BENTHIC BIOLOGY

                  SCIOTO RIVER BASIN

                         OHIO




                 Work Document No. 1|2
Thia document has been prepared to record a specific
water pollution control activity carried out to date in
the furtherance of the water pollution control program
being developed in the Ohio River Basin.  The information
contained herein will serve as a ready reference to aid
in the planning and development of the program in the
Basin* for appropriate in-service training of participating
personnel^ and facilitating program activities with other
cooperating groups.

Questions or comments relative to this material should be
directed to:

              Aquatic Biology Unit
              Laboratory Services Section
              Upper Ohio Basin Office
              Ohio Basin Region
              Wheeling, West Virginia
       UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
         FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION
                   OHIO BASIN REGION

                       June  1970

-------
Regional Center for Environmental Information
            US EPA Region III
               1650 Arch St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
  I.  INTRODUCTION 	
 II.  SUMMARY OF FINDINGS  . . .  .
IH.  METHODS AND TECHNIQUES . .  ,
 IV.  RESULTS OF BENTHIC SAMPLING
                                                         I
                                                         3
                                                         h
                                                         5
  7.  GENERAL DISCUSSION OF FISH LIFE	   13
      TABLE I
      TABLE II

      TABLE IH
      Figure 1
      Figure 2
      through 7
      Figure 8
Station Descriptions - Scioto River Basin
Composition and Classification of Scioto River
Basin Benthic Samples, 1968-1969
Scioto River Basin Fish Kills, 1965-1968
Scioto River Basin - Drainage Map

Percentage Composition of Benthic Samples
Biological Sampling Station Locations - Scioto
River Basin
                                                  U.S. EPA Region III
                                                  Regional Center for Environmental
                                                    Information
                                                  3 650 Arch Street (3PM52)
                                                  Philadelphia, PA 19103

-------

-------
I.  INTRODUCTION

    Objectives and Soope_pf Stuclg;

        The Upper Ohio Basin Office of the Ohio Basin Region, Federal Water
    Quality Administration conducted a biological survey of the Scioto River
    basin during 1968 rnd 1969.  The Aquatic Biology Unit performed limited
    physical and chemical analyses in conjunction with the biological sampling
    and observations throughout the drainage area.  This document deals with
    the biological btiriies conducted as M part of the Scioto investigation.

        The objectives of the biological study are (1) to define the aspects
    of pollution prior to intensive chemical appraisal of the water quality
    and (2) to establish a baseline of present biological conditions against
    which future changes can be measured.

        The intent of this document is to record the results of the biological
    study and to function as a planning aid for water quality studies in the
    Scioto River basin.

        The aquatic biology survey provides an analysis of the water quality
    in a given stream or section of stream.  The biological data and descrip-
    tions delineate the areas capable of supporting aquatic organism associ-
    ations typical of non-polluted water as opposed to those aquatic communities
    exhibiting a disrupted or altered biota.  An altered community indicates
    environmental changes such as occurs with pollution of the habitat.

        The results of this survey and related observations, together with
    other basic information, constitute a base for the planning, formation
    and execution of water quality surveys incorporating other scientific
    and engineering disciplines.

        The effects of pollution on aquatic life can be dramatic, as for
    example, the occurrence cf a fish kill.  The effects can also be demon-
    strated in more subtle ways.  The effects of pollution on organisms have
    been presented, with the use of different techniques and demonstrations by
    aquatic biologists in numerous water pollution reports.  The use of
    biological phenomena in assessing water quality is an established and
    accepted methodology employed by water pollution investigating agencies.
    This document presents the findings of the studies conducted in the
    Scioto River basin in 1968 and 1?69.

        The Scioto River basin lies in the central portion of Ohio, its eastern
    limits nearly coinciding with the north-south center line of the state, and
    forms thr, principal drainage system of central and southern Ohio (Figure 1).
    The Scioto River t.see'in northwestern Ohio, flows east 60 miles where it
    is joined by the Littlt/ Scioto, then south 1? miles where it enters the

-------

-------
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL  WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
                 OHIO  BASIN REGION
UPPER  OHIO BASIN OFFICE   WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA

                                  FIGURE  I

-------

-------
Ohio River at Portsmouth, Ohio, 356 river miles below Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania.  Olentangy River, Big Walnut Creek, Big Darby Creek and Deer Creek
are major tributaries of the Scioto which flow in a southern direction
roughly paralleling the main stream for some distance.  Mill Creek, a
major tributary above Columbus, flows eastward from its source to join
the Scioto at Bellepoint.  Salt Creek and Paint Creek are major tributaries
which flow southwestward and almost eastward, respectively, to join the
Scioto River in the lower portion of the basin.  The total drainage area
of the basin is 6,510 square miles, comprising about 16 percent of the
land area of the state and covering part or all of 31 counties.  The Scioto
basin is roughly rectangular in shape, about 135 miles long and 50 to 60
miles wide except for the lower 30 miles where it narrows to about 25 miles.

    Agricultural and diversified industrial production are the economic
mainstays of the basin.  Ihere is no significant coal production in the
Scioto basin since only the fringe of the southern Ohio coal fields is
within the watershed in its southeastern corner.

-------

-------
II.  SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

          The results of benthic biological sampling throughout the Scioto River
     Basin indicated that the primary cause of water quality degradation was the
     excessive amount of oxygen demanding material introduced by municipalities
     and industries.  This was particularly true of that portion of the Scioto
     River downstream from Columbus where the benthos reflected significant
     degradation of water quality for a distance of 60-75 miles.  Other streams
     in the basin where areas of significant localized pollution occurred were:
     Little Scioto River, downstream from Marion (sewage)j Mill Creek, down-
     stream from Marysville (sewage); Olentangy River, downstream from Galion
     (sewage); Alum Creek, downstream from Parks Mills (sewage)j Hargus Creek,
     near the mouth (oil); Paint Creek, downstream from Greenfield (sewaga) and
     near the mouth (paper mill waste); and Little Salt Creek, downstream from
     Jackson (sewage and food process waste).

