!EPA ATTACHMENT NO.

.-&.-.

Analysis of Physical Habitat Quality and Limitations to Waterways in the Chicago Area

Edward

T.

Rankin

Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria

Introduction

The Clean Water Act (CWA) act allows for states to set attainable goals (designated uses)

for its waters. For aquatic life

the CWA provides a long term goal of biological integrity

and an interim goal of fishable waters that provides for the growth and propagation of fish

and shellfish. For waters that cannot feasible attain the interim goal or better in the near

future the

CWA provides a mechanism

(i.e.,

a Use Attainability Analysis, UAA) to address

set goals for such waters.

Ohio recognized the management and environmental protection advantages of creating a

tiered system

of aquatic life uses and has phased in a tiered series of aquatir life uses in its

water quality standards over

the past 25 years (Yoder 2001). This tiered series of aquatic life

uses (Appendix

1) reflect a continuum of essentially physically mediated limitations that,

for the lower uses, are

not considered feasibly restorable in the near-term. The most

protective aquatic life uses WWH and EWH protect to, and above the interim goal,

respectively.

The evolution of this aquatic life use system occurred along with the

development of an intensive monitoring system, one of the functions of which was to

support UAAs for streams a,round the state. A result of this effort was a robust linkage

between aquatic life data, instream habitat measures and

the system of tiered uses.

The goal of this study was to collect habitat data from selected rivers and canals in the

Illinois waterways system and to examine the aquatic potential

of these sites in the

framework of aquatic life uses used in Ohio. UAA's for the lower Cuyahoga River and

other larger rivers in Ohio are particularly appropriate examples.

Data

Habitat data in the form of the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI, Rankin 1989,

1995,

Ohio EPA 1989, 1990) was collected from March 29-April at 23 sites in the Illinois

waterway system in

the following waters: (Chicago River, North Branch Chicago River,

North Shore Channel, Calumet River, Little Calumet River, Cal-Sag Channel, Des Plaines

River,

and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC). Sites were selected that had

previous fish

community data. Length of reaches assessed were designed to match length of

previous sampled electrofishing zones (400m - SOOm). We assigned a slope of 0.01 ft/mi

and 9,999 sq mi drainage to all sites which resulted in a gradient score of 6, the lowest

possible score for large rivers.

Results

Narrative ranges

of the QHEI can be helpful in understanding and communicating the

condition

of the physical habitat and the ability of that habitat to support aquatic life,

especially fish assemblages. Table 1 summarizes

the general narrative ranges of the IBI.

---

>=

30-45 - Poor

<

30 - Very Poor

Table 1. Narrative ranges of the QHEI

based on a general ability of

that habitat to support aquatic

life.

Good

al

..

:

Z

60

n:

__ -aD:

Fair

40-- ------IJJ ESZZ2

~

Poor

60 -

20 -

100

Figure

1.

Box and whisker plots of

QHEI

scores for rivers and

canals

in

the Chicago Area sampled during Mar-Apr

2004. Narrative ranges of the

QHEI

are listed

on

the right axis.

Table 2 summarizes the QHEI and key metrics

generally found

to be most influential to aquatic

life. Figure 1

is a box and whisker plot of QHEI

scores by waterway along with the narrative

ranges for context. Lower scores are

to the left;

highest to

the right.

It

is clear that the Chicago

River

and the North Branch of the Chicago

River are the

most habitat limited of the waters

we surveyed (Figure

1) followed by the CSSe. In

general, the physical

habitat quality of these

waterways

is reduced by lack of consistent

flowing water habitats, straight morphology

of

waterways (reduces habitat heterogeneity) and

the large scale of modifications throughout this

system. This

is above the influence of any additional chemical stressors due to discharges,

overflow,

or urban runoff events. Table 3 illustrates individual cover type scores for each

sites.

