. For a good population of

game and pan fishes the concentration should be considerably more than this.”

The recommendations forthcoming from the FWPCA (1968) were

5

mg/I for a diversified

warmwater biota assuming that there are normal seasonal and daily variations above this

concentration. The DO. could range between 5 and 4 mg/I for “short periods of time” provided

other water quality conditions are favorable. However, the growth of young fish was markedly

impaired if the D.O. dropped to 3 mg/I even for a part of the day when maximum values as high

as

18 mg/I occurred. This is one of the reasons cited for needing a daily minimum criterion in

addition to an average.

Based on an

examination of Ohio EPA files and conversations with some of the key staff who

developed the 1978 WQS (R. Shank, pets. comm.) the origin of the 6mg/I minimum criterion was

based on assuring the protection of a set of ecological values that were higher than “typical”

(i.e.,

WWH). Given that the tools

and techniques now available to discriminate between the WWF!

and

EWH uses were lacking,

it is not surprising that a clear justification for the 6 mg/I criterion

cannot be found. In one sense, the 6 mg/i minimum was largely a best professional judgenient

decision employing a generous margin of safety given the resource value implied by EWH. Thus,

the proposed minor adjustment to the original 6mg/I minimum criterion seemsjustified given the

existence of new information resulting from the availability of improved assessment tools

(i.e.,

multimetric biok’gical indices, bicAogical criteria, etc.) and databases 18 years hence.

Rationale for A Revised EWH 0.0. Criterion

Part of the rationale for a revised EWH DO. criterion is based largely on the observation of flu

attainment of the EWH biological criteria under D.O. regimes which include minimum daily

values less than 6 mg/i. Other information including the U.S. EPA

Ambient Water Quality

Criteria for Dissolved arygen

(U.S. EPA 1986) was also examined to verify the efficacy of this

criterion revision.

Analysis of the

Statewide

Database

One approach

used to determine the appropriateness of the proposed EWH D.O. criterion was

to

examine the Ohio EPA statewide database for DO. and biological community performance

indicators

(i.e.,

Index of Biotic Integrity, Invertebrate Community Index). This was accomplished

by plotting various expressions of D.O. levels (raw values, means, percentiles) in Ohio rivers and

streams against the biological indices which comprise the Ohio EPA biological criteria (Ohio EPA

1987b, 1989a,b). After examining a number of different statewide comparisons, three stood out

as offering both meaningful and representative information.

6

---

MASIt99S-12-5

0.0. Criteria Revision

Justification

January 31, 1996

Raw D.O. values (instantaneous measurements) from the statewide database spanning the period

of 1981-1992 were plotted against the Index of Biotic Integrity (1BI) values recorded at linked

locations

(i.e.,

the D.O. value was deemed representative of the biological sampling location).

The resultant scatterplot (Figure 1, upper tier) reveals a cluster of data points which we term a

“wedge” of data points. The left surface of the wedge represents a boundary between which IBI

values representative of a given level of biological community performance at a given DO.

concentration have been observed to occur. A 95 line of best fit was drawn across the left

surface boundary with

5

of the data points falling to the left of the line (Figure 1). The 95

tine corresponds to the lowest D.O. value at which a given level of biological community

performance as measured by the IBI has regularly occurred

-

coincidences of DO. and iBI values

to the left of this line are by comparison rare. Thus, any proposed “new” criterion for D.O. can

be evaluated for precedence against this historically and spatially robust database. As such this

represents a “one-sided” analysis in that a proposed criterion can be evaluated to determine if it

is under-protective moreso than evaluating if it is over-protective.

Shaded areas representing the boundaries of “representative” numerical biological criteria for the

respective EWH, WWH, and MWH aquatic life uses were superimposed on the scatterplot to

determine the DO. levels at which attainment or non-attainment of these criteria have been

observed. The existing 4mg/i mthimum DO. criterion for the WWH use and the proposed

5

mg/I

minimum for the EWU use were also superimposed to determine the D.O. concentrations at

which IBI values consistent with the attainment of each use designation occurred. The results

indicate that lB! values consistent with the EWH use designation at DO. concentrations as low

as 5 mg/I have precedence with some sporadic occurrences less than 5 mg/i (Figure 1, upper tier).

A similar plot of median DO. values (Figure 1, lower tier) shows that EWH attainment with

median DO. values as low as 6 mg/I also has precedence. Figure Ia is a box-and-whisker plot

analysis by narrative biological performance ranges

(i.e.,

exceptional, good, fair, poor, and very

poor) of the IBI showing the median, 10th, 25th. 75th, and 90th peicentiles, and outliers for 10th

percentile DO. values. This analysis shows that the proposed

5

mg/i minimum corresponds to

exceptional performance at the 10th percentile of DO. values. The majority of the D.O. data in

Figure 1 arc comprised of daytime readings meaning that potentially lower readings, which would

occur in the early morning hours, are not ~ve1Irepresented. Thus, minimum daily values lower

than those in Figures 1 and la probably occurred at the sites where full attainment of the EWH

use was observed. As such, Figures 1 and Ia represent conservative analyses in that the data

points do not necessarily represent all of the daily minimum values which likely occurred. While

these analyses

alone

are not entirely conclusive regarding the efficacy of the proposed 6 mg/I

average/5 mg/I minimum EWH 0.0. criterion, the occurrence of daytime DO. values less than

the present 6 mgII minimum criterion with full attainment of the EWH use is certainly not

unprecedented in a historically, spatially, and observationally (n=14,992) robust database.

7

---

DO.

Criteria Revision Justification

~MNH

i:io.

Rtrised EWH

D~O~

O*stri

(4 nTrN.~

,.~/

(5 rrql IT*L)

:2.-.

IndividuäDaytim& csamples

a

n=14,992

0_nfl

0

00 O~

the

~:

88°8

___

I

0

0

•

I

~

_______

9

0

0

___

___ ~1

0

__________

o

o

~

1

10

~ico

0

January31. 1996

Re~

xese,tatM)

i~i(46-50)

R~afl~e

~1-I

181(38-42)

Reçzascflative

MWH IBI (22-24)

DissoIv~xy~j~m8/l)

Figure 1. Relationship between the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and individual

(upper) and median (lower) dissolved oxygen (D.O.) concentrations at

sampling sites in rivers and streams throughout Ohio based on

daytime DO. readings and biological sampling conducted between

1979

and

1992.

60

50

MASt 1995-12-5

12j

LI

40

30

20

RD

EWH

D.C. Citer4on

I

60

50

40

30

20

10

Reçrnseflative

181(46-50)

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I)

8

---

MAS/1995-12-5

DO. Criteria Revision Justification

January31. 1996

12-19

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-60

INDEX OF

BKYI1C

INTEGRI1Y

Rq~s&EV~

Mit DO. crtthr

Figure Ia. Box-and-whisker plot of 10th percentile daytime D.O. values

arranged by narrative biological performance categories based

on the Index of Biotic of Integrity (IBI) and the Ohio EPA

statewide DO.

database.

2

I

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

9

---

MAS/1995-12-S

DO. Criteria Revision Justification

January 31, 1996

Observations in Individual Rivers and Streams

Another analysis undertaken in this study was an examination of the occurrence of attainment of

the EWH biocriteria in designated (or recommended) EWH streams and rivers with an adequate

continuous DO. database. This analysis provides a comparison of the IBI and Invertebrate

Community Index (IC!; DeShon 1995; Ohio EPA 1987a, 1989) with the D.O. results obtained

using Datasonde continuous monitors. Information from six streams and rivers either presently

designated as EWH (or where the biological

data

indicates a redesignation to EWH is

appropriate) was examined. These represent a cross-section of different stream and river sizes as

well. Full attainment of the EWH use designation over an extended length of river or stream

and/or over multiple years under D.O. levels which are periodically below the present 6 mg/I

minimum D.O. criterion represents additional evidence that the criterion should be revised.

Scippo Creek

Scippo Creek is a small tributary of the Scioto River located within the Eastern Corn Belt Plains

(ECBP) ecoregion (Omernik and Gallant 1988) and drains

52

square miles of land area. Land use

is predominantly row crop agriculture and one major point source (PPG Industries) discharges to

the mainstem. Based on results obtained through monitoring

conducted

in 1992 and 1993,

Scippo Creek is being recommended for redesignation as EWH. Both the 18! and IC! attain the

EWH biological criteria at nearly all sites sampled, thus meeting the Ohio EPA requirement that

the ability to attain EWH be demonstrated (Figure 2; Ohio EPA 1987b). Continuous DO.

readings taken in August 1993 indicate that minimum values below 6 mgI! occurred at most sites.

No values below

5

mg/I were observed.

Big

Darby

Creek

Big Darby Creek is a major tributary of the Scioto River located within the Eastern Corn Belt

Plains (ECBP) ecoregion (Omernik and Gallant 1988) and drains approximately 560 square miles

of land area. Land use is predominantly row crop agriculture, but several small point sources

(mostly WWTPs) discharge to the mainstem and tributaries. The existing use designation of the

mainstem is EWH with the exception of the extreme headwaters which are designated as WWH.

Big Darby Creek has long been recogi~izedfor supporting an unusually diverse and unique

assemblage of aquatic life and is a nationally designated Scenic River and one of The Nature

Conservancy’s “Last Great Places”. Biological performance as measured by the 181 and IC!

indicate that the biological criteria for the EWH are largely met with the exceptiontf-hxalized

reaches of impairment (Figure 3). The latest contiguous set of data (1992) indicates the strongest

showing of lull attainment and show the highest biological index scores to occur in the tower4O-

50 miles of the mainstem. Several sets of continuous D.O. data have been collected between

1988 and 1992. The D.O. data collected in August 1992 covers the longest reach, but represents

an elevated flow year (Figure 4). The D.O. data collected in 1988 represents the opposite

extreme as critically low flows occurred during an extended drought period. The D.O. results

10

---

MASt 1995-12-5

110. Criteria Revision Justification

January 3!, 1996

Figure 2. Biological and D.O. monitoring results from Scippo Creek during 1992 and

1993; D.O. (upper) as measured by Datasonde continuous monitors in August

1993 and the Index of Biotic Integrity (WI; middle) and Invertebrate

Community Index (id; lower).