          Agricultural runoff also contributed to the enrichment of the streams
     in several areas.  Substrate conditions were less than optimum throughout
     much of the upper portion of the Scioto River as a result of agricultural
     activities and low stream gradient.  This resulted in a reduced biota at
     a number of stations.

-------

-------
in.  METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

      Benthos Role in_ Water Pollution Surveys

          The primary objective of a biological survey as part of the compre-
      hensive project is to determine the water quality using aquatic organisms
      as an index.  The role of benthic organisms in the study of water pollu-
      tion has been well documented.

          The biological characterizations of any given stream are readily
      accomplished by a study of the macro-invertebrate fauna.  The aquatic
      community includes three major groups:   The nekton or free swimmers,  the
      plankton or drifters, and the benthos or bottom associated organisms.
      Since fish are transient in nature and  plankton are moved about by cur-
      rents, the benthos is best suited for study to determine prevailing water
      quality conditions.  Bottom dwelling organisms exhibit a pronounced
      response to pollution, have a. sufficiently long life cycle to prevent
      response to intermittent relief from pollution, and lack a means of rapid
      locomotion thus prohibiting extended migrations.  Because of these qual-
      ities, bottom-dwelling organisms reflect conditions at the sampling point
      for an extended period of time.

      Field.and Laboratory Techniques

          Whenever possible, samples are collected from riffle areas.  It has
      been demonstrated that the degree and extent of pollution in a stream
      can be determined accurately by reference to the macro-invertebrate fauna,
      particularly that found in the riffles.  Also, particulate organic matter
      and silt tend to settle out in pools creating an unfavorable habitat.
      Samples collected from such areas do not often reflect the true condition
      of the stream.

          The number of samples collected at  any one station is left to the
      judgment of the biologist.  Generally,  two to three cross section samples
      per station (or sample site) are collected,  depending on the size of
      the stream.  Published reports have shovm that only two square-foot samples
      are necessary to  be reasonably certain  of obtaining representatives of
      the principal groups of organisms present<,

          Samples are collected with the Surber sampler,  Petersen dredge or
      Ekman dredge depending on the habitat or  substrate  at the sampling point.
      The material collected is waahed,  sieved  (when collected with a dredge),
      and placed in quart jars with preservative.   The samples  are  transported
      to  the station laboratory for enumeration and identification of the
      aquatic organisms.   All organisms are identified to the family taxonomic
      level, with the exception of the sludge worms which are identified only
      to  the class taxonomic level.   The individual groups  of organisms  are
      classed as sensitive,  tolerant and very tolerant based upon their response
      to  pollution  This classification is based  on known  tolerances of various
      groups as reported  in the literature, and upon personal observations of
      various benthic associations encountered  in both polluted and unpolluted
      waters.

-------

-------
IV.  RESULTS OF BENTHIC SAMPLING

         A total of 88 stations were established and sampled throughout  the
     Scioto River basin.  Table I lists the location and physical description
     of each station.  Figure 8 shows the station locations of quantitative
     samples collected throughout the study.

         The physical composition of the substrate and habitat available, as
     described in Table I, affects the number and kinds of organisms  present.
     A knowledge of the habitat normally occupied by various organisms and the
     effect of habitat changes upon these organisms are as important  as  the
     direct effects of water quality changes.  Recognition of this ecological
     principle is important to the conclusions developed in the evaluation for
     a particular section of stream.  The benthic association observed and the
     habitat analysis must both be given equal consideration when evaluating
     the pollutional status of a given area.

         Table II lists the macroinvertebrate composition of each station
     sampled.  The table includes the stream, station number, number  of  samples
     collected, number of individuals for each taxonomic group collected, total
     number of organisms collected, average number per square foot, number of
     varieties, and percentages of pollution tolerance groups.  These percentages
     ware based on the number of individuals occurring in each tolerance group.

         The pollution tolerance groups, for demonstration purposes,  are called
     Class I, II and IH.  The tolerance groups,  as defined for this  document,
     ares  I) sensitive, or organisms unable to withstand polluted conditions;
     II) tolerant, or organisms capable of withstanding moderate amounts of
     pollution, and III) very tolerant, or organisms with the capability to
     withstand severely polluted conditions.  Classes n and III have a  wide
     range of tolerance levels, and with increased pollution theso groups are
     able to replace the sensitive forms in the biota.

         The variety diversity and percentages of the tolerance groups are
     represented in Figures 2 through 7 by bar graphs and histograms  respectively.
     These graphic figures are shown for each of  the sampled stations on schematic
     drawings of the Scioto River and its tributaries.  It is noted that a reduc-
     tion in the number of varieties generally is accompanied by an increase in
     the percentage of tolerant and very tolerant forms.

         The findings of the benthological studies are discussed for  each of the
     major drainages in the Scioto River basin.  For this discussion, the Scioto
     River Basin is divided into the following drainages:  minor tributaries of
     the Scioto River, Kill Creek, Olentangy River,  Big Walnut Creek, Big Darby
     Creek, Deer Creek, Paint Creek,  Salt Creek and the Scioto River  proper.   The
     following discussions of the benthic studies begin in the headwaters of the
     Scioto basin and progress downstream.  The station numbers are given in
     parenthesis and refer to  Figures 2 through 8  and Tables  I  and II.

-------

-------
Scioto River Minor Tributaries

    Panther Creek (it) is a small, unstable stream which drains farm land.
The benthos consisted primarily of tolerant organisms, which probably
reflects poor substrate conditions as well as a moderate water quality.
The benthos near the mouth of Rush Creek (?) was limited, consisting
entirely of tolerant and very tolerant forms.  The substrate at this sta-
tion was poor, consisting almost entirely of sand.

    The Little Scioto River is a slow, sluggish stream with a substrate
made up of sand and silt.  The benthic sample collected north of Iferion,
Ohio (8), was composed almost entirely of midge larvae and aquatic worms.
The stream became even more degraded as indicated by the composition of
the sample taken downstream from Marion (9).  The substrate contained some
organic sludge and aquatic worms accounted for 99 percent of the organisms
in the benthic sample.  Sewage pollution was obvious at this sampling site.