These scores are being collected as part of a planned revision to the QHEI. Each

cover type

is assigned a score of 0-3 where zero means the cover type is absent and a three

QHEI Summary Scores from

Chicago

/\rea Waterways

indicates it is present in high quality

and high amounts. No sites in any of

Excellent these waters received a score of three,

few received a two

and most where

absent

or received a score of 1

(marginal quality

or amounts). Even

so,

as illustrated in Figure 1 there is a

range

of habitat

conditio~

among the

waterways that, in our estimation,

- Very

Poor

would result in several different

-_-~ --~--~--~--.-~--.~--"ii--,~-

aquatic life uses under the Ohio

i i u

c

i i

~

i

system.

6

6

~;S

8

~

~

~

~

8

:J

't

'E

.0

Z

:J

Decision Making Process for Assigning

Aquatic

Life Uses

The ultimate arbiter used in the

designation of aquatic life uses under

the Ohio system is the biological

data.

Attainment of biocriteria

derived for each use

is obvious

evidence

of ability to attain the use, and absent error or aberrant results it is the preferred

arbiter or data used in the process. In many cases, however, because of the effects of often

multiple stressors the biological results may underestimate

the potential attainment that

could be expected in the absence of such stressors. In these cases the QHEI and metric

scores

at a site, scores of nearby reaches, and accrual of important limiting habitat factors

and the loss of positive habitat factors are used as evidence in support of a given aquatic

---

....... Inftuence MOdified AttrIbules

River

I

I

II I r. I I I •• I .. I .. I • I .. I • I it I .. I • I , I , I II I

J'

I • I II I .. I

J

I : I i ,.1

II

Mile

-

,

.

-

,

, ,

,

.

292.40

's

I

7

3

Lockport

296.50

,.

I

5

2

Romeovl1le

S

3

4

1

Willow

307,90

S

Il.d

S

3

6

2

Harlem

314.10

Ave

"

2

5

2

UpsMlm

317.50

Cicero

S-

~.

I

7

3

Dameo

321.00

..!

Road

285.50

' -'

6

3

I

South

Shote

280,70

'"i..

2

8

3

Dstr

. "

Brandon

325,50

4

32S,8O

327,00

In. .>

•

•

•

1

I ..

.......

I', •

---

1.00

I 54.0

I

I

I'

I _

~"'

.._.• I.

I .=--T

I

I .cl 4

I

7

2

Ust/Dst

Sharon

2.00

47.5

4

4

3

UIl:

o..m

r

3.00

49.0

4

7

1

DstTouhy

4.00

49.S

4

7

1

Olt

Pemson

326.50

I

43.0

I

I

I

I

I

I

2

I

8

I

2

IO'Brim

Lock&.

Dam

326.10 147.0

1 I

I LI

J~_.~-

_I ...

t\.:

...

1

.._LL1':::-Jt..J

3

I

8

ITI1~

St

Hahtnd

~

Route 83

u.tCic:ero

---

Table 3. Individual cov", metrics values of the QHEI from sites assessed in Mar-Apr 2004 in the

Chica~o

area.

Cover Amount

Over,

Oxbows

Undercut

Hanging

Deep

Side-

Aq.

Cover

Site

QHEI

Banks

Veget.