11

C,

C

0,

0

-D

U)

0U,

U,

C

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

60

50

40

30

20

12

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

I

I

AugusIl 993

H

T

I

I

a-

I

:

:

.

RM 0.4

RM 0.1

1993

—s——

1992

.

I

‘‘

fl:

—w-——

1993

:

I

.

I

—

EWH fln~

QBI=50)

W~MOtHt~

QBt=40)

EWH(ICI=46)

C~

~II

cAatn

(CI=36)

20

15

10

5

0

RIVEFaIILE

---

MAS/1995-12-5

DO. Criteria Revision

Justification

January 31, 1996

80

70

60

50

40

30

RIVEF~1ILE

EW~CA~th

(IC

1=46)

~H O~th

fla=36)

Figure 3. Index of Riotic Integrity (IB1; upper) and Invertebrate Community Index (ICI;

lower) results for the mainstem of Rig Darby Creek during 1988, 1990, 1992, and

1993.

40

—

m

60

~5O

I

30

20

12

0

C)

V

~5o

~4o

E

0

Co

-o

a)

t

a)

C

30

20

10

0

10

0

12

---

MAS/1995-12-5

D.O. Criteria

Revision Justification

January 31, 1996

indicate that values less than the existing 6 mg/I EWH D.O. criterion have occurred in the lower

mainstem while biological performance consistent with the EWH use designation also occurred

(Figures 3 and 4). The site at RM 13.36 showed extremely low D.O. values during the extended

low flow period in 1988 with minimum values less than 3 mg/I and a 25th percentile value of 4

mg/I (Figure 4). Long-term monitoring with macroinvertebrates at this same site shows IC!

values well above the EWH biological criteria with similar values persisting in 1990 and 1992

(Figure 4). 181 values were also well above the EWH criteria at this same site in 1988 with

similarly high values extending into 1990 and 1992.

Upper Great Miami River

The Great Miami River is a major tributary of the Ohio River located within the Eastern Corn

Belt Plains (ECEP) ecoregion (Omernik and Gallant 1988). Our focus here is with the upper

mainsteni which drains approximately 1150 square miles of land area. Land use is predominantly

row crop agriculture, but several major point sources (mostly WWTPs) discharge to the

mainstem. The existing use designation of the inainstem is WWH. but the results obtained in

1994 strongly suggest a redesignation to EWH is in order. IBI and ICI values along most of the

mainstem between RM 85 and 140 were above the EWH biological criteria (Figure

5).

Minimum

D.O. values less than 6 mg/I were measured at three sites, two of which were either close to or at

biological sampling locations which met the EWH biological criteria (Figure

5).

Values less than 5

mg/I occurred at only one site which was in a localized impoundment on the mainstem which will

remain designated WWH.

Little MiamiRiver

The Little Miami River is a major tributary of the Ohio River located within the Eastern Corn

Belt Plains (ECBP) and Interior Plateau ecoregions (Omernik and Gallant 1988) and drains

approximately 1760 square miles of land area. Land use is predominantly row crop agriculture,

but numerous major point sources (mostly WWTPs) discharge to the mainstem. The volume of

municipal WWTP effluent is the largest of any EWH designated river in Ohio (50 million

gallons/day) and is projected to increase. Full attainment ofthe EWH biological criteria occurs in

two disjunct reaches and the cumulative distance in full attainment increased substantially

between 1983 and 1993 (Figure 6).

Three other reaches including the lower mainstem

(downstream from RM 20), a reach between RM 50 and 65. and the headwaters upstream from

RM 80-85 were in partial attainment due primarily to organic enrichment from municipal WWTP

discharges and combined sewer ovefflows (lower reach only; Ohio EPA 1995). Biological

performance along most ofthe mainstem has improved significantly since 1983, reflecting loading

reductions from point sources. Reaches of full EWH attainment were correlated with D.O.

values less than the current 6 mg/I criterion, but very few values were found to be less than

5

mg/I

(Figure 6). Because most of the WWTPs are submitting expansion plans, the Little Miami River

is a case in point as to the appropriate D.O. target for wasteload allocation purposes. The

13

---

MAS/1995-12-5

D.O. Criteria Revision Justification

January 3!, 1996

EWlSegment

15 _________________________________

0

0

0’ ~

•0)

________

_______

0) 0) 0) 0) 0~

00

:~

~

Augusl992

~

S

—

~

—,

sc

0-(I)

== —

=

a

-,

(I)

_

(I).

a,

C

ci~

a,

0

a)

-ö

Proposed 6 mg/I Average:

o

S mg/I

Minimum EWH Criterion

(0

I 111111.1

~

U~) C’J

N

U~)•

liii’,!.’,

~

N

N

(N

liii’,’’’’

(N

(N (N Ij) LU

LU

~

çyjCCj

th

~-

~h

thr~r

cvi”~ “?“?

~

(I)

r

U)

r

CM

N

(V)

(fl

~

U)

U)

CL)

CD

CD

CD

W

r

r

(N C’J

22~

~

N-

N N N N N

~

~6O

:

I

~ I

I

I

I

EWHCrIscn

-~5o

E30:

E

E40

/

o

:

~HCItSiDn

~2O

:

0036)

Bi4,arbfreeklcwrend

-

.0

s~10

-

—cn——

a)

I....

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

YEAR

Figure 4. DO. results (upper) obtained with Datasonde continuous monitors during

the summer months of 1988 and 1992 from the mainstem of Big Darby

Creek and Invertebrate Community Index (ICI; lower) results obtained at a

long-term fixed monitoring location (RM 13.4) between 1976 and 1992.

14

---

MAS/1995-!2-5

January31. 1996

~nnmflxWWH

S~ot

‘4-

-

th16 -

A&~-S~1994

P.~.Se41i994

I

S~t94 --

4

~

Proposed 6 mg/I Average:

— -

S mgII

Minimum

EWH

Criteri

ii

2

II

IIIII

~D

U~

0

~

(0

U~

(0

N

~

-~

U

~

UI

~

0N

~

0

•g~o

C)

-D

I

@160

C

Figure

5.

Biological and D.O. monitoring results from the upper Great Miami

River during 1982 and

1994; D.O.

(upper) as measured by Datasonde

continuous monitors during June-September 1994 and the Index of

Biotic Integrity (IBI; middle) and Invertebrate Community Index (ICI

lower) based on results obtained in 1982 and 1994.

D.O. Criteria Revision

Justification

150 140

130

120 110 100

90

80

RIVER MILE

15

---

MASh 995-12-5

January 3!, 1996

LittldvliamRiveri

LittlcMiamRi 983/Si 993

20

0

EWH Cr~tr

((0=46)

vw~

at~

QCI=36)

Figure 6. Biological and D.O. monitoringresults from the Little Miami River during 1983

and 1993; D.O. (upper) as measured by Datasonde continuous monitors during

June-September 1993 and the Index of Biotic Integrity (181; middle) and

Invertebrate Coniinunity Index (ICI; lower) based on results obtained in 1983

and 1993. The entire mainstem to RM 3.0 is designated EWH.

DO. Criteria Revision Justification

15

C,

E

C

wiG

C

-o

F

0

Proposed 6

mg/I Avgerage:

—

5 mg/I Minimum EWH Criterion

-1--~-.-•

—

t.J

0

U,

e) o~ C F— 0

In

a, e1 c’J

in u~

c~’

.n

~i

C

cn

~

0) r-

CC ~

t’~ °

~ 2 ~

~6O

40

230

P

-oU)

20

0

Lo

g4o

~3o

~2O

~1o

0)

EU

100

80

60

40

RIVER IvILE

16

---

MASt1995-12-S

0.0. Criteria Revision Justification

January 31. 1996

problems associated with the WWTP impacts

included

excessive nutrient concentrations (mostly

total phosphorus) and the influence of this on diet 110. patterns. The available information

suggests that protecting for the proposed 6 mg/I

averagel5

mg/I minimum EWH 0.0. criterion

would be appropriate for maintaining and ftirther restoring the EWH use designation.

Waihonding River

The Waihonding River is a major tributary of the Muskingum River located within the Western

Allegheny Plateau (WAP) ecoregion (Omemik and Gallant 1988) and drains approximately 2250

square miles of land area. Land use is predominantly row crop agriculture, but point sources

discharge to the upper sections of several major tributaries which feed the Waihonding. The

existing use designation of the mainstem is EWH and the biological results easily reaffirm this

(Figure 7). Continuous D.O. data collected during three different years show some minimum

values less than 6 mg/I, but above

5

mg/I (Figure 7). The Walhonding is probably the largest river

in Ohio with no direct point source discharges and only a few scattered concentrations of such in

thc upper parts of the watershed.

Scioto River

The Scioto River is a major tributary of the Ohio River thcated within the Eastern Corn Belt

Plains (ECBP) ecoregion (Omemik and Gallant 1988). Our

focus here is with the

central

mainstem which drains approximately

3200

square miles of

land area

making it

the largest

river

among the six examples. Land use in

the

upper

watershed

is predominantly

row

crop agriculture,

but

two major

~ointsources (both

WWTPs) and

several smaller sources

(WWTPs, industries)

discharge

to

the mainstem. The existing

use designation

of

the mainstem

is WWH, but results

obtained

since the mid and

late

1980s

strongly suggest a redesignation to

EWH for an

approximately

eight

mile

long reach

of the lower central mainstem. IBI and IC! values in the

reach between

RM 106.1 and

97.9

indicate lull attainment ofthe EWH biological

criteria

at most

locations (Figure

8).

Continuous

DO. data

collected in

1988

shows values less than 6 mg/I and

even

5

mg/I during an

extended

drought. Daytime

grab

samples during other years

also

show

minimum values less than 6 mg/I

at sites which

attain the EWH

biocriteria.

Long-term results

for

the

ICI and

TB!

both

show values approaching and

exceeding

EWH biological criteria as early as

1986

and generally persisting through

1992

(Figure 9).