    The benthic composition of Pulton Creek (10 and 11 ) indicated water of
moderate quality.  The substrate at the station upstream from Richwood (10)
was poor and the sample consisted primarily of tolerant organisms.  The
benthic composition at the mouth (11) also consisted largely of tolerant
organisms and showed little significant change from the upstream station.
Silting was evident near the mouth, again suggesting that substrate condi-
tions were a limiting factor in Fulton Creek.

    The benthos in Bokes Creek (12) indicated good water quality.  The
sample was predominated by sensitive and tolerant forms with a total
diversity of 111 and an average of 396 organisms per square foot.
    Walnut Creek downstream from Baltimore, Ohio (ii), had a benthic
composition predominated by tolerant and very tolerant forms.  The types
of organisms collected suggested possible organic enrichment of the stream.
The variety and numbers were low in the sample collected near the mouth
(1*7).  Midge larvae and aquatic worms accounted for 87 percent of all
organisms collected.  Substrate conditions were marginal in the stream as
a result of the low gradient and silt load.
    Hargus Creek (^5) was severely degraded as evidenced by the limited
diversity in the benthic sample.  This stream flows through Circleville,
Ohio, and was covered with a surface film of oil.  The benthic sample
in Scippo Creek (57) consisted almost entirely of midge larvae, indicating
a degraded water quality.

    The benthos of 'Walnut Creek (76) consisted of a varied fauna,
predominated by sensitive and tolerant forms a  Total numbers were high,
indicating some possible organic enrichment.  Beaver Creek upstream from
Piketon, Ohio (8^), contained a good diversity of organisms but numbers

-------

-------
were low.  All three pollution classes were equally abundant.  Midge larvae
were very abundant in the sample collected from Beaver Creek downstream
from Piketon (85).  There was no obvious pollution of this stream.

    The benthic composition of Sunfish Creek at Idaho, Ohio (86), reflected
water of good quality.  Sensitive organisms predominated at this station.
Near the mouth of Sunfish Creek (87), the variety was slightly reduced and
consisted almost entirely of tolerant organisms.

    The benthic composition of Scioto Brush Creek (90, 91,92 and 93)
reflected water of moderate-to-good quality.  The station on the South
Fork (90) showed some evidence of domestic pollution; however, there were
no obvious pollutants at the three stations sampled on the Scioto Brush
Creek itself.  The sample at Otway, Ohio (91)* contained a large diversity
of organisms in the sensitive and tolerant classes.  Total numbers were
somewhat reduced upstream from Henley (92), but diversity was still very
good and sensitive and tolerant forms remained in predominance.  Near the
mouth (93), diversity and total numbers were further reduced and the orga-
nisms in the tolerant class became the predominant forms.

Mill Creek Sub-Basin

    Mill Creek drains approximately 186 square miles in the northwestern
section of the Scioto basin.

    Benthic samples were collected at four stations in the Mill Creek
drainage.  The sample collected upstream from Marysville, Ohio (13),
contained a very good diversity of organisms, predominated by tolerant
and sensitive forms.  Numbers per square foot were somewhat low, possibly
as a result of fairly high water temperatures.  Downstream from Marysville
(1U), the benthos was composed entirely of midge larvae and aquatic worms.
Domestic sewage from the town of Marysville was very obvious at this sta-
tion.  The fauna in Blues Creek (15) was quite diverse, with tolerant and
sensitive forms predominating.  The substrate in Blues Creek was good but
the stream was extremely slow moving.  Total numbers were low at the mouth
of Mill Creek (16).  The stream seemed to have recovered somewhat from the
severely degraded condition at Marysville, as evidenced by the increased
diversity and predominance of sensitive and tolerant forms.

Olentangy River Sub-Basin

    The Olentangy River drains approximately 52? square miles in the north-
eastern portion of the Scioto basin.  Benthic samples were collected at
1U stations in the Olentangy sub-basin throughout this study, and the
majority of the samples consisted primarily of tolerant and very tolerant
forms.  Upstream from Galion (18) the benthos was extremely rich with a
good diversity of forms, predominated by tolerant organisms.  Downstream from

-------

-------
                                                                       8

Gallon (19) the variety was severely reduced, with aquatic worms comprising
most of the sample.  Domestic pollution was evident in the stream at this
station.  The sample collected upstream from Caledonia (20) contained a
moderate diversity of organisms with fingernail clams accounting for more
than half of the total numbers.  Total numbers increased downstream from
Caledonia (21) and diversity remained moderate.  Gill snails accounted for
nearly half of the total numbers at this station.  The sample collected on
Cauquaw Run (22) contained very high numbers with caddisflies and stoneflies
comprising approximately 72 percent of the total.  This stream is apparently
receiving organic enrichment.  The benthos of the Olentangy River downstream
from Waldo, Ohio (23), was dominated by aquatic worms and midge larvae which
were present in large numbers.  The substrate at this station was not good,
although a diversity of organisms were collected.  Two stations were sampled
on Whetstone Creek downstream from Mt. Gilead, Ohio (2h and 25).  Both
samples contained large numbers of organisms predominated by tolerant forms,
indicating organic enrichment.  The benthos in Whetstone Creek, downstream
from Cardington, Ohio (26), contained a good variety of organisms, primarily
of the sensitive and tolerant types.  High total numbers again indicated
the presence of organic enrichment in the stream.  The benthic composition
of samples collected on Whetstone Creek upstream from Delaware Reservoir (2?)
was predominated by tolerant forms, mostly midge larvae.  The change in
composition at this station was probably due in large part to the change
in substrate and the reduction in stream velocity.

    The sample collected on the Olentangy River downstream from Delaware
Reservoir (28) consisted largely of tolerant and very tolerant forms.  A
good substrate was available, but samples were difficult to obtain.  The
substrate on the Olentangy River downstream from Stratford, Ohio (29) was
mostly bedrock.  Nevertheless, a good diversity, representing all three
pollution classes, was collected.  Downstream from Worthington, Ohio (30),
the benthos consisted primarily of tolerant and sensitive forms with a very
good diversity of organisms present.  The benthos above the mouth of the
Olentangy River (31) reflected some degradation of water quality.  Tolerant
and very tolerant forms each comprised nearly half of the total number of
organisms collected.