Shallows

Pools

Roorwads

Rootmats

Boulders

channels

Planes

Logs

E

M

S

N

Score

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

Lockoort

40.5

I

1

2

2

1

X

9.0

Romeoville

27.0

I

I

X

4.0

Willow Sorings Road

40.5

1

2

2

X

11.0

Harlem Avenue

38.5

1

1

J

2

X X

10.0

Upstream Cicero Avenue

3.3.5

J

I

1

X

7.0

Damen Road

32.0

I

J

I

1

J

1

X

10.0

Des Plaines River

South Shore upstream of

45.5

1

22

2

X

X

10.0

Treats Island

Downstream Brandon

69.5

1

2

2

2

1

X

13.0

Lock/Dam

Chicago River

Chicago River Junction

28.0

1

1

1

X

5.0

<WolfPointl

Downtown between

22.5

1

X

1.0

Wells/Lasalle

Downtown-InnerHarbor

24.5

2

X

3.0

Area

North Branch Chicago River

Downstream Grand Ave

I

26.0

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

II

I

xl

3.0

Wilson Road

I

42.0

I

1

I

1

I

1

1

I

1

I

I

1

I XIX

I

12.0

North Shore Channel

Upstream/Downstream

42.0

1

1

1

1

1

X

9.0

Sharon Road

Unstream Demoster Road

37.5

1

1

1

1

I

I

XX

12.0

Downstream Touhy

49.0

1

21

1

1

2

X

14.0

Downstream Peterson

49.5

1

22

2

1

1

X

14.0

Calumet River

O'BrienLock

&

Dam

I

47.0

I

I

I

1

1

1

1

2

I

1

Ix

I

14.0

1300h Street

I

43.0

I

I

I

2

1

1

I

2

1

I

I

IXI

I

9.0

Little Calumet River

Halstead Street

I

48.5

I

1

I

I

1

I

1

J

1

1

I

2

IX

I

I

15.0

Dst 1-94 Bridge

I

48.5

I

1

I

I

1

1

J

1

I

2

I

Ix

I

I

14.0

Cal-8ag Channel

Route 83

I

54.0

I

1

I

I

I

1

2

I

I

I

1

I

IX

I

12.0

Uostream Cicero

I

47.5

I

J

I

I

I

1

2

I

I

I

IX Xl

9.0

---

60

---------~~-~-

: N.1l29

i

Excellent

Large Riyer Data From Ohio

,

50

~

life use along with knowledge of the feasibility of restoring the limiting factors. Figure 2,

for example is a box and whisker plot of influential, positive habitat attributes for large

rivers

vs. IEI. Loss of these attributes (with concomitant accrual of negative attributes) is

associated with limitations to the fish assemblage.

It

is important to note that the presence

of impaired habitat may not result in a lowered use if these habitat features can be feasibly

restored,

but rather kept at an interim goal or

higher use and considered impaired and

requiring restoration.

Figure

2.

Box and whisker plot of

positille

habitat attributes

liS.

ll3/

for

1129

large riller sites

(>

500 sq

mi) in

Ohio.

Good

Poor

Number of Positive Habitat Attributes

j

Very

Poor

10

-----=----~----==-------~

!

40 ,-

....

....en

Conversely, the information collected may

indicate

that habitat is degraded relative to

reference conditions

and the habitat

conditions are not feasibly restorable in the

short term due to factors such as ongoing

activities

that maintain the water in an altered

state (e.g.,

channel maintenance for ag

drainage, flood control)

or some systemic

limitation

that will preclude recovery to a

higher aquatic life use.

The designation of a

non-CWA goal is reviewable every three

years

and should not be used to preclude

efforts to

enhance habitats to achieve some long term aquatic benefits.

50

60

70

80

90

MedianQHEI

40

QHEI vs IBI • Watershed Scale Effects

30

stream.~.

-

ISI :: 15.5 + O.45*QHEI

~

g

~f?8

goo

R= 0.68

0

'0 0

dY::nO~

N. 219 Watersheds

B;>

0

~o

'1,0 0

"R

8

0I0a.

0

•

o

0

0 0

o~ OO~~%

0

0

o

0%

0

0

SOoo

'Ogye,..-

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0 .......

o~

0

O~~~Oogo

000

0

OO~n~,Il.

8/1

0

0

o ifrP

~

°oll

..,,000

~

o',p

0

o

{)lB

CDOO

o

0°

0

o

0

25

20

t.......-'-'-'~-....L~....L.~--'--'--~

............

--'-'--'~c.....l

20

55

Figure

2.

Median QHE/

in

Huc11 watersheds

liS.

90th percentile

IBI

score.~

from Ohio

:!i' 50

:;::

5

45

~

~

40

-::.

~

35

30

1

Effects of Scale of Disturbance

One of the factors we mentioned above as a factor to consider when examining limitations

to aquatic potential is the scale of habitat disturbance. As an example, Figure 3 illustrates

the relationship between median QHEI scores by

subwatershed

in Ohio vs. the 90

th

percentile IEI

score

as a measure of the best potential in a

watershed.