Summary ofIndividual Streams and Rivers

The results of the comparison of continuously measured D.O. and EWH use attainment in six

streams and rivers of varying sizes shows that the latter can be compatible with minimum DO.

values less than 6 mg/I. However, values less than

5

mg/ were either infrequent, did not

frequently correlate with full EWH use attainment, or were measured only under extreme low

flow conditions. Thus, this analysis would appear to support a minimum EWH D.O. criterion

less than 6 mg/I, but not less than

5

mg/i.

17

---

MAS/1995-12-5

January 31, 1996

II

.

~-

—m-—19941B1

—s— i~i~

m

.

—W--— 1994

—s-—

1988

H

II

20

15

10

5

0

RiVER MLE

EWHQ~

QBI=48)

/

~HOI&tn

(181=40)

EVM Q~tn

(ICI=46)

QCI=36)

Figure 7. Biological and D.O. monitoring results from the Waihonding River during 1983-

1994; D.O. (upper) as measured by Datasonde continuous monitors during August

1988, July 1989, and September 1994 and the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI;

middle) and Invertebrate Community Index (ICI; lower) based on results obtained

in 1983, 1988, and 1994. The Waihonding River is designated EWI-I.

18

110. Criteria Revision

Justification

16

a)

=

12

a,

a)

08

-o

a)

0)

b

0

=~60

c

t

~4o

630

50

p

C)

~12

~‘6O

~,5o

~4o

~3o

‘c)

C

---

MAS/1995-1 2-5

January 31, 1996

—~14

0)

E12

C

olO

0,

C

-D

3)6

U,

0

~6O

~ 50

0)

C)

t

E3o

C)

S 12

E~ O~

(IBI=48)

0

-~

EWlQtetr

50

QCI=46)

~4o

~3o

~

140

Figtire 8. Results of continuous D.O. Monitoring in 1988 (upper) compared to Index

ofBiotic Integrity (IBI; middle) and Invertebrate Community Index (id:

lower) results forthe central Scioto River mainstem during 1980, 1988,

1991. and 1992.

19

DO. Criteria

Revision Justification

II

-

Rexininmied -V

-

EWSegment

-

July1928

__

TE

iii

_

-

__

I

I-

-

Proposed 6 mg/I Average:

-

-

5 mg/I Minimum

EWH

Criterion

-

II

RM119.9 RM115.31 RM1O9.37 RM1O2.14

I

I

I

p

120

110

RIVER tYkE

---

MAS/1995-12-5

January 3!, 1996

C)

E 12

C

e

10

0)

,

0

‘8

-c

0,

02

0

60

50

I-

~4Oa,

C

-~3o

-o

9o20

C

—

12

o 60

40-

~2O

Ct

I-

-o

t

a)

a)

10

0

C

R~nnme~ded

EWisegment

JuI~4

988

H

J_I

J~

Proposed 6 mg/I Average:

-

5 mg/I Minimum EWH Criterion

I

I

I

I

I

I

RM119.9

RM115.31

RM1O9.37

RM1O2.14

1979-7994

—m--—

I~V11O2fl

-

1980

1985

1990

1995

YEAR

LWI O~

081=48)

Iv,

~HQ~tn

(IBI=42)

EW~Q~

2C1=46)

W~H

Q*st~

QO=36)

Figure 9. Comparison of Dii (upper) concentrations in the Scioto River as

measured by Datasonde continuous monitors during July 1988 and the

Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI; middle) and Invertebrate Community

Index (JEll; lower) based on results obtained at fixed locations (RM

100.0 and 102.0) during 1974-1994.

0.0. Criteria Revision

Justification

19741993

I’’’!’

1975

—0--— l~v1lcflCVlO2.O

20

---

MASII99S-12-5

D.O.

Criteria Revision

Justification

January 31, 1996

Synthesis

of Information

The information presented thus far from the Ohio EPA database consists mostly of field

observations with the goal of evaluating the

efficacy of a 6 mg/I average/5 mg/I minimum two-

number EWH 110. criterion. These observations (Figures 1-9) tend to support changing the

current 6 mg/I minimum LW!-! DO. critedon to the proposed two-number criterion. Not only

have there been observations of EWH use attainment with minimum D.O.

values

less than 6 mg/I,

the evidence also suggests the relative absence ofthis occurrence when instantaneous DO. levels

drop below

5

mgfl and median 1eve~sdrop below6 mg/I (see Figures 1 and la). These results also

seem to correlate with the findings of Ellis (1937) and Coble (1982) who both found that fish

communities characterized by a high divershy and a significant proportion of sport-species

(e.g.,

percids, bass, sunfish) occurred at sites

averaging

greater than

5

mg/I. The latter study by Coble

(1982) is particularly supportive as it focused on what arc sometimes referred to as “cool water’

fish assemblages. In distinguishing between EWH and WWH communities in Ohio, the

qualitative association of “cool water” fish species with EWH is one way of describing some of

the species which are the significant biological attributes of this use designation. In a review of

these field studies U.S. EPA (1986) concluded

“.

. .

that

increases in dissolved oxygen

concentrations above 5 mg/I do not produce noteworthy improvements in the composition,

abundance, or condition of non-sairnonid fish populations

(italics added). but that sites with

dissolved oxygen concentrations below 5 mgI have fish assemblages with increasingly poorer

population characteristics”.

While these studies essentially pit-dated the development of

multimetric indiées such as the IBI, the qualitative characteristics of the fish populations which

are described by each are consistent with some of the key differences between the WWH and

EWH uses which are discriminated and quantified by multimetric indices such as the IBI and ICI.

The most recent and comprehensive compendium of the effects of DO. on fish and other aquatic

organisms is the U.S. EPA

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen

(U.S. EPA

1986). This document included the findings and conclusions of some noteworthy reviews such

as Davis (1975) and Doudoroff and Shumway (1967, 1970), the latter being cited by the water

quality criteria compendia of that time

(e.g.,

National Academy of Sciences/Engineering 1973).

While the U.S. EPA (1986) study only distinguished between warmwater and coidwater criteria,

it did refer to varying degrees of protection within each category

(e.g.,

degrees of fish production

impairment). One analysis correlated the percent survival of embryonic and larval stages of

warmwater fish with mean DO. which showed complete survival of eight species when the

mean

DO. was greater than 6 mg/I (Figure 10). It was further noted that the minima in the

laboratory experiments averaged about 0.3 mg/I less than the mean, The U.S. EPA (1986)

recommendations for DO. criteria specified three temporal thresholds for early life stages and

other life stages including adults. For warmwater applications this consisted of the criteria listed

in Table 2. Based on the thresholds developed by U.S. EPA (1986) a 6 mg/I average/5 mg/I

21

---

MAS/1995-12-5

0.0. Criteria Revision Justification

January 31, 1996

120

I

~ oI~ ‘i

•,—

2

80—

.0

V

-~

.

V

o

—

A

•

Boss

—

S

Northern Pike

20

U Channel Catfish

i

?lSWctleye

VSmci?Imouth Bass

(I)

____

2

3

4 5678910

Dissolved Oxygen (rng/L)

Figure 11. The effect of continuous exposure to various mean dissolved oxygen concentrations on

survival of embryonic and larval stages of eight species of non-salmonid fish. Minima

recorded in these tests averaged about 0.3 mg/I below

the

mean concentrations (reproduced

from

Ambient Water Quality CriteriaJbr Dissolved Oxygen,

U.S. EPA 1986)

22

---

MASh

995-12-5

DO. Criteria Revision Justification

January 31, 1996

Table 2. Water quaLity criteria for ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations to protect

warmwater aquatic life as proposed by U.S. EPA (1986).

Life Stages

30-Day Mean

7-Day Mean

7-Day Mean

Minimum

I-Day Minimuma

Early Life Stages

(embryos, larvae,

juveniles 30 days)

NA

6.0

NA

5.0

Other Life Stages

(juveniles, adults)

5.5

NA

4.0

3.0

a

instantaneous minimum.

minimum EWH D.O. criterion appears to be protective of all life stages. While a

5

mg/I minimum

is more stringent than that proposed by US. EPA (1986) for adults andjuveniles, it is necessary

to protect younger life stages. It also seems a reasonabk minimum given that EWH criteria

should be more protective than those for WWH. The EWH DO. criterion that we propose lies

between the U.S. EPA recommended warmwater and coidwater levels (non-embryonic life stages

only) of protection which also seems reasonable given that some of the sensitive warmwater

species that comprise the assemblages representative of EWH may well approach the sensitivity

of

salmonids.

The adoption of a 6 mg/I average/5 mgi minimum two-number D.O. criterion for EWH seems

supported by the scientific evidence (both field and laboratory) examined by this study. In

practical terms the proposed two-number criterion is also consistent with the hierarchy of DO.

criteria between the WWH, MWH, and LRW use designations. Based on the information

presented by U.S. EPA (1986) there is also justification for bringing the Coidwater Habitat

(CWH) D.O. criterion (presently 6 mg/I minimum) into line with the two-number

average/minimum hierarchy ofthe other use designations. The addition of a 7mg/i average seems

to be supported by the U.S. EPA (1986) study which specifics a 6.5 mg/I 30-day mean for life

stages other than embryos and larvae which are not at issue in Ohio’s CWFI designated streams.

These life stages are not applicable protection end points for CWF! in Ohio as this use is focused

on maintaining adult andjuvenile salmonids on a put-and-take basis, thus a 7 mgJl

averagel6

mg/i

minimum criterion should be protective of the CWH use designation.

23

---

MAS/ 1995-12-5

D.O. Criteria

Revision

Justification

January 31. 1996

REFERENCES

Coble, D.W. 1982. Fish populations in relation to dissolved oxygen in the Wisconsin River.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 111:612-623.

Ellis, M.M. 1937. Detection and measurement of stream pollution. Bull. U.S. Bureau of Sport

Fisheries and Wildlife. 48(22): 365-437.

Davis, J.C. 1975. Minima! dissolved oxygen requirements of aquatic life with emphasis on

Canadian species: a review. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 32:2295-2232.

Doudoroff, P. and DL. Shumway. 1967. Dissolved oxygen criteria for the protection of fish.

Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Pubi. No. 4: 13-19.

Doudoroff, P. and D.L. Shurnway. 1970. Dissolved oxygen requirements of freshwater fishes.

Food Agric. Org. United Nations, Rome, Italy. FAO Tech. Paper 86. 291 pp.

DeShon, J.D. 1995. Development and application of the invertebrate community index (IC!),

pp. 217-244.

in

W.S. Davis and T. Simon (eds.). BioIogica~Assessment and Criteria:

Tools for Risk-based Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA). 1968. Water quality criteria. Rept.

of the National Tech. Advisory Comm. to the Secy. of Interior, Washington, D.C. 234 pp.

National Academy of Sciences/Engineering. 1973. Water quality criteria. National Research

Council, Washington, D.C.

594 pp.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Biological and water quality study of the Linle

Miami River and selected tributaries. OEPA Tech. Rept. MAS/1994-12-11. Division of

Surface Water, Monitoring and Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio. Vols. I and II.

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. Div. Water Qual. Plan. Assess., 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. Div. Water Qual. Plan. Assess.. Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio.

24

---

MAS/ 1995-12-5

DO. Criteria Revision Justification

January 3 L, 1996

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. I 987a. Justification and rationale for the modified

warm-water habitat aquatic life use and associated dissolved oxygen criteria. Division of

Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio. 26

pp.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987b. 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.

Omernik, J. M., and Gallant, A. L. 1988. Ecoregions of the upper Midwest States, U. S. EPA,

Environmental Research Lab, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-88/037.

Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc. Amer.

Geogr. 77(1): 118425.

U.S. EPA. 1986. Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen. Offe. Water Reg. Stds.,

Criteria and Stds. Div., Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-86-003. 46 pp.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Chris Skaiski is acknowledged for his aitical review of all drafts ofthis report and helpfiut advice

and comments. Jeff DeShon and Marc Smith are acknowledged for their review of an earlier draft

of the report.

25

---

Notes on Associations Between DissoWed Oxygen

and Fish and Macroinvertebrate Assemblages

in Wadeable Ohio Streams

DRAFT

Nov 12, 2004

Edward T. Rankin

Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria

introduction

Dissolved oxygen (DO) is perhaps the most important chemical constituent limiting to

aquatic life in streams across the U.S. streanis because of its obvious importance for

respiration. Most flowing waters have sufficient dissolved oxygen to support natural

populations of aquatic life and certain habitats with low natural levds of dissolved oxygen

during some portion of a year have species adapted to obtain dissolved oxygen from other

sources (gulping of atmospheric oxygen in the mudminnow, grass pickerel in certain

wetland conditions). Most state water quality standards have devdoped dissolved oxygen

requirement based on the U.S. EPA (1986) criteria derivation guidelines using the most

sensitive species (to low DO) that inhabit these waters based on a relatively abundant

literature related to DO requirements. Ohio has incorporated field data associating

biological condition indices, such as the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and the Invertebrate

Community Index (id), with ambient dissolved oxygen measurements to adjust dissolved

oxygen criteria by aquatic 1fe use and, in some cases, ecoregion differences (Appendix 1).

Data

This fact

sheet discusses two types of ambient dissolved oxygen data collect from Ohio

streams.

The largest database is composed of daytinie grab sanipks (ORB) collected during

intensive watershed surveys. Biological and chemical data were matched on a case by case

where the exact location denoted by a river mile (RM) differed slightly. This can occur

because water chemistry data is a point sample, macroinvertebrates sites are a combination

of

a point (artificial substrates) and short reach (natural substrates) and fish are sampled

along a I 5O-500m transect. Chemical and biological data were linked if chemical data were

deemed to be representative of the chemical conditions to which the biology was exposed

and when no significant source of pollutants or dilution entered between sampling

locations (e.g., tributary, discharge). Data also had to be collected during the sante year and

during the same summer period (June 15-October 15).

The second type of data was collected by Ohio EPA using Datasonde continuous

tnoniroring samplers (CND that record parameters such as DO, temperature and pH every

15 minutes; these were typically set for 48 hours. This data, which we obtained from Ohio

EPA, was collected between 1988 and 1994 and should encompass or include time periods

---

where dissolved oxygen levels had both very high and very low values. There were fewer

linked macroli-ivet-tebrate sites than fish sites with the continuous data so we focused on

the

ORB data when examining macroinvertebrate responses. The ORB database was

extremely large so we used one subset that matched the continuous monitoring sites, a

second subset from the Eastern Corn Belt Plains and 1-luron Erie Lake Nains ecoregions

front 1994-200? for fish, and the statewide data for the macroinvertebrates where there

were somewhat fewer data points.

Day Time Grab Data (GRB) vs. Continuous (CNT) DO Data

Although CNT dissolved oxygen data collection is fairly widespread, it is often not

collected at the same sites as biological, habitat, and other grab water chemistry data. ORB

sample data are important because they have been used to determine whether ambient data

meet or exceed water chemistry criteria in State Water Quality Standards (WQS). ORB

samples in the Ohio EPA database arc composed of approximately 6-8 samples during a

summer period (mean 6.6, median 6.0)

lypically

collected during daytime hours. Samples

were processed in the Ohio EPA laboratory according to U.S. EPA approved methods.

Datasonde

samplers

were

generally set

~

ror

‘to

An

flours,

i

out

bata-1994-2001

-

ECBP & HELP Ecoreguons

were occasionally set for long

periods. Each Datasonde set

averaged 94 samples (e.g., DO

measures) with a median oI

52

samples per set.

We compared ORB vs. UNT

data from the same stations to

explore how they compared in

:~

characterizing a station’s DO

*

2

regime. Figure 1 illustrates a

scatter plot of minimum values

a

0

2

468

from

C’4T

samples

vs.

bolnscnde

Minimum

minimum

values

of ORB

-

bissolved

Oxy9en

samples

at

these

stations

collected during the same

summer period, but likely on

different days. Although there

is scatter these values are

positivejy correlated (R2=O.26).

Quadrant A on Figure 1

illustrates

situations

where

minimum ORB samples are ~ 4 mg/I (Ohio Warmwater Habitat IWWHJ minimum

criteria value), but CNT values are less than 4. Less frequent are values in quadrant B

where

CNT values are ~ 4, but ORB samples are tess than 4 mg/i. These are concentrated

above 3 rug/I (Figure 1). This pattern can also be illustrated with cumulative frequency

FIguve I. Plot of Dawson& cunlingous

dissolved

oxygen

~.

grab

zanipk data for

minimitm

clissoh’cd

oxygn,

data.

Q.wchnnt

A

has

CNT vat

un 4m but

GRB ta(ua 4

uli4e

qiw&aut 8

has

ORB t&ues C 4m but CNT

values

4.

Dashed line is a

regression

hue and

the

solid line

ha predicted line

if

data

were

pe4ectty

matdwct

---

plots that illustrate the percentage distribution values of dissolved oxygen for minimum

values (Figure 2, tight) and for

10rh

percentile values (Figure 2, left). These graphs contain

the same information as Figure 1, but make it easier to estimate the overall differences

between the methods. For example, the CNT sampling identified about 15 more values

4 mg/i than did the GRB sampling. This is expected, but identifying the magnitude of

difference can be important when applying ORB data for deriving field based targets.

10th Pccer*ile

Dissolnd

0xy9e0

Mirunum bissolved Oxygen

ORB

vs.

CNT

&RB vs. CNT

10

-

___

0

______

0,

C

~

6-

C

.

-u

4

2’

1

2

a

0’

0!

-

-

-

I

01 .1

I

5~O 2O~ ~

7Q~ 9096 99

99999.99

P*rant

Percent

Figute 2. Cumulatiw

frequenty plot

of

lath

~CTCCThÜIC

(top) and mininiu,n

(bottom) dissolved

oflgen

values

from CNT

(dashed)

and GRB (solid) ‘amp6

Ass

ociatüms

Between BiologicalIndicaums and Ambient Dissolved (hygen

Although there is some variability related to multiple stressors that influence the

relationship of DO to aquatic communities in Ohio, there is still a clear threshold

relationship between biological indicators of aquatic condition and ambient dissolved

oxygen. Figure 3 illustrates scatter plots of dissolved oxygen (ORB data) at sites in the

ECBP and HELP ecoregions vs. IBI scores (top) and statewide data and ICI scores

(bottom). The relationship between the ORB and 04T data indicates that diurnal data

would push the threshold relationships to the kft slightly if this were based on CNT data.

There are sites that evidently support Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH) or WWH

IBI and ICI scores

(

50

and 40, respectively) with individual DO concentrations below the

minimum criteria established in Ohio for these uses (EWI+5 rug/I min WWH4 mg/i

mm). The grab sample data represent a snap shot of the actual DO regime. The furthest

outlier on Figure 3 (top) where the IBI scores are greater than 40 is a DO of 1.6 mg/I. This

was found in the headwaters of the Olentangy River. This area has had a history or relative

severe impacts with nearby stations in 1979 with IBI scores below 20. Much of this has

been abated and IBI scores in these areas are now in WWH ranges in the ‘lOs. There were

several DO sensitive species in this community (e.g., rainbow darter) although perhaps at

lower abundances than expected. In addition, certain microhabitats such as riffles could

have slightly higher DO regimes than pooi areas where the DO sample was likely collected.

In the macroinvertebrate data there is an extreme value in the Stiliwater River with a DO

of 1.3 mill that had an ICI of 40 in 1982. This was considered an impairment at that time

and the data collected in 1990 had DO values above 6 mill and the id rebounded to a

to

CNT

a

9o9~ 99 99999.99

---

score of 50. We suggest that extreme examples or outliers should not be used to detive or

support towed DO critetia especially based on grab samples. Grab samples on average

however are likely protective or conservative estimates because CNT identifies about 15

more low values than (3KB samples do (Figure 2). Biological signatures (e.g., presence or

absence a1 DO sensitive species or tan) can be useful however, in determining whether an

exceedance oi the dissolved oxygen criteria is biological significant and should be identified

as an area that needs some restoration (e.g., placed on a TMDL list).

Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the distributions of

10th

percentile or minimum dissolved oxygen

values for ORB samples (Figures 4 and 5) and CNT samples (Figure 4). These graphs are

another method of illustrating the relationship between IBI or ICI and disscilved oxygen.

The more frequent low values collected in CNTvs. ORB samples are reflected in the lower

ranges

of

the open boxes which represent

10th

percentile values across all stations. The

ONT sampling picks up the diurnal swings that the ORB samples miss, although the grab

samples cover more periods of time across a summer sampling period (when low DO values

are more likely due to high temperatures, algal activity, and increase organic production).

The biokgical data integrate stressor influences across multiple time periods (e.g., weeks to

years), and the absence of ‘ow DO in either the CNT or ORB data can miss events or

underestimate the severity of the DO influences. Biological signatures of low DO from

impaired assemblages can compensate for the lack of “exceedences” of DO criteria and in

fact the identification of DO as a cause of imp&rment in the Ohio 305(b) report (Ohio

EPA 2000) is often accomplished without a specific chemical exceedence.

Figures ôa-f provides some insight into species sensitivity or tolerance to dissolved oxygen

stress. These are plots of catch per unit effort (relative number per 300m) of individual

species counts from electrofishing surveys paired with individual dissolved oxygen vaLues

for wadeabk streams ( 200 sq mO. Each species count can be repeated for each ORB at a

station. The DO tolerant species (carp, Figure

61

and creek chub, Figure 6e) provide a good

illustration

of

the range

of

dissolved oxygen values distributed throughout this database

which comprises the entire range of possible DO values. Moderately sensitive species (e.g.,

sand shiner and golden redhorse) are not found or found at reduced abundance at sites

with less than 3-4 mill of dissolved oxygen. Two highly sensitive species, black redhorse

and variegate darter are rarely (black redhorse), if ever (variegate darter) found at dissolved

oxygen concentrations tess than

5

mill. These types are data are important in helping

establishing or verifying the appropriate minimum criteria for a given aquatic life use in

Ohio. There is a continuum of sensitivity to ambient concentrations of dissolved oxygen

across species and taxa that occur across Ohio. The presence of such sensitive species could

be used to help identify reaches or watersheds that might be especially sensitive to factors

that influence dissolved oxygen such as nutrient enrichment, habitat degradation and

seditnentation. As has been outlined by us and others, these “nonpoint” stressors should

typically be dealt with in combination and not separately as is often done in TMDL efforts.

---

I-4

I-I

60

50

bata

-

1994-2001

ECBP & HELP Ecoregions

60

50

40,

•

a •~

•

S.:.

• ••e

•

S....

_.

3D

•*~•

—

•~•

...

•

• ..._

•

.1

•

¶t

•••

20

• .s

S ...o

• .. . — ._+J •~

.

—

.•

.:...:

. .. a ••

S

10

024

6

8

Grab Data

Grab Data

I

•a

.

.

4.

a •~• —

S

•

Nass ——

— 0

•

._,

. —

•—•

•

e..a.effl

• __flJ

—

.

..___

——a

S

40!

•

• •*•

•

.

. ..._a

a

. ...~

• . .

—

....

. —

_.I.

I

•e~

•~••

•e .

••

30

.

..

S.

•

S

—

•e

n.e..

...fl~

— —

..

—

•

.

a

—a———

~•

•

• ..

.. ._ s~—a~

.$ • —

•

.

In....

__4____..

.

20

. . ..

•

.1..a

s. •

— .—..

a . I

es.—

S

.

• .

.

S

•..

U • ••_ —

.._

—

••

a

~•

n.e...—.

S ~••

*—

.

10

• •

•.e.

—

• •

..M —.~

~••

• _•

.

• • •

• . U

Se

•* •• •• •• .

e...e

~. — .

. . •.* •.

S.ee •a*..

Ia.

•

•a

• .e

—•

0.

• •

0

•

• ~fl.a

S~

.._.

. .•ø

~.

.

.

- 0 -

0

2

4

6

8

10

Minimum Dissolved Oxygen

(mg/I)

Figure

3. WI

(top) ami IC! (bottom)

15.

minimum dissolved axygen (indevkhwl

grab

samples) at

statiom

in

the

ECBP

and EOLP

ecaregion from I 9942001 (top)

and sratewkk data from

1978-2000 (bottom)

Daswd

line

refneserns

Ohio’s iaimaoatcr aitS~zJot average w,wentratjon of

d~ssoivedux~ger~

Solid

line is an

95th

percentile tATCShOId

line drata, by

ge.

C:.?.

.

I

—.

10

---

10

Ohio EPA

Survey

bota

10th

Percentile,

Grab bata

C’

&

0’

6 I

U

I

0-8

~

L

£~

2

0

12-19

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-60

IBI

Range

Ohio EPA Survey

Data

Minimum Values, Grab bate

10

C’

E

c~.

6

01 t

0-6

I~

12-19

20-29

L

11

35

10

8

6

4

2

0

IBI Range

Ohio

EPA

Survey

Data

Minimum Values,

batosonde Data

1o_

B

6

4

2

0

12-19

20-29

30-39

4049

~O-6O

Ohio EPA Survey bath

10th

Percentile

Datosonde Data

12-19

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-60

30-39

40-49

~O4O

IBI Range

IBI Range

Figure 4. Box ~locsof I Cr percentile (wp) andminimum (bottom)

thssokd oxygen

conccnwations

b~

IRI

ranges

far

GRB

samples (left)

and

fin

Datasomie

continuous

monitor

data fright)

at sites

where

b0th data

types were

coUecwd

between

1988

and 1994

by

Ohio EPA.

---

Ohio EPA Survey

bata

Grab Data

10

b

____

I~I!

:1

~

I

0

-

-

0

—

ro

to

&

9

?

N

9

CO

aa

In

Range

Ohio EPA Survey Data

Means,

Grab

bata

10

~

iCt

Narrative Pon9e

•

o

9

0

5. Box plots

of

,ninim,jm

dusolved oxygen

wnannatiom ~

Ed

Tanga (top and ngnatñ~

id

equiwlenrs

(bottom))foc GRB

samples

collected in Ohio

from 1978-2000.

Red

line

7E~resents

Ohio’s

waymwatn cSeria for average

cornrntration

of

dàsolvcd

oxygew

Ii-

Dl

=0

0)01

O~

-o

VI

-°

a

it

-o t

0

-—

o

C

0

-U

‘I

3

~

!

=

In

---

Wadeoble Streams

100

••,

¶0.1.P

10

:i~!~~L~i4.

24

bissolved Oxygen (mg/I)

Wadeable Streoms

1000

-

-

-

I

- -.

y,.*.r•

...

-

.r

:r.J~’q.

.

•4

•~

1~j~

100.

-

:;.4fl3~

•pz

ret.’

10

•

___

-

.•,

..

O

2

4

6

B

10

12

bissolved Oxygen

(mg/I)

Wadeable Streams

i

o~

1000

100

10

Dissolved Oxygen

(mg/I)

c_

‘-

1

•

w ‘~

•

•~

:, s~_

t- -0

-C =

-w

—

Wodeable Streams

100

‘“-sq..

..

.

10 -

1:

~

• ..•

_0•

I.

•••

•

.‘~

...:

.~.

-

•

. ..

. .._.t.•..

o

2

4

6

8

¶0

12

Dissolved Oxygen

(mg/I)

Wadeable

Streams

1000

-

-

-

•

—

.

..

I

•S

I

~

;4n1t44p?(.,J.

100 I

a-

he

•

S •~

•—4__-

.4

.

-tl

-;\-i

- ~

•S

-

o

2

4

6

8

10

12

bissolved Oxygen (mg/I)

Wadeable

-~ ~

=

z

-

t

¼,

• •I’ .*wu~rl

~

—‘p--

t

bissolved Oxygen (mg/I)

1-

-C ~

--

a

I- -0

-cz

‘I)

-a

C

at

a

-~ -a

-C ~

-~ U

w

a

-4

I.-..

Figute

4. PIot~

of sekcrr4

specks idative

ab,rndances vs.

dissolved

oxygen

mixes

at

~wdeabk,t,nm

sites

in Ohio.

Dashed

line

wpTrJcnts

Ohio’, twznmmun aiwña

for average concentration

of

dissoh’ed

nygen.

---

Ohio

EPA

Survey

buta

20

-c-u

-~

I

LL

ç,

15

S

0

I—. ~

•.

U

..

“a

.

..

ot,

..

0

•

1—

I

•

•

•••

“a—

E~

S

. —..

—

0.

-

.. __.._

.C.If)

*

•

•

0

— • •~ •*

.

e..._e..

• •

0

1

~•••

••

o

2

4

6

8

10

AverQge

in Hucil Watershed

Ohio EPA Survey

Data

—

50

t4~

~b

4O~

—

30

• •

U)Q

-

S

..

S

~

3;

.

Q~.

20

—

el:

10

•

*

1—I

•t:~’

~‘••

-

l••~

I

~

-

o

2

4

6

8

10

Average

bissolved Oxygen (mg/I)

in Hucli Watershed

F~rc

5.

Cwmdaüve

total

intolnant

fish

specin

(top)

and

,eusidw

uizcwintzenebyuw

taxa bottom) in

Oil, HucI

I scab,

watersheds).

Thuhed line i’ejneseuts

OhM waymuwn

cyftnia for

ateage conc~ntyaSnof

dissolved

ox~gen.

Solid

lines are

95th percentile

threshold lines

drawn

fry

eye.

---

QHED62.B

Mean Hugh

Mean Hucli

0.076

~

257

6

&

&

28.3

33.5

FF

____M~4jsw

~POI65~

.-.-~.._.

P4QQ9&~

46.0

40.4

E6

39.3

29.1

&F

Figiue

8.

Example

regression (Tees

fat

TnLLjoT NI’S stYaion

to

WjudtIC 14e in

the FCBP a,2

HELP ecoTegons of

Ohio. Data afrom 1994-2001 and TC~TOCnCS smtiom

tail

mpafred or injLcna

by

nonpotnt zouirn of

tioUusn.