Big Walnut Greek Sub-Basin

    Big Walnut Creek drains approximately 550 square miles of the Scioto
basin north and east of Columbus.  Benthic samples were collected at ten
stations in the Big Walnut Creek drainage throughout this study.

    The benthic sample collected downstream from Marengo, Ohio (33),
contained a large percentage of very tolerant organisms.  The diversity
was good, however, and the stream showed no obvious signs of pollution.
Downstream from Sunbury, Ohio (3k), the benthos was composed primarily of
sensitive and tolerant forms.  Diversity was good and total numbers were
moderate, indicating water of good quality.  The sample collected downstream

-------

-------
from Hoover Reservoir (35) contained a very good variety of organisms,
predominantly of the tolerant group.  Diversity and total numbers were
reduced somewhat further downstream (36), although the percentages for
each tolerance group remained nearly the same*  The reduction was
probably due in part to the change in substrate at station 36.  The benthos
of Blacklick Creek  (37) was dominated by tolerant and sensitive forms.
The substrate was marginalj however, diversity and numbers of organisms
per square foot were good.  A well balanced fauna was collected from Alum
Creek at Africa (38).  Diversity was high with tolerant forms predominating.
The sample from Alum Creek at Westerville (I|.0) was taken upstream from the
sewage treatment plant and indicated no apparent degradation of water
quality.  Total numbers were low, but diversity was somewhat increased from
that at station 38.  Downstream from Parks Mills O-fl) the benthos was
extremely limited arid dominated by very tolerant and tolerant forms.
Domestic pollution was apparent in the stream at this point.  Organic
enrichment was still affecting the biota near the mouth of Alum Creek (i2).
The stream had recovered somewhat, however,, as indicated by the increase
in numbers of organisms, diversity and percentage of sensitive forms.  The
benthos near the mouth of Big Walnut Creek (1|3) was limited with all three
tolerance groups represented.  The substrate conditions may have been a
major factor in the reduction in biota at this station.

Big Darby Creek Sub-Basin

    Approximately 560 square miles are drained by Big Darby Creek in the
west-central portion of the Scioto basin.  Three samples were collected
from Little Darby Creek and two were collected from Big Darby Creek as a
part of this study.

    The benthos of Little Darby Creek downstream from Mechanicsburg, Ohio
(1;8), was composed primarily of sensitive and tolerant forms.  Diversity
and numbers of organisms per square foot were high.  The biota from Little
Darby Creek near Plumwood, Ohio (k9)f was extremely reduced and dominated
by tolerant forms.  This sample was more reflective of poor sampling condi-
tions than of a degradation in water quality.  Near the mouth of Little
Darby Creek (50) diversity was high and sensitive and tolerant forms were
predominant.  Total numbers were somewhat low, however.

    The benthos of Big Darby Creek downstream from Plain City (52) was
indicative of moderate water quality.  The stream appeared to be in very
good condition, however, with no indications of pollution.  Near the mouth
of Big Darby Creek (5ii) the benthos was dominated by tolerant forms.  Total
numbers and diversity was much the same as that at station 52.

-------
                                                                      10

     Creek Sub -Basin
    Deer Creek drains approximately lj.00 square miles of the Scioto basin,
south of the Big Darby Creek drainage.  Three samples were collected in the
Deer Creek drainage during this study.

    The benthos from Deer Creek at Anderson's Mill, Ohio (58), was very
diverse with tolerant and sensitive forms predominating.  The composition
of the sample indicated good water quality.  Sugar Run (59) had a benthic
composition dominated by sensitive and tolerant forms.  Diversity was
moderate and numbers of organisms per square foot were high.  The benthos
near the mouth of Deer Creek (6l) was also indicative of good water quality.
Sensitive and tolerant forms predominated^ diversity was good, but total
numbers were low.

Paint Creek Sub-Basin

    Approximately 1150 square miles in the southwestern section of the
Scioto basin are drained by Paint Creek.  Benthic samples were collected at
eleven stations on Paint Creek and its tributaries during this study.

    The benthic sample from the North Fork of Paint Creek, downstream from
Compton Creek (61*,) contained a wide variety of organisms, predominated by
tolerant and sensitive forms.  An average of 128 organisms was collected
in each square foot sample.  Further downstream, near the confluence with
Paint Creek (65) the benthos was significantly reduced.  Diversity and
total number of organisms were low, however, sensitive forms accounted for
more than half of the sample .  The reduction in numbers and diversity was
possibly due to a less favorable substrate at this station.

    The benthos in Paint Creek upstream from Washington Court House,
Ohio (66), was very limited, with tolerant forms predominating.  The substrate
was primarily sand, which might account for the low productivity.  Downstream
from Washington Court House (6?) the benthic composition was much improved.
Diversity and total numbers were moderately high and tolerant and sensitive
forms were dominant.  The benthos near the mouth of Sugar Creek (68) was
very diverse with sensitive forms accounting for 81 percent of the organisms
collected.  The abundance and types of organisms collected suggested possible
enrichment in the stream.  Downstream from Greenfield, Ohio (69), the benthos
was indicative of severely degraded conditions.  Numbers and variety were
low and only very tolerant and tolerant forms were collected in the sample.
There was considerable evidence of sewage pollution in the stream.

    The benthic sample collected from Rattlesnake Creek near East Monroe,
Ohio (70), was indicative of good water quality.  Diversity and total
numbers were moderately high, and tolerant and sensitive forms predominated
in the sample.  The benthos near the mouth of Rattlesnake Creek (71) was
very similar to that at station 70.  Total numbers and the percentage of
sensitive forms had increased,  primarily as a result of a large caddisfly
population .