This relationship illustrates that

watersheds with very degraded habitats are less able

to support aquatic life consistent with the highest

aquatic life uses. This suggests

that local

enhancements or restoration may not achieve

desired ecological

endpoints when degradation is

systemic and widespread. This has important

consequences for 1.) setting reasonable short-term

goals related to aquatic life potential and 2.) efforts

at protecting existing uses to ensure assemblages do

not slide down the slope reflected in the regression

line

of Figure 3.

~n

the following section we will examine each waterbody and summarize the physical

limitations

and the suggested tier under which it would fit in the Ohio model.

---

Chicago River

[Aquatic Potential

-

LRWj

The Chicago River had the most limited habitat

~f

all the reaches we examined. QHEI

scores at all sites were very poor. Functional substrates were essentially nonexistent because

of the depth of the channels. Cover or structure for organisms was also either nonexistent

or non-functional. The site at the Chicago Rivers junction has a small amount of debris

and cover along the

north shore, however because of the limited amount and isolation

would

not support a very diverse or significant population of organisms. The only positive

habitat attribute in this reach

was water depths greater than 40 em which are a weak

attribute for large rivers. This reach

is functionally similar to the Cuyahoga River ship

channel which

Ohio considered to have limited potential for aquatic organisms because of

similar habitats.

Photo

.1.

Chicago RiveT

near confluence in

Chicago.

---

North Branch of the Chicago River.

[Recommended Category:

LRW, MWH-C]

The site downstream of Grand Avenue was similar in nature to the Chicago River sites

with deep pools

and lack of any developed littoral areas. This aquatic potential of this

lower reach was low

and would be equivalent to a LRW aquatic life use. Like the Chicago

River it

had only 1 or 2 positive

habitat attributes.

We would

expect it would

not provide

habitats for significant

populations

of sensitive species

with most fish being transients

or

species adapted to pelagic type

environments.

Upstream reaches

of the North

Branch Chicago River, however,

were similar to

the North Shore

Channel rather than the Chicago

River and had some more littoral

areas,

but still sparse structure,

Phoro 2.

North Branch of

the

Chicago

River in the vicini!:)

of Grande Ave.

mostly in the form of

overhanging vegetation. This reach provides more edge habitat and structure than the

downstream reach. This should support a more permanent assemblage of fish and aquatic

life,

but still dominated by generalist and tolerant species and taxa. This aquatic

pot~ntial

of this upper reach should be able

to support the equivalent

of a

Modified Warmwater

'

Channelized (MWH,C) aquatic

life use.

Photo

3.

North Branch ofthe Chicago River in the vicinity of

Wilson Ave.

---

North Shore Channel [Recommended

Category:

MWH.C)

The North Shore Channel had poor to fair habitat conditions. Although some sites had

some coarse substrates, most were associated with moderate levels of silty-muck and sand

substrates and

had severe embeddedness especially with distance from the shoreline.

As

with other reaches, lack of flow or current duough and over habitats reduced their quality.

A fairly intact,

but narrow band of trees provided some cover in the form of overhanging

vegetation

and small quantities of woody debris although their quality was fairly low. Given

the artificial nature of the

channel we would expect that'the

potential

of this waterway would

be

to be able to support a

relatively tolerant assemblage

of

organisms adapted to non-flowing

habitats and habitat generalists;

species associated with high

quality substrates and structure

(i.e., warmwater sensitive taxa)

would be absent

or occur in low

numbers. This aquatic potential

of this waterway should be able to

support the equivalent of a

Modified

Warmwater-

Channelized (MWH-C) aquatic

life use.

Photo 5.

North Shore Channel upstream of Touh:y

Aile.

---

Cal-Sag

Channel

[Recommended Category:

MWH-Cl

The Cal-Sag Channel had QHEI scores in the fair range, largely because of the limestone

rubble

and coarse materials left behind in the littoral areas from the construction of the

channel. Unlike the Wolf Point site on the Chicago River, this littoral habitat is not

isolated, but occurs along much

of the shoreline. This waterway

had four positive habitat

attributes

with the most

important being the substrates

and shoreline structure. The deep

center region

and lack of flowing

still significantly limits

the

functions of offshore habitats.

Plwto 6.