Response

variable

on top is

fBI and

on bottom is IC!.

IRE

and

IC!

scores

with nanacivc codes

are

at

the

end of

each

node (F

—

Excellent, C

—

Good. F

-

Fair,

P

- Poor,

VP

—

Vn~

Poor.

---

Multiple Stresso-is

and Cumulative Impacts

to WatershecLs

The accrual of multiple stressors at a watershed scale can hinder restoration of

aquatic

life

in stream reaches within such watersheds. In Midwest streams, iow DO, especially from

NPS is typically associated with increased organic enrichment, increase nutrients, and

degraded

habitats. Figures 7 (top, bottom) identifr a

limiting

threshokl oIclissolved oxygen

associated with the maximum, cumulative number of intolerant fish species (top) and

sensitive ruacroinvertebrate taxa (bottom) expected in a watershed. Watersheds with mean

dissolved oxygen values greater than 7 mg/I (indicates a high proportion olsites with DO

values

5

mg/fl can have 10 or more sensitive species, a number typically associated with

Ohio’s EWLI aquatic life use. Watersheds with mean DO values between 6-7 mg 1’ rarely

have more than

5

intolerant species in these watersheds indicating an increasing number of

sites likely exceeding

wannwater

DO criteria in Ohio (X

=

5 mg t’,

ruin.

4

rug F1).

Average watershed DO values 6 mill rarely have more than I intolerant species and

these watersheds are likely those with high nutrients, high siltation and degraded habitats.

The biological response variables in areas affected by NPS stressors are more strongly

associated with habitat conditions and nutrients such as total phosphorus (TP) than with

DO concentrations, at least as they are reflected in the sampled DO regime. Regression

tree analyses and other triultivariate exploration techniques have identified some of these

associations for the ECBP and HELP ecoregions (Rankin and Arrnitage 2004). Typical

regression trees are illustrated in Figure 8 for 181 (top) and ICI (bottom). These analyses do

not eliminate the important of DO as ecological mechanism of impairment, but identify

the strong controlling influence of habitat and nutrients in explaining observed fish and

macroinvertebrate impainnent and reinforce the need to incorporate habitat in NPS

restoration scenarios.

Species and Tarn

Specific DO Tolerance

Valttes

One of the more challenging wrts of an assessment is identifying the stressor responsible

for aquatic life impairment. While laboratory tests can provide useful data, often such data

is only available for a handful of macroinvertebrate taxa or fish species. Data sets like the

one we used here are usefu’ for “mining” stressor-response relationships between stressor

variables and abundances of a species or tan. A ranking of species responses allow

consideration of biological signatures for these stressors. Taxa that are abundant in the

ambient environment at depressed concentrations oi dissolved oxygen and remain after

other taxa disappear can help distinguish situations where DO is a primary stressor.

Conversely, high populations of taxa that only occur at high, background DO levels can

provide evidence that DO is not an important stressor. Parameter specific tolerance

rankings can provide an improvement over “general” tolerance rankings where

identification of multiple stressors is difficult.

One method to calculate parameter-specific tolerance ratings is to calculate weighted mean

stressor values for parameters where the weighting is done based on the relative abundance

of a specific organism at a site. This requires data with consistent quantitative methods to

control for error due to sampling variability. Organism that are common at high stressor

levels will have higher weighted average parameter values than

an

organism that has its

---

populations depressed or eliminated at a similar parameter concentrations. ‘Where data is

sufficient the organisms can be ranked and divided into quartiles or some other

distribution as way to assign narrative tolerance rankings (e.g.. tolerant, moderately

tolerant, moderate intolerant, intolerant). ‘When this is done for multiple taxa the

“biological signatures” become more compelling (Ranicin and Yoder 1995). Dissolved

oxygen is somewhat problematic because although low oxygen

is

clearly a stressor to

respiration, very high DO concentrations may be an indicator that nighttime DO is

depressed related to high algal respiration. Tables 1 and 2 provide data on weighted

dissolved oxygen values for ruacroinvertebrate tan and fish species in Ohio. Ohio’s general

tolerance rankings1 are provided for comparison. We excluded tan where there were iess

than 100 DO data points or about 20 stations that had biological and DO data. We used

the minimum dissolved oxygen value from each station to generate the weighed parameter

value as the best indicator of stress conditions and this was paired with taxa or species

abundances collected at these same sites during the same summer period. We also

generated unweighted statistics from all of the DO data associated with each species from

all samples at all sites (means,

25th

and

10th

percentiles).

We

compared the general tolerance ratings ior fish and macroirwertebrate taxa with the

weighted DO values we generated to examine concordance between these tanking methods

(Tables 3 and 4). We divided the weighted DO rankings into quintiles and assigned them

the same narrative ratings used in the general tolerance rankings: intolerant, sensitive or

moderatdy intolerant, intermediate, moderately tolerant, and tolerant Agreement among

rankings indicates a general correspondence between general tolerance and DO-specific

tolerance (Tables 3

and

4) with some variability.

Table 3. Comparison of general tolerance

vs.

DO tolerance

for

93 Ohio fish species where

there were at least 20 sites with DO data and a species occunence. General tolerance

based on Ohio EPA’s tolerance rankings for the IBI.

DO Tolerance

General Tolerance

Tolerant

Mod.

Tolerant

Intermediate

Sensitive

Intolerant

Intolerant

1

6

3

!

8

Sensitive

1

7

6

Intermediate

2

9

6

1

Mc,d.Tolerant

3

.

3 —.

13

Tolerant

j....

:7

.

3

9

“General” tolerance rankings are assessment of a taxa or species tolerance to a wide range of stressors and

are typically used in ID! and

other mtiltimetric indkes.

These are often species that have declined in

abundance compared to their

histork

geographic nnges and often in response to multiple stressors

including

habitat degradation, siltation, organic enrichment, and toxic chemicals. These assignments are typically made

from a combination of fish

distribution texts and data, literature, examination

oi ambient datasets, acid best

professional judgment.

---

Outliers can be useful to explain vanation between general and specific tolerances. In the

fish comparison, one species, bladcnose dace, is an outlier with a general tolerance rating

of tolerant, but a DO rating oi intolerant. This species is generally associated with cool

headwater streams, but can be extremely tolerant of industrial discharges and is not a

generally a habitat specialist.

Table 4. Comparison of general tolerance vs. DO tolerance for 171 Ohio macroinvertebrare

taxa where there were at least 20 sites with DO data and a vaxa occurrence. General

tolerance based on recent Ohio EPA’s rankings of general tolerance.

DO

Tolerance

General Tolerance

Tolerant

Mod.

Tolerant

Intermediate

Sensitive

Intolerant

Intolerant

1

6

3

.~

Sensitive

1

7

5

6

Intermediate

2

9

6

1

Mod.

Tolerant

3

3

13

Tolerant

.~ .

7

3

9

The greatest

variability was in comparisons between intermediate rankings of general

tolerance and dissolved oxygen tolerance rankings where intermediate general sensitivity

was broadly distributed with both DO intolerant as well as DO tolerant species and taxa

(Tables 3 and 4). Some of this was variation was related to coidwater species considered

generally interniediate to certain general impacts (e.g., mottled sculpin, trout sp. stocked),

but sensitive to temperature and DO and ~mother group of species associated with wetland

and prairie habitats that are habitat specialists, but are associated with naturally lower DO

regimes (tadpole madtorn, warmouth, least darter) than found in more common high

gradient Midwest streams.

Derivation of Dissolved Orygen Criteria

Criteria for dissolved oxygen for streams are typically structured as a two number criteria

with a minimum (never to be exceeded) vaiue and as daily average values. Even though

most state dissolved oxygen criteria are based on methodologies generated from controlled

studies as outline in the 1986 EPA guidelines (U.S. EPA 1986) some states have modified

criteria on the basis of ambient field data (Ohio EPA 1996) or have methodologies for site

specific derivation of criteria due to natural conditions (SCDHEC 1999; MO DNR 2004)

that are were considered either over or under-protected by existing statewide criteria. These

modifications of criteria typically rely on reference sites without substantial anthropogenic

impacts.

---

12

12

ID

8

6

4 I

&RB

boto

a

0

a

E

C

I

I.

a

6RB ban

59

58

51

56

55

54

53

52

5!

50

181 Score

Figure 8.

Box and whisker plots of

dissolwd oxygen

(ORB, top andbottom, CNT

middk) m. IC!

(top)

and 1131 (middle

and kuom)

flOTes

above 50.

Dotted

tine

TC~TCSCHC5

the

WV/H average SitS and

the solid line the

minimum aitcria fbi DO.

ia Score

CNT

bate

IBI Score

60

58

56

54

R

5C

59

58 57 56

55

54

53

52

51

50

---

Ohio EPA’s origina’ EWH dissolved oxygen criteria was odginally based on best

professional judgment related to the perceived need that the biota of EWH streams were

more sensitive to iow DO than the biota typical oIWWH streams (Ohio EPA 1996). The

minimum DO criteria for EWH streams was then set to be equivalent to Ohio’s coidwater

aquatic life use (6 mg/I minimum). Ambient data similar to that presented here was used

to provide evidence that EWH index scores (fBI, ICI) occurred commonly at DO values

between 5-6 mg/I, but not iess than

5

mg/I (Ohio EPA 1996) to justifr a

5

mg/I minimum

value for these waters. This is also supported with additional data examined here. For

example, the intolerant black redhorse and variegate darters that are associated with EWH

streams and rivers show abundant populations down to 5 mill, but quicidy disappear

below that level (see Figure 6). These species-based graphs were done with ORB data and

are conservative because they miss some of the lower nighttime values measured in the

CNT data.