-------

-------
                                                                        11

    The benthos collected from Paint Greek, downstream from Rocky Fork (72)
was very similar to that from Rattlesnake Creek.  Diversity was slightly
reduced and sensitive and tolerant forms were predominant.  Paint Creek,
upstream from the confluence with the North Fork (73) had a benthic compo-
sition dominated by sensitive and tolerant forms.  Diversity remained
moderate, but total numbers had increased significantly.  The sample collected
near the mouth of Paint Creek (?1|) contained only four organisms.  The stream
was very obviously being degraded by effluent from a paper company a short
distance upstream.

Salt Creek Sub-Basin

    Salt Creek drains approximately 55'Q square miles in the southeastern
portion of the Scioto basin.  Benthic samples were collected at six stations
in this sub-basin throughout this study.

    The benthic composition of Salt Creek downstream from Laurelville,
Ohio (77), contained a moderate diversity of forms, with tolerant and
sensitive groups predominating.  Total numbers were somewhat low.  There
were no obvious pollutants^ however, the stream showed possible signs of
domestic pollution.  Tolerant and very tolerant forms predominated in the
sample taken from Salt Creek upstream from its confluence with Little Salt
Creek (78).  Diversity and numbers of organisms were low, possibly due to
limiting conditions of the substrate.  Poor substrate conditions may also
have been responsible for the extremely limited biota collected from the
Middle Fork of Salt Creek (79).  Only four organisms were collected at
this station.

    Little Salt Creek was very degraded downstream from Jackson, Ohio (80).
The benthos consisted entirely of tolerant and very tolerant forms.  The
stream was receiving a considerable amount of organic pollution, as evi-
denced by the low dissolved oxygen content (1.8 mg/1) and the sewage odor.
The benthos collected from Salt Creek, upstream from its confluence with
the Middle Fork (81) was somewhat limited; however, diversity had increased
and tolerant and sensitive forms were predominant.

    The benthic sample from Salt Creek at Richmondale, Ohio (82), contained
a moderate diversity of organisms, predominated by tolerant and sensitive
forms.  There were no obvious pollutants present5 however, there was some
evidence of possible domestic pollution.

Scioto River

    A total of fourteen stations were sampled in the Scioto River from its
headwaters near Ken ton, Ohio,, to its junction with the Ohio River at
Portsmouth, Ohio.   Nearly all of the stations showed a predominance of
tolerant and very tolerant forms.

-------

-------
                                                                        12

    The sample collected upstream from Kenton, Ohio (l), contained a
moderate diversity of organisms, predominated by very tolerant and tolerant
forms.  The stream and substrate characteristics at this station did not
favor those organisms indicative of clean water.  Conditions were very
similar downstream from Kenton (3); however,, tolerant and sensitive forms
were most abundant at this station.  Samples collected upstream and down-
stream from La Rue, Ohio (5 and 6), contained a low diversity of organisms,
with very tolerant and tolerant forms predominating at both stations.  Sub-
strate conditions were very poor at these stations also.  The benthos from
the Scioto River upstream from Dublin.* Ohio (l?), reflected water of good
quality.  The substrate at this station was favorable, probably accounting
for the increased diversity and predominaD.ee of tolerant and sensitive forms
at this station.  Downstream from Columbus (.32 and 1|1;) the diversity was
low with very tolerant and tolerant forms making up 100 percent of both
samples.  Organic pollution was particularly evident at the lower station
(Ui).  The benthos downstream from Circleville, Ohio (5>6), was also limited
entirely to very tolerant forms with a low diversity.  There were evidences
of organic and chemical pollution at this station.  The benthos taken from
the station upstream from Chillicothe, Ohio (62), indicated some recovery
in water quality.  Diversity was greatly increased; however, tolerant and
very tolerant forms remained dominant.  Upstream from the mouth of Paint
Creek (63) the diversity was again somewhat reduced but sensitive forms were
more abundant.  An unstable substrate way have been a factor in the reduction
of diversity.  The benthic community downstream from Paint Creek (75>) was
very similar to that at station 63 except that total numbers were somewhat
reduced and there was a greater abundance of very tolerant forms.

    The benthic samples from the Scioto River upstream from the mouth of
Scioto Brush Creek (89) contained a moderate diversity and high numbers
of organisms.  Tolerant forms predominated while sensitive and very tolerant
forms were present in nearly equal numbers.  The two stations sampled near
the mouth (9h and 95) contained a limited biota with low total numbers of
organisms.  The substrate was unstable at these two stations, possibly
accounting for the reduced fauna.

-------

-------
                                                                            13
V.  GENERAL DISCUSSION OF FISH LIFE
        There are a number of areas within the Scioto River basin which
    presently offer a good warm-water sport fishery.  However, a much greater
    potential would exist if water quality were improved.  The natural habitat
    of all the signific
-------

-------
 TABLE I
  STATION DESCRIPTIONS - Scioto River Basin
i STATION
Scioto River
above Kentbn
Scioto River
below Kenton

Panther Creek
above mouth
1 Scioto River
above LaRue
i Scioto River
below LaRue
Rush Creek
above mouth
STA. NO.
SAMPLING
AREA
P
1
P
3

P
k
P
5
p
6
P
7
-P
w o
3 E ft,
P-J sij jit pj
P 1.5

S 1.0


p 0.5

P 3.0

P 3.0

P 2.0

SUBSTRATE
Gravel
Sand
Bedrock
Gravel
Sand.
Silt
Sand
Sand
Silt
Sand
Gravel
Sand

BENTHIC FAUNA
PREDOMINANCE
V.
SEN. TOL0 TOL.
X X

X X


X

X X

X X

X

X

X


X

X

X

X

COMMENTS
Stream muddy
Channelized
Stream muddy


Stream muddy
Rising fast
Stream muddy

Stream muddy

Stream muddy

Little Scioto
River above
Marion

Little Scioto
River above
mouth

Pulton Creek
above Richwood

Pulton Creek
above mouth
Bokes Creek
above mouth
                           E     1.5     Sand
                           S
0.5     Silt
                                          X    X    Possible domestic
                                                    pollution
                                               X    Domestic pollution
                                                    obvious
                 10
                 11
12
                      R
     R
Mill Creek            R
above Marysville 13
2.0