Typicailliew of

the

Cal-Sag

Channel

---

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Channel [Recommended

Category:

LRW, MWH-Cj

Habitat in the essc ranged from poor to very poor. The sites at Lockport, Romeoville,

and Willow Springs Road were canal-like in nature with steep sides and little functional

cover

or substrates. The site at Lockport was wider and had some littoral habitat, however,

this were very limited in scope

and were

extremely embeddeded with silty mucks

and

sand that were of poor quality.

The CSSC widened out between Harlem and

Cicero

and gained some shoreline shallows

that provide a bit more habitat likely to

support a slightly better assemblage than in

the narrower, more canal like reaches. These

sites may

be able to support a MWH-C

category of fauna - still mostly tolerant, but

with sufficient habitat in a longitudinal

direction

to support such a community.

Pharo

8.

Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal norfar

ji-Oln its confluence with the Cal-Sag

Photo

9.

Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal

in

the

vicinity

of Harlem

Avenlle.

---

Calumet River and the Little Calumet River

[Recommended Category:

MWH-C/MWH-I]

,

.

.

Photo

10.

Calumet

Ri,'erat 130" Street

The habitat in the Calumet River and the Little Calumet River was generally in the lower

range

of fair with one site in the Calumet classified as poor. The site on the Calumet near

the O'Brien Lock and Dam was barely had some coarse substrates although silt-sand mixes

around the coarser substrates limited their functionality. The Calumet and the Little

Calumet both had more variation

in

channel form than did some

waterways

such as the Chicago

River

and the csse. Both sites in

the Little Calumet River had

similar

habitat quality. Both sites

had moderate cover along the

shorelines

and 4-5 cover types

although

most were present were of

fairly low quality (see Table 2).

There were also some coarse

substrates

although there was also

abundant silt/muck/sand

substrates mixed in which became

more prevalent with distance from

shore. These reaches

should be able

to

support a MWH-Channelized

category

and may be able to support

the MWH-Impounded use which

typically has larger populations

of

non-tolerant species (e.g., certain

top carnivores).

Photo II. Little

Calumet River at Hallstead Street.

---

Des Plaines River

[Recommended Category:

MWH-I,

Other]

Although modified and impounded in most reaches, one of the two sites on the Des

Plaines had the highest quality

of the sites we examined downstream of the Brandon Road

Dam.

The site downstream of this dam may not be typical of the downstream reaches,

however in

upper portion was a relatively high quality rapids area that was fairly extensive

and if available to downstream and upstream reaches could harbor more sensitive taxa

more typical

of a natural larger river. Although impounded and subjected to barge and ship

traffic the Des Plaines

had a more "natural" shoreline morphology than did most of the

other waterways we examined. It appeared that there were much more extensive shallows

and cover along the edges, although the lack of flow throughout much of the reach we

boated through would limit species

and taxa dependent on flow. Based on the preliminary

data we collected

we suggest that the Ohio Modified Warmwater Habitat Use for

impounded rivers (MWH-I) would be most appropriate category.

T~e

upper most site had

habitat quality generally associated with a WWH river, however the isolation of this site

(among

impounded reaches) could influence the potential of that site.

Conclusions

The above conclusions were based on the QHEI data collected in a week in late March and

early April in 2004. It was based on habitat data alone and for this draft I did not have

access to any biological data.

As mentioned in the introduction, the biological assemblages

are

the ultimate arbiter of aquatic life and can contribute useful insights into the potential

of a site, even when affected by other stressors. Abundances and condition of organisms,

even tolerant ones can provide insight into the magnitude

of habitat resources. Given that

caveat, the physical patterns in these watersheds are very strong and will have a

predominant influence on the types of assemblages one might expect. Most of these

watersheds have major commercial uses (e.g., barge traffic

on the

eSSe)

that can add

important limiting influences. In addition the systemic alteration

and urbanization also

contributes to the physical limitations we observed.

References

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

Volume

I.

The role of biological data in water quality assessment. Division of Water Quality

Monitoring and Assessment, Surface

Water Section, Columbus, Ohio.

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. Div. Water Qual. Monit. &

Assess., Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Addendum to biological criteria for the protection of

aquatic life: Users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Division of

Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989c. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume

III. Standardized biological field sampling and laboratory methods for assessing fish and

macroinvertebrate communities. Div. Water Quality Plan. & Assess., Ecol. Assess. Sect., Columbus,

Ohio.