WWH Dissolved Oxygen Criteria

The same approach used to examine and provide justification for the EWFI criteria can be

applied to the WWH criteria as well. Ambient biological data indicates that attainment of

WWH biological index scores occurs at stations with DO values of 4 mg/I or above, but

much less frequently when DO is less than 4 mg/i. Interestingly, there was a slight

difference in the range of minimum dissolved oxygen values at stations with WWH 181

scores (40-49) between stations with grab data at sites with datasonde data (see Figure 4a)

and grab samples at a broad range of sites represented by the statewide data set. The

distribution of minimum DO values at stations with IBI scores of 40-49 are summathed in

the histograms for stations in the statewide data set (Figure 9, top) and a subset a1 this data

that also had datasonde data. The presence of lower DO values at statewide sites is partly a

result of larger sample sizes, but may also be related to datasortde samplers being more

commonly set at complex sites where multiple stressors are common and point sources

occur. At such sites, lower DO values are more likely to co-occur with toxicants and other

acute stressors, and thus they less frequently co-occured with IBI scores of 40-49. The

statewide data includes more sites where DO is the predominant stress and low DO values

co-occur more frequently with IBI scores of 40-49.

Stations with DO values less than 4 mg/I primarily comprise the “tail” of the distribution

(Figure 9, top). An examination of sensitive species that are charactistic of WWH streams

such as the golden redhorse and rainbow darter show fewer organisms below a DO of 4

mg/I although populations do occur at lower DO values. Some data points below the

criteria should be expected because the chemical grab samples are an imperfect estimate of

the magnitude and duration of a chemical stress. The abundance of a fish species

characteristic of EWH streams (variegate darter, Figure 10, bottom) illustrates the greater

restriction in abundance along the DO gradient observed in EWI-! streams justifying the

higher minimum DO (5 mg/I vs. 4 mg/I) for these waters.

---

Grab Data

Statewide,

All

Years

4

§

6

7 8 9 101112

bissolved

Oxygen (mg/I)

10

6

•1-

6.

C

0

4

Grab bota at

Datasonde bum

bissolved Oxygen (mg/I)

200

150

100

•1-

C

‘3

50:

~

123

10

11

12

Figure

9.

Hislogrwns

ofminimum

dissolved

oxgen

data (mg/i) at

stations

with IBI

values

of40-49 (WWH range)

from a statewide

Ohio data set (lop) and a

subset

ofsites that

also had

datcisonde data (bottom).

---

Ohio EPA

5.rvey beta

Rthrtow Darter Collections

Wodeobk Streams

200

I5O~

~Ioo~

a

I

r

Minimum

USso

lyS Oxy9en

(mg/I)

),io

B’A

Survey

bat

a

Golden Reã,orse

Collections

Wodectk

5trearns

I

60:

I

1

1

I

!

~

:‘r ~1~ti1~~

Minimum

bissolved Oxygen

(mg/I)

Ohio

EPA Survey Data

Vonegote Dcrter Collections

Wodcthk Streams

100

~ H

60j

~~

Minimum Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I)

Figure &

Box

and whiskerplots of

rainbow

darter,

golden ret/horse, ami

variegate darter vs. minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations in Ohio

strewns.Red lines

denote

the minimum DO

criteria

for

WWH streams;

hhie linesfor EWH streams.

---

Figure

10

probably underestimates the effects of the lowest DO because it does not include

sites where a

species should occur, but has been eliminated because of low DO or other

stressors. The development of species distribution and abundance models along natural

gradients of habitat, elevation, stream gradient, and flow could provide estimates of

expected abundance of an organism. Rektionships between stressors like DO and expected

abundance could result in more precise estimates of the influence of a stressor such as DO

on individual species or tan

Using ambient biological data to help or adjust criteria such as dissolved oxygen takes

advantage of the strength of well-founded biological monitoring to integtate the often

complex pathways of influence of DO. The selection of the biological target is a critical

choice in this effort. Ohio has developed biological targets through their development of

biological criteria. The difficuky is in determining which chemical number is a protective

and reasonable target for protection of aquatic life. The appropriate role of the biological

data is as a response indicators to the suite of stressor that occur in the environment and

the chemical stressors are best used as design endpoints and to help identify cause of

biological impairments. The iocus on this paper was to identify DO values that can be

protective and reasonable design criteria and provide information for various management

efforts on cause of impairment. We know that a reliance on chemical assessment of aquatic

life use attainment and impairment, in the absence of biological data, outside of where

values will obviously result in acute impacts, can result in large errors in identifying

impairment with the error tendencies strongly skewed to missing impairments (Rankin

2003).

A reliance on biological data for assessment impairment is consistent with the NRC

TMDL

Committee that argued that indicators should be as direct measures of the

designated use as

possible (NRC 2001). There is more concern with the precision of the

criteria number when using DO data alone to estimate impairment, than when using DO

data as a support to biological assessments to identifj impairment.

There are a number of methods being explored as tools for deriving accurate criteria from

ambient data. Paul (2004) has proposed a conditional probability approach using

probabilistic survey data. As with other methods it relies on the ability to derive sound

biological targets or endpoints. Such advances are compatible with U.S. EPA’s strategy for

its WQS and Criteria programs because and touches a number of the 28 “Strategic

Actions” in the Draft Strategy for Water Quality Standards and Criteria (U.S. EPA 2002).

Here we outlined what is a muftiple line of evidence approach to determine DO

concentrations that appear to protective on the basis of large scale analyses of databases,

site specific examples of attainment of a tiered use at various DO levels, and the

identification of DO sensitive or tolerant tan that can be used to support attainment

decisions where data is ambiguous. Because many of the stressors are moderately to highly

correlated the choice of the numeric chemical target can be difficult and often depends on

multiple tines of evidence. Some of the newer approaches may provide more standardized

methods to achieve ambient based aiteria.

---

Perhaps as important a process as the derivation of criteria is consideration of how

attainment and impairment decisions are made. Some of the weakness with attainment

decisions, as for example the 305(b) and 303(d) process, lies with the inappropriate reliance

on stressor indicators to identify impairment rather than on response indicators. The

strength of stressor criteria is with the derivation of appropriate treatment and

management strategies and causes of impairment. Because of weaknesses with using

stressor data to identifij impairment, outside of where values will obviously result in acute

impacts, biological data should be the indicator of choice to determine aquatic life use

impairment. As mentioned above, the DO sampling regime does not always clearly identify

impairments and there is a risk of identifying a water as attaining an aquatic life use with

this data when it is actually impaired (Rankin 2003). Many olthese concerns fade when an

adequate monitoring approach is used that provides confidence in identifying impairment

and is able to employ multiple approaches to identi~ingthe cause of impairment.

Summary

In this paper we explored the relationships between CNT and ORB DO data and the

response of biological data to gradients of DO data across Ohio. Ohio EPA (1996) used a

similar approach to justify a two-number criteria for its EWH aquatic life use including a

addition oi a minimum criteria of 5 mg/I for EWH streams. Both community-level and

taxa and species specific data were used to identify that attainment of an EWH aquatic life

use was rare

below a DO

of

5

mg/I, but became

more

common

between

DO

values of

5-6

mg/I.

Similarly, for V/Wi-I streams, attainment of the

use

was uncommon

below a DO

of 4

mg/i, but

became more common between

DO values

of 45 mg/I.

Ohio

EPA

(1996)

provided more

case

examples supporting the

5

mg/I minimum value for DO for EWH

streams

and

the

standard

laboratory-based

approach supports the WWH criteria. We

also

derived a fish species and a macroinvertebrate taxa sensitivity list

for DO

that shows

differences from

the general

tolerance sensitivities. We

envision

this as a

tool

for use in the

stressor identification process. It is clear from the watershed scale patterns

we

have

presented that restoration

of

streams can

be

limited by watershed

scale

influences and that

muftiple

stressors are the

nile rather than exception.

It is

also clear that aquatic life have a

continuum of response

to DO

and that tiered aquatic life

uses

provide

great advantages

for

water

resource

management and the derivation

of

reasonable and protective

DO

criteria.

References

MO DNR. 2004. Deriving Site-Specific Criteria to Protect Missouri’s Aquatic Life. Water

Protection Program Technical Bulletin, Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

4/2004.

Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 1996. Justification

and

Rationale for

Revisions

to the

Dissolved Oxygen

Criteria

in the Ohio Water

Quality Standards,

OEPA Technical Bulletin

MAS/1995-12-5, State

of Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency, Division

of Surface

Water, Columbus,

Ohio 43228.

---

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2000. Ohio Water Resource

Inventory, Volume I: Summary, Status and Trends, E. T. Rankin, C. 0. Yoder, and

D.Mishne, (editors). Division of Surface Water, Ecological Assessment Section.

Columbus, Ohio.

Paul, J. F. 2004. Geographic-specific water quality criteria development: A conditional

probability approach. Presented at the EMAP Symposium: Integrated Monitoring

and Assessment for Effective Water Quality Management, May 3-7, Newport

Rhode Island.

Rankin, E. T. 2003. Comparison of Biological-based and Water Chemistry-based Aquatic

Life AttainrnenVlrnpairrnent Measures under a Tiered Aquatic Life Use System

Aquatic Life Use Attainment Fact Sheet 3—CABB-03 prepared for U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago, IL.

Rankin, E. T. and B. Arrnitage. 2004. Associations Between Stream Habitat

Characteristics, Biological Condition, And Nutrient Concentrations in Wadeable

Streams Of The Eastern Corn Belt Plain And Huron Erie Lake Plain Ecoregions.

CABB Technical Report I-CABB-04 prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region V. Chicago, IL

SCDHEC. 1999. Methodology for Determining a Permitted Dissolved Oxygen Deficit

Allowance for Waters Not Meeting Numeric Standards Due to Natural Conditions.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for

Dissolved Oxygen. Criteria and Standards Division. US Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 440/5-86.003.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Draft Strategy for Water Quality

Standards and Criteria: Strengthening the Foundation of Programs to Protect and

Restore the Nation ‘s Waters. United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Water. EPA-823-R-02-OO 1.

Yoder, C. 0. and E. T. 1&ankirt. 1995. Biological response signatures and the area of

degradation value: new tools for interpreting multimetric data. Pages 263-286 in W.

S. Davis and T. P. Simon (editors). Biological assessment and criteria: tools for

water resource planning and decision making. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

---

Table

1.

Weighted

mean

and

other

statistics

for

dissolved

concentrations

by

macoinvertebrate

taxa

ranked

by

the

weighted

mean

bO

cIue.