1.5



1.0



0.5
Sand
Gravel

Gravel
Rubble
Sand

Bedrock
Rubble
Gravel

Rubble
Gravel
Sand
                                                           X    X
                                               X
X    X
                                     X    X
               Stream muddy
               Poor substrate

               Stream looks
               good
                                                                     Stream looks good
               Clean stream>silt

-------

-------
, I (continued)
STATION DESCRIPTIONS - Scioto River Basin
STATION
Mill Creek
" below Marysville
*
s

IS
en
lit
 Blues Creek below
Ostrander 15
Mill Creek
above mouth

Scioto River
above Dublin

Olentangy River
above Galion

Olentargy River
below Galion
Olentangy River
above Caledonia
Olentansy Hlvor
below Caledonia
Cauquaw R>in
above Waldo
"
Olenoangy River
ai. Waldo
Whetstone Creek
bolow ?fh, Gilead

Vnetstons r~-3ek
below !-5t.. Gilead
16

1?

18

19
20
21
22

23
2k


SAMPLING
AREA
R
R
R

R

R

R
R
R
R

P
R

R
TYPE
SAMPLER
S
s
S

s

s

s
s
s
s

P
s

s
.--",
-P
a>
<&
Wfo
^
8
0.5
2.0
1.5

1.5

0.3

0.5
0.7
1.0
o.5

2.5
0.3

0.5
SUBSTRATE
Rubble
Rock
Sand
Rubble
Sand
Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Gravel
Rubble
Sand
Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Scad
Gravel
Graxrel
Sand
Rubble
Gravel
Sand.
Sand
Gravel
Rubble
Gravel
Rubble
Sand
Gravel
Sand
BMTECC FAIMA
PREDOMINANCE
V.
SEN. TOL. TOL. COMMENTS
X Domestic pollution
obvious
XXX Stream sluggish
XX- Stream high due
to r<: in

XX- Water looks good

X X Stream clean

X Probable domestic
pollution
XXX Water turbid
XXX. Heavy algal
growths
XX- T/feter clea:,:

XXX Poor sv?- strata
Higliway construct-'.
upstream
X X Water clean

"%_ Probable domes tic-
pollution

-------

-------
TABLE I (continued)
STATION DESCRIPTIONS - Scioto River Basin

i
*
e$
STATION w
Whetstone Greek
below Cardington 26
Whetstone Creek
above reservoir 27
Olentangy River
below reservoir 28
Olentangy River
below Stratford 29
Olentangy River
below Worthing-
ton 30
Olentangy River
above mouth 31

Scioto River
at Shadeville 32
Big Walnut Creek
below Marengo 33

Big Walnut Creek
below Sunbury 3k
Big Walnut Creek
below Reservoir 35

Big Walnut Creek
at Colunibus 36
Blacklick Creek
at Mouth 3?
Alum Creek at
Africa 38
SAMPLING
AREA
R

P

P

R

R


R
P

R

P
R

R

R


R

R

R

TYPE
SAMPLER
S

s

P

s

s


s
P

s

P
s

s

s


s

s.

s

<">
-P
Q)
(!)
Cl<
 c
W M
p*-"
0.3

1.0

3.0

1.5

2.0


1.0
2.0

1.5

1.0
0.3

0.5

1.0


1.0

1.0

0.7

SUBSTRATE
Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Gravel
Rubble
Gravel
Bedrock
Gravel
Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Gravel
Rubble
Sand
Sand
Gravel
Gravel
Rubble
Sand
Rubble
Gravel
Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Gravel
Sand
Sand
Gravel
Rubble
Gravel
BENTHIC FAUNA
PREDOMINANCE
V.
SEN. TOL. TOL. COMMENTS
XX- Stream clean

XX- Stream cloudy,
~ sluggish
X 3C X No obvious
pollution
X X_ X No obvious
pollution
XXX Water green-brown


X X Highway constructio
and industry up-
stream
X X Old Columbus
STP upstream
XXX Stream clean


X X Stream clean

X X_ X Stream clean


X X X No obvious
pollutants
XXX Water looks
good
X X - No obvious
pollutants

-------

-------
TABLE I (continued)
STATION DESCRIPTIONS - Scioto River Basin
55 M W
M
STATION w w to
Alum Creek below R S
. Westerville JjO
Alum Creek below R S
Parks Mills i|l
Alum Creek R S
above mouth U2
Big Walnut Creek R S
above mouth U3
Scioto River R S
State Rd. 762
Bridge hk
Walnut Creek R S
below Baltimore ij.5
Walnut Creek P P
above mouth Itf
Little Darby R S
Creek below
Mechanicsburg I8
Little Darby P S
Creek East of
Plumwood lj.9
Little Darby Creek R S
at mouth 50
Big Darby Creek R S
below Plain City 52
P

-------

-------
TABLE I (contirmed)
STATION DESCRIPTIONS - Scioto River Basin
 g
STATION w w 2|
Big Darby Creek R
 above mouth 5k
Hargus Creek R
 at mouth 55
Scioto River R
below Circleville 56
Scippo Creek R
above mouth 5?
Deer Creek at R
Anderson's Mil 58
Sugar Run above R
mouth 59
Deer Creek R
at mouth 61
Scioto River R
Above Chillicothe 62
Scioto River above R
- Paint Creek 63
North Fork Paint R
 Creek above
Compton Creek 61|
North Fork Paint R
Creek above Paint
Creek 65
Paint Creek at P
Eber 66
p
M Q
S 0.8
S 0.3
s 1.5
S 0.7
S 0.6
S 0.8
s 0.5
S 1.0
S 0.8
s 0.5
s 0.5
S 1.0
SUBSTRATE
Rubble
Gravel
Gravel
Rubble
Sand
Gravel
Gravel
Rubble
Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Rubble
Gravel
Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Gravel
Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Gravel
Rubble
Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Gravel
BENTECC FAUNA
PREDOMINANCE
V.
SEN. TOL. TOL.
XX-
X
. X X
X
XX-
X X
XXX
"* V
XXX
XX-
XXX
XXX
COMMENTS
No obvious
pollutants
Oil in water
Probable domestic
and industrial
pollutants
Probable organic
pollution
No obvious
pollutants
No obvious
pollutants
Stream clean
Water turbid
Apparently in
recovery zone
Stream looks good
No obvious
pollutants
Water muddy
poor substrate