---

Rankin, E. T. 1995. The use of habitat assessments in water resource management programs, pp. 181-208

(Chapter 13). 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. 1995a. 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, e.O'. and E.T. Rankin. 1995b. The role of biological criteria in water quality monitoring, assessment,

and regulation. Environmental Regulation in Ohio: How to

Cope With the Regulatory Jungle. lnst.

of Business Law, Santa Monica, CA. 54 pp.

Yoder,

e.o. and E.T. Rankin. 1996. Assessing the condition and status of aquatic life designated Uses in

urban and suburban watersheds, pp. 201-226. in L.A. Roesner (ed.). Effects of Watershed

Development and Management

on Aquatic Ecosystems, American Society of Civil Engineers, New

York, NY.

---

Appendix 1. Aquatic Life Uses in Ohio Water Quality Standards (Taken from Ohio

EPA 2000) Ohio EPA has employed the concept of tiered aquatic life uses in the

Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS) since 1978. These tiers recognize that 1.)

even under minimally impacted conditions, not all streams have the same inherent

potential to harbor aquatic life, 2.) some streams have been, essentially, irretrievably

altered (e.g., streams have been physically modified

and are being maintained in

this state for drainage

or flood control) and cannot support the same diverse

assemblage

of aquatic life found in least impacted waters, and 3.) some of the

vari~tion

in aquatic life expectation is related to underlying natural factors, partly

explained through

the partitioning of expectation by "ecoregions. Aquatic life uses

in

Ohio include the Warmwater Habitat (WWH), Exceptional Warmwater Habitat

(EWH),

Cold Water Habitat (CWH), Seasonal Salmonid Habitat (SSH), Modified

Warmwater Habitat (three subcategories: channel-modified, MWH-C; mine

affected,

WWH MWH-A; and impounded, MWH-I), Limited Resource Water

(LRW), and the now defunct Limited Warmwater Habitat (LWH) designations.

Each

of these use designations is defined in the Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-0.

Water quality standards constitute the numerical and/or narrative criteria that, when

achieved, will presumably protect a given designated use. Chemical-specific criteria serve

as

the "targets" for wasteload allocations conducted under the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily

Load) process.

This is used to determine water quality-based effluent limits for point source

discharges and, theoretically, load allocations for

nonpoint source BMPs (Best

Management Practices).

Whole effluent toxicity limits consist of acute and chronic

endpoints (based

on laboratory toxicity tests) and are based on a dilution method similar to

that used to calculate chemical-specific limits. The biological criteria are used to directly

determine aquatic life use

attainment status for the EWH, WWH, and MWH use

designations

as is stated under the definition of each in the Ohio WQS. The aquatic life

uses are briefly described

as follows:

EWH (Exceptional Warmwater Habitat) - This is the most protective use assigned to

warmwater streams in

Ohio. Chemical-specific criteria for dissolved oxygen and ammonia

are more stringent

than for WWH, but are the same for all other parameters. Ohio's

biological criteria for EWH applies uniformly statewide and is set at the 75th percentile

index values

of all reference sites combined. This use is defined in the Ohio WQS (OAC

3745-1- 07[B][1)[c)).

WWH (Warmwater Habitat) -WWH is the most widely applied use designation assigned to

warmwater streams in

Ohio. The biological criteria vary by ecoregion and site type for fish

and are set at the 25th percentile index values of the applicable reference sites in each

ecoregion. A modified procedure was used in

the extensively modified HELP ecoregion.

This use

is defined in the Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-1-07[B][1][a)).

MWH (Modified Warmwater Habitat) - This use was first adopted in 1990 is assigned to

streams

that have had extensive and irretrievable physical habitat modifications. The

---

MWH use does not meet the Clean Water Act goals and therefore requires a Use

Attainability Analysis. There are three subcategories: MWH-A, non-acidic mine

runoff

affected habitats; MWH-C, channel modified habitats; and MWH-I, extensively

impounded habitats. The chemical-specific criteria for dissolved oxygen and ammonia are

less stringent (and the HELP criteria are less stringent

than other ecoregions) than WWH,

but criteria for other parameters are the same. Biological criteria were derived from a

separate set

of modified reference sites. The biocriteria were set separately for each of three

categories

of habitat impact. The MWH-C and MWH-I subcategory biocriteria were also

derived separately for the HELP ecoregion.