No.

Weighted

25th

10th

Species

Stations

Mean

Mean

Median

tile

tile

(04935-

Erpobdello

punctato

punctata

TI

74

3.4882

5.4007

7.50000

5.00000

3.04000

(05800-

Coecidotea

sp

(MT

301

3.6346

5.7784

7.70000

6.10000

4.20000

(83600-

Kiefferulus

(K.)

dux

Ml

26

3.6364

4.2731

6.20000

4.22500

3.10000

(82770-

Chironomus

(C.)

riparius

group

(VT

117

3.6609

52152

7.70000

6.12000

4.20000

82730-

Chironomus

(C.)

decorus

group

(T

353

3.6880

5.2856

7.60000

6.00000

4.1

0000

(06201-

Hyalella

azteca

F

211

4.2822

5.3877

7.00000

5.40000

4.20000

78401

-

Natarsia

species

A

(sensu

Roback,

1978)

(MI

70

4.3925

5.7471

6.40000

4.17500

2.70000

04664-

Helobdella

stagnalis

T

71

4.4502

4.8470

6.30000

3.70000

2.50000

(83051

-

bicrotendipes

simpsoni

T

375

4.5597

4.9994

6.85000

5.20000

3.80000

08200-

Orconectes

sp

F

53

4.6024

5.1

070

7.10000

5.80000

4.1

0000

(77355-

Clinotonypus

pinguis

MT

24

4.6058

5.2500

6.80000

4.70000

3.38000

04666-

Helobdello

triserialis

1

86

4.6132

5.0440

7.40000

5.30000

3.80000

(84010

-

Parochironomus

“aborti~w”

(sensu

Simpson

&

50

4.6981

5.1760

7.00000

5.30000

4.20000

(77130-

Ablabesmyia

rhamphe

group

MT

167

4.7572

5.5494

7.20000

5.90000

4.70000

83002-

Dicrotendipes

modestus

F

29

4.8260

5.3497

7.80000

6.20000

4.30000

(77115

-

Ablobesmyic

janta

F

37

5.0363

57524

7.10000

5.90000

4.79000

(84790-

Tribelos

fuscicorne

(F

158

5.0533

5.6172

6.70000

5.70000

4.90000

(84800-

Tribelos

jucundum

(F

149

5.1

060

5.5517

6.80000

5.60000

4.60000

(03600-Oligochaeto

T

1927

5.1247

6.0965

7.70000

6.30000

4.60000

78101-

Labrundinia

becki

(

25

5.21

74

57800

7.20000

6.1

0000

5.00000

(83158

-

Endochironomus

nigricans

F

64

5.2762

5.5247

6.90000

5.30000

4.00000

84520

-

Polypedilum

(Tripoduro)

halterale

group

(F

77

5.3000

5.9468

7.50000

6.20000

5.40000

(80510

-

Cricotopus

(Isocladius)

sylvestris

group

VT

58

5.3106

5.4724

7.10000

5.40000

4.20000

(85200-

Cladotanytarsus

sp

(F

70

5.3675

5.71

29

7.30000

6.10000

4.70000

(81630-

Porakiefferiella

sp

25

5.3765

5.8920

7.1

0000

5.90000

4.96000

83050

-

bicrotendipes

lucifer

MI

271

5.4008

5.3974

7.20000

5.60000

4.20000

(01200

-

Cordylophora

lacustris

F

59

5.4125

5.6695

7.50000

6.30000

5.30000

81240

-

Nanocladius

(N.)

distinctus

MT

503

5.4790

5.7290

7.40000

5.90000

4.40000

(81201

-

Nanocladius

(N.)

sp

I

88

5.4973

5.7489

7.60000

6.30000

4.80000

78650-

Procladius

sp

(MI

229

5.5312

57576

7.20000

5.80000

4.20000

(84020-

Parachironomus

carinatus

(F

63

5.5542

5.6365

6.90000

5.70000

4.40000

(84540-

Polypedilum

(Tripodura)

scalaenum

group

F

1161

5.5646

6.1448

7.70000

6.30000

4.80000

78600-

Pentaneura

incanspicuo

F

64

5.5950

5.8755

8.20000

6.40000

5.00000

---

Table

1.

Weighted

mean

and

other

statistics

for

dissolved

concentrations

by

mocoinvertebrate

toxa

ranked

by

the

weighted

mean

bO

cIue.

No.

Weighted

25th

10th

Species

Stations

Mean

Mean

Median

tile

tile

(01801-

Turbellaria

MI

1285

5.6051

6.1104

7.80000

6.40000

4.80000

(78100-

Labrundinia

sp

F

107

5.6500

5.9850

7.80000

6.30000

5.10000

(79100

-

Thienencnnimyia

group

F

449

5.6665

5.8318

7.70000

6.30000

4.60000

06810

-

Gammarus

fasciatus

(F

64

5.6962

6.01

75

7.80000

6.40000

5.1

0000

(85500-

Paratanytarsus

sp

F

696

5.7031

61429

7.40000

6.20000

4.90000

07701-

Cambaridae

(1

31

5.7087

5.5871

7.40000

6.22500

4.60000

(81631

-

Parakiefferiella

n.sp

1

(MI

67

5.7121

6.6104

7.55000

6.40000

5.70000

81260-

Nanoclodius

(N.)

“rectinervis”

(old)

55

5.7245

5.6727

7.90000

6.10000

4.44000

(18100-

Anthopotamus

sp

(MI

74

5.7313

6.1216

7.80000

6.60000

5.73000

(22001

-

Coenag’ionidae

MI)

448

5.7388

5.741

2

7.40000

5.80000

4.30000

(84470-

Polypedilum

(P.)

illinoense

(1

643

5.7576

5.9490

7.40000

5.90000

4.40000

(84300-

Phoenopsectra

obedier~

group

F

498

5.8176

6.3501

7.80000

6.30000

4.60000

22300-

Argia

.sp

F

1116

5.8194

6.0036

7.70000

6.30000

4.80000

(08260

-

Orconectes

(Crokerinus)

sonbornii

sonbornii

(F

88

5.8246

6.0420

7.50000

5.90000

4.50000

(84210

-

Paratendipes

albimanus

or

P.

duplicatus

MI

479

5.8994

62339

7.80000

6.50000

5.30000

(04964-

Mooreobdella

tnicrostoma

1

87

5.9005

5.8548

7.50000

6.22500

4.60000

(83300

-

Glyptotendipes

(G.)

sp

MI

854

5.9360

57444

7.60000

6.20000

4.80000

06700

-

Crangonyx

sp

MI

252

5.9383

5.9930

7.30000

6.00000

4.60000

(85803-

Tanytarsus

Type

3

(F

46

5.9423

63065

7.10000

6.02500

5.10000

(85201

-

Cladotanytarsus

species

group

A

(MI

24

5.9628

5.6025

6.80000

5.72500

4.90000

(80350-

Corynoneura

sp

(

107

5.9857

6.3252

8.00000

6.90000

5.96000

83003-

bicrotendipes

fumidus

F

40

5.9897

6.6150

7.50000

6.30000

5.00000

(83040)

-

bicrotendipes

neomodestus

F

999

5.9948

6.1

303

7.80000

6.30000

4.80000

(80420

-

Cricotopus

(C.)

bicinctus

MI

768

6.0105

6.1920

7.70000

6.40000

4.90000

84302

-

Phaenopsectra

punctipes

F

29

6.0357

6.0241

7.40000

6.50000

5.43000

11200

-

Callibaetis

sp

F

53

6.0461

5.7175

7.05000

4.80000

3.10000

(83900-

Nilothauma

sp

(F

55

6,0556

61509

7.30000

6.30000

5.40000

(85400-

Micropsectra

sp

F

72

6,0563

6.1046

8.30000

6.77500

5.30000

84460-

Polypedilum

(P.)

faliax

group

F

1287

6.0621

6.2470

7.60000

6.40000

5.10000

(14950

-

Leptophlebia

sp

or

Paroleptophlebia

sp

(MI

84

6.0624

6.1979

7.20000

6.10000

4.90000

(11651

-.

Procloeon

sp

(w/o

hind~ng

pads)

MI

75

6,0681

6.0360

7.30000

6.50000

5.40000

84960

-

Pseudochironomus

sp

F

56

6.0726

5.9982

8.00000

6.45000

5.69000

78200-

Larsia

sp

(F

91

6.0753

6.0253

7.50000

5.70000

3.68000

---

Table

1.

Weighted

mean

and

other

statistics

for

dissolved

concentrations

by

macoinvertebrate

taxa

ranked

by

the

weighted

mean

bO

~lue.

No.

Weighted

25th

10th

Species

Stations

Mean

Mean

Median

°Iotile

Votile

(78140-

Labrundinia

pilosella

MI

330

6.0859

6.0976

7.30000

6.20000

5.10000

13521

-

Stenonema

femoratum

F

444

6.0933

62165

7.70000

6.60000

5.50000

(85230

-

Cladotanytarsus

mancus

group

F)

43

6.0971

6.3395

7.50000

6.40000

5.70000

(77120-

Ablabesmyio

mallochi

F

728

6.1064

6.0008

7.50000

6.20000

4.80000

(18750-

Hexagenia

limbata

MI

21

6.1121

5.9571

7.25000

6.50000

5.80000

81825-

Rheocricotopus

(Psilocricotopus)

robacki

MI

476

6.1

286

6.5722

7.80000

6.60000

5.50000

(21200-

Calopteryx

sp

(F

438

6.1412

61279

7.60000

6.40000

5.20000

83840-

Microtendipes

pedellus

group

(MI

472

6.1446

6.2353

7.60000

6.40000

5.20000

(81230

-

Nanocladiug

(N.)

crassicornus

(old)

296

6.1533

6.0186

7.80000

6.40000

5.08000

01320)-

Hydra

sp

F

1099

6.1653

6.1094

7.80000

6.40000

5.20000

(81632-

Parakiefferiella

n.sp

2

(MI

70

6.1

836

62983

7.60000

6.50000

5.62000

(84155-

Paralauterborriella

nigrohalteralis

(MI)

51