-------

-------
TABLE I (continued)
STATION DESCRIPTIONS - Scioto River Basin
i 
& M
STATION  w ^
Paint Creek above R
Sugar Creek 67
Sugar Creek above R
 mouth 68
Paint Creek R
below Greenfield 69
Rattlesnake Creek R
at East Monroe ?0
Rattlesnake Creek R
above mouth 71
Paint Creek below R
Rocky Fork 72
Paint Creek above R
North Fork 73
Paint Creek R
at mouth 7li
Scioto River R
below Paint Creek 75
Walnut Creek R
above mouth 76
Salt Creek below R
Laurelville 77
"^
03 (D
M CD
M W P^
K <$ ff H
S 0.8
S 0.2
s 0.5
s 0.5
s 0.5
s i.o
s 0.5
s 0.3
S 1.0
s 0.5
s 0.7
SUBSTRATE
Gravel
Rubble
Sand
Bedrock
Rubble
Rubble
Gravel
Silt
Rubble
Rock
Gravel
Rubble
Gravel
Rubble
Rock
Gravel
Gravel
Rubble
Sand
Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Gravel
Sand
Gravel
Sand
Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Rubble
BENTHIC FAUNA
PREDOMINANCE
V.
SEN. TOL. TOL.
XXX
X X
' X X
XX-
XX-
XX-
XX-
X X
XXX
XX-
XX-
COMMENTS
No obvious
pollutants
No obvious
pollutants
Obvious domestic
pollution
No obvious
pollutants
Stream looks good
No obvious
pollutants
Water looks good
Stream seriously
degraded
Water looks poor
Water looks
fairly good
No obvious
pollutants

-------

-------
TABLE I (continued)
STATION DESCRIPTIONS - Scioto River Basin
o
g g S
STATION w w S3 S S
Salt Creek above R S
. Little Salt Creek 7 8
Middle Fork Salt R S
Creek above Little
Salt Creek 79
Little Salt Creek R S
below Jackson 80
Little Salt Creek R S
above Middle Fork 81
Salt Creek R S
above mouth 82

Beaver Creek R S
above Piketon 81;

Beaver Creek R S
below Piketon 85
Sunfish Creek R S
at Idaho 86

Sunfish Creek R S
above mouth 87

Scioto River above R S
Scioto Brush
Creek 89
South Fork Scioto R S
Brush Creek below
Rocky Fork 90
Scioto Brush Creek R S
at Otway 91
P
CO
E*
1.0

1.0


0.5

1.0

1.0


1.0


1.0

0.5


0.5


1.0


1.0


0.5

SUBSTRATE
Gravel
Sand
Sand
Gravel

Gravel
Sand
Gravel
Sand
Gravel
Sand
Rubble
Clay
Rubble
Gravel
Gravel
Sand
Gravel
Rubble
Sand
Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Gravel
Sand

Rubble
Gravel
Sand
Rubble
Gravel
BENTHIC FAUNA
PREDOMINANCE
V.
SEN. TOL, TOL. COMMENTS
XXX Water looks
fairly good
XXX Few organisms


X X Obvious organic
pollution
X X X No obvious
pollutants
X X_ Possible domestic
pollution

X X X No obvious
pollutants

X X_ Stream muddy

XX No obvious
pollutants

X X No obvious
pollutants

XXX Water looks
fairly good

X X Possible domestic
pollution

X X - No obvious
pollutants

-------

-------
TABLE I (continued)
STATION DESCRIPTIONS - Scioto River Basin
STATION
Scioto Brush
above Henley
Scioto Brush
" above mouth
Scioto River
Portsmouth
Scioto River
above mouth
KEY
i
*
IS
co
Creek
92
Creek
93
above
9k
9$

Sampling Area:
P = Pool
R - Riffle

O -P
co 2j Pco - SUBSTRATE
R S 1.0 Rubble
Gravel
Sand
R S 1.0 Gravel
Rock
Rubble
P P 3.0 Gravel
Sand
P P li.O Sand
Gravel

Type Sampler:
P - Peters en dredge
E = Ekman dredge
BENTHIC FAUNA
PREDOMINANCE
V.
SEN. TOL. TOL.
XX-
x x
X X
XXX
Predominance:
COMMENTS
Stream looks
fairly good
No obvious
pollutants
Poor substrate
Shifting substrate

Sen. = Sensitive
Tol. = Tolerant
                        S = Surber square foot
                        Q = Qualitative sample
                      V.  Tol. = Very Tolerant

                          X = Major Predominance
                          X = Present
                          - = Trace

-------

-------
 a
 o
 I
 t~
 z
 a:

 o
 i-
 o
 u

<
-J
o
z
o
o
o

-------

-------
<
trt


y

t~
Z
UJ
m

z
en
<
                gWtp caug

                CBTT:^ DOUTJQ
            itpTtT^aoop^i
                                                              I   I

-------

-------
a

-------

-------
TABLE III
Scioto River Basin Fish Kills, 1965-1968
STREAM
Olentangy River
Prairie Run
Scioto River
Sycamore Creek
Alum Creek
Scioto River
Scioto River
Scioto River
Paint Creek
Paint Creek
Paint Creek
Little Salt Creek
Scioto River
Millers Run
Scioto River
Mill Creek
Twin Lakes
Scioto River
Paint Creek
Sugar Creek
Big Walnut Creek
NEAREST
BENTHIC
SAMPLING
STATION LOCATION
19