The MWH-A applies only within the WAP

ecoregion. This use

is defined in the Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-1- 07[B][I][d]).

LRW (Limited Resource Waters) - This use is restricted to streams that cannot attain even

the MWH use due to extremely limited habitat conditions resulting from natural factors or

those of anthropogenic origin. Most streams assigned to this use have drainage areas <3 sq.

mi.

and are either ephemeral, have extremely limited habitat (with no realistic chance for

rehabilitation),

or have severe and irretrievable acid mine impacts. Chemical-specific

criteria are intended to protect against acutely toxic

or nuisance conditions. There are no

formal biological criteria. This use is defined in the Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-1- 07[B][I][g])

and was formerly known as the Nuisance Prevention use designation, which is being

phased

out of the WQS.

LWH (Limited Warmwater Habitat) - This use was adopted in 1978 to act as a temporary

"variance" mechanism for individual segments

that had point source discharges that were

not capable of meeting the 1977 Clean Water Act mandates. The process of phasing this

use designation

out of the WQS has been underway since 1985. Chemicakpecific criteria

were varied for selected parameters, otherwise the criteria for

the remaining parameters

were

the same as for the WWH use. In 1985 all of the LWH segments were placed in a

"reserved" status pending a Use Attainability Analysis for each segment.

SSH (Seasonal Salmonid

Habitat) - This use designation was introduced in 1985 and is

assigned to habitats that are capable of supporting the passage of Salmonids between

October and May. Another use designation applies during the remaining months. Several

tributaries to Lake Erie are so designated. This use

is defined in the Ohio WQS (OAC

3 745-1-07[B][ l][e]).

CWH (Coldwater Habitat) - This use includes streams that are capable of supporting cold

water aquatic organisms

and/or put-and-take Salmonid fishing. This use is defined in the

Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-I-07[B][I][f]).

---

Huron !Tie lAke Plain (HELP)

Use

Size IBI M IwI>

ICI

WWH

H

28

NA

34

W

32

7.3

34

B

34

8.6

34

MWH-C H

20

NA

22

W 22

5.6

22

B

20

5.7

22

MWH-I B

30

5.7

NA

Interior Plateau (IP)

Eastern Corn Belt Plain (ElllP)

Use

Size IBI M INb

ICI

WWH--H-"4Q-NA'--3-Ei

W 40

8.3

36

B

42

8.5

36

MWH-C H

24

NA

22

W 24

6.2

22

B

24

5.8

22

MWH-I B

30

6.6

NA

Western Allegheny Pleateau

(WA~

Use

Size IB I Mlwb

ICI

WWH

H

44

NA

34

W

44

8.4

34

B

40

8.6

34

MWH-C H

24

NA

22

W

24

62

22

B

24

5.8

22

MWH-A H

24

NA

30

W

24

5.5

30

B

24

:-.5

30

MWH-I

B

30

6.6

NA

Erie Ontario Lake Plain (EOLP)

llil.!t.-

S

~e---.lID

-.M..~JL_ICl

WWH

H

40

NA

34

W

38

7.9

34

B

40

8.7

34

MWH-C H

24

NA

22

W

24

6.2

22

B

24

5.8

22

MWH-I B

30

6.6

NA

Statewide Exceptional

Warmwater Habitat (EWH)

Bia criteria

Use

Size IBI MlNb

ICI

EWH

H

50

NA

46

W

50

9.4

46

B 48

9.6

46

ICI

30

30

30

22

22

22

NA

IBI MlNb

40

NA

40

8.1

38

8.7

24

NA

24. 6.2

24

5.8

30

6.6

Use

Size

WWA

A

W

B

MWH-C H

W

B

MWH-I B

Map 1. Ohio Biocriteria.

---