17
45
ia
32
32
3
69
69
69
81
75

94
14

17
67
68
36
Crawford Co.
Delaware Co.
Delaware Co.
Fairfield Co.
Franklin Co.
Franklin Co.
Franklin Co.
Hardin Co.
Highland Co.
Highland Co.
Highland Co.
Jackson Co.
Ross Co.
Scioto Co.
Scioto Co.
Union Co.
Delaware Co.
Delaware Co.
Fayette Co.
Fayette Co.
Franklin Co.
DATE
OF
KILL
7-30-65
5-6-65
8-31-65
9-5-65
1C-4-65,
5-23-65
8-18-65
9-25-65
5-6-65
6-6-65
7-1-65
8-22-65
5-30-65
5-14-65
7-24-65
7-12-65
4-21-66
6-27-66
7-7-66
7-18-66
7-5-66
OPERATIONS ESTIMATED
INDICATED AS NUMBER
RESPONSIBLE OF FISH
FOR KILL KTTJ.TJ-.ri
Sewerage System
Food Products
Sewerage System
Food Products
Unknown
Sewerage System
Sewerage System
Sewerage System
Sewerage System
Sewerage System
Sewerage System
Mining
Paper Products
Agricultural Poison
Unknown
Sewerage System
1965 TOTAL
Unknown
Unknown
Sewerage System
Unknown
Sewerage System
532
5
707
36,91*0
13,413
13,3114
1,049
618
1,123
1,123
2,263
22
1,704
1,234

4,699
78,746
3,000
3,531
203
486
1,479

-------

-------
TABLE III (continued)
Scioto River Basin Fish Kills, 1965-1968
STREAM
Big Darby Creek
Scioto River
Prairie Run
Sugar Creek
Big Walnut Creek
Hellbranch Run
Scioto River
Scioto River
Scioto River
Scioto River
Scioto River
Lees Creek
, Little Salt Creek
Mid Run
Otter Creek
! Scioto River
Scioto River
Little Darby Creek
Tributary to
Alum Creek
Scioto River
NEAREST
BENTEEC
SAMPLING
STATION LOCATION
52
3

68
36

32
32
32
32
3
11
80


75
75
1*8
38
17
Franklin Co.
Hardin Co,
Delaware Co.
Fayette Co.
Franklin Co.
Franklin Co.
Franklin Co.
Franklin Co.
Franklin Co.
Franklin Co.
Hardin Co.
Highland Co.
Jackson Co.
Marion Co.
Morrow Co.
Ross Co.
Ross Co.
Champaign Co.
Delaware Co.
Delaware Co.
DATE
OF
KILL
5-18-66
6-28-66
6-12-67
7-31-67
1-23-67
1-17-67
6-13-67
7-3-67
8-16-67
9-26-67
5-26-67
10-1-67
6-16-67
10-16-67
8-5-67
7-31-6?
8-U-67
7-18-68
6-6-68
7-9-68
OPERATIONS ESTIMATED
INDICATED AS NUMBER
RESPONSIBLE OF FISH
FOR KILL KILLED
Unknown
Sewerage System
1966 TOTAL
Food Products
8
2,000
10,707
2,355
Agricultural Poison U92
Metals
Unknown
Water System
Unknown
Water System
Sewerage System
Unknown
Sewerage System
Sewerage System
Sewerage System
Unknown
Sewerage System
Paper Products
1967 TOTAL
Fertilizer
Fertilizer
Industrial
3,765
25
200
6
35
317,390
6
61*
8k,
hk
27
1*2
ho
32li,575
566
12,000
520

-------

-------
TABLE III (continued)
Scioto River Basin Fish Kins, 1965-1968
STREAM
Scioto River
Mason Run
Alum Creek
Alum Creek
Scioto River
Scioto River
Alum Creek
Scioto-Olentangy R.
Scioto -Olentangy R.
Scioto River
Alum Creek
Hillsboro Reservoir
Mill Creek
NEAREST
BENTHIC
SAMPLING
STATION LOCATION
32
36
111
ill
32
32
1A
31
31
32
Ul

-------

-------
Ul
uj
g
V)
 u
Lpf
Qf i t
x ^
Z Q
< 2
OL <
ui
O
<
z
<
oc
Q

cc
Ul
>
oc
c
00
"B
c
o
*
'
a
E
U


a
c
a
u
,
a





-------
 z

 cc


 I
 o


 o

 O
 Z
Ul
Ul
Ul
z
o

t/>

Ul

i

ui
O
cc
Q

OC
Ul
O
Z
ui

O
ui
cc

o
u.
 M

"a
 E
 O
w
 *
ID
 C
 o
 o
 a
 E
 o
O
        o

        c

-------
>
(
a
n<
>.
c
^
V
I





fl

M
C-/C// V niVC.K r
; AND WALNUT CREEKS
* 0
_J
it
o
<
J
CD
2
D
_J
2 <
)3
t"
J 3






<
5
o
co
>e
UJ


^*
(3
Ti
r
0
tf\
\t $
u
IE
t
fc
tn
15
C
o
, -4*
5f
d
a,
g
o
O
(T
O

oc
UJ
O
o
UJ
a:

O
      a>
 u
 i.
 ?
Q,

-------
UJ
        gl
1 4.
in
wS
*s
<
M
8
i ~
5
&
i



                                                       c
                                                                             O
                                                                                     2


                                                                                     CE

                                                                                     cc
                                                                                     UJ
                                                                                     UJ
                                                                                     cr
                                                                                     O

                                                                                     cr
                                                                                     UJ
                                                                                     UJ
                                                                                     a   

                                                                                     a  1

                                                                                     Z   1

                                                                                     o  w
                                                                                     a.  .
                                                                                     a  Z
                                                                                     o  t

                                                                                     w.  eg
                                                                                         o


                                                                                         o
                                                                                    <   *:
                                                                                    X   '
 O
 cr
 m
 cr

 Z

 (D
 CO

 ui
 O
 cr
 o

 cr
 UJ


 cr

 O

 fe

 u
 V)


to

UJ
cr
D
                                                                                        O
                                                                                         o

-------
 to
 *:
 ui
 LU
X  .2
UJ

-------

-------


-------