Oun-25-SG O7:4BA TTSD
VO/£t/aO 14.1V U
EPA
fei n—nr\f
513 569 7566
P. 04
BIG DARBY GREEK
WATERSHED
Ecological Risk Assessment
Planning and Problem
Formulation
RISK ASSESSMENT FORUM
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DRAFT, June 14, 1996
RAF 023
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This risk assessment was prepared by a diverse working group representing organizations and
agencies interested in management and protection of the biota of the Big Darby Creek watershed.
The risk assessment was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water
and Office of Research and Development under a Risk Assessment Forum Technical Panel. The
conclusions and recommendations presented herein are those of the Big Darby Creek Watershed
Ecological Risk Assessment Workgroup.
TECHNICAL PANEL CHAIR:
Suzanne Marcy, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
TEAM CO-CHAIRS:
Susan Cormier, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH
Marc Smith, Ohio EPA, Columbus, OH
TEAM MEMBERS:
Susan Braen Norton, US. EPA; Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
Tim Neiheisel, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
John Meier, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
Lora Johnson, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
Mike Troyer, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH -•'"'.
Dan Mazur, US. EPA, Chicago, IL .
Steve Jordan, The Nature Conservancy, Columbus, OH
David Braun, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA .
Julie Hambrook, U.S. Geological Survey, Columbus, OH ,
Yetty Alley, Ohio Department of Natural Areas and Preserves, Columbus, OH
Jeffrey Hopkins, Ohio State University Extention, Marysville, OH
DRAFT—June 14, 1996
-------
Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments i
Table of Contents . . . .... ... . . . ... ....... m
List of Tables ............................. . . iv
List of Figures . . . .... . . . '.• '.'. . . . . . iv
Executive Summary ........;.......... v
Introduction. .......... »•-. . -.'.- ...;.......... 1
1.0 Planning the Risk Assessment ...............: 5
1.1 Establishing Management Goals . . 5
1.1.1 Management Goals ..... . . 5
, 1.1.2 Background of the Management Goals . . . .... .............;... 5
1.1.3 Process for Selecting Management Goals . . . . 6
1.2 Managment Decisions ; 7
1.3 Purpose, Scope and Complexity of the Risk Assessment . ... 8
2.0 ' Big Darby Creek Problem Formulation ..:... ........ . . 9
2.1 Assessment of Available Information . ... .....;. 7
2.1.1 Characterization of the Big Darby Watershed . . : 7
2.1.2 Ecological Effects . ......... 11
, 2.1.3 Sources and Stressors .14
2.2 Assessment Endpoint Selection ...........•, 19
2.2.1 Composition, Diversity, and Functional Organization of Fish
and Invertebrate Communities ..._.. 20
2.2.1.1 Policy goals and societal values . . 21
2.2.1.2 Ecological Relevance 21
2.2.1.3 Susceptibility to Stressors . . . 24
2.2.2 Sustainability of Native Fish and Mussel Species . .25
2,2.2.1 Measurements ...... ... . . .-.-. . . 27
2.2.2.2 Policy goals and Societal Values . 27
2.2.2.3 Ecological Relevance . 28
' 2.2.2.4 Susceptibility to Stressors . 28
2.3 Conceptual Model Development . . .... . . . . .28
2.3.1 Conceptual Model Description . . ... 28
2.3.1.1 Pathways Linking Land Uses and Management Practices
with In-stream Stressors .................... ^ ...... 29
. 2.3.1.2 Biological Responses to In-stream Stressors . . '. ............ 31
2.3.2 Risk Hypotheses .37
, 2.4 Summary of Analysis Plan . . . . .'. . . 40
3.0 Literature Cited _._. . . . 41
Appendix A , . ,
DRAFT—June 14,, 1996 , iii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Darby Creek Watershed
The Big Darby Creek watershed is an example of a high-quality ecosystem in the agricultural
Midwest. The watershed encompasses 1443 km2 (557 mi2) in central Ohio, and is highly valued for its
scenic beauty, its high water quality, and for recreational opportunities. A large portion of Big Darby
Creek is an Ohio State Scenic River and a National Wild and Scenic River. The Nature Conservancy
has designated it one of the-"Last Great Places" in the western hemisphere. Big Darby Creek and its
tributaries are home to an exceptional variety of species, especially a unique assemblage of rare and
endangered freshwater mussel and fish species.
The central issues facing the Big Darby watershed are future land use and implementation of best
management practices for urban and agricultural runoff. Portions of the watershed have degraded
water quality, habitat quality, and assemblages of fish and mussels.
Urban and industrial land use is much less than agricultural; however, between 1965 and 1988, urban
development quadrupled. Given Ihe present population of the region (1.4 million) and the rapid rate of
urban development, urban water pollution problems are an important issue for the future.
Big Darby was selected as one of the EPA risk assessment pilot studies because of interest by local,
state, and federal organizations in the watershed; the type of watershed (small river); the diversity of
stressors and sources (urban nonpoint sources, agricultural nonpoint sources, permitted discharges); a
large existing database; and willingness by EPA and Ohio EPA to lead the risk assessment team.
Management Goals
Concern over the observed degradation of Big Darby Creek, and growing concern about its future,
resulted in the formation of the Darby Partners, a group of over 40 public agencies and private
organizations that share the goal of developing a cooperative approach toward the protection and
maintenance of this valuable resource. Working with this group, a risk assessment team was recruited
and planning for the risk assessment began in 1993. -
The Big Darby Creek risk assessment will evaluate the risks to the aquatic ecosystem posed by current
and future management practices in the Big Darby watershed. It will provide information to predict
the likelihood of continued losses, and to predict the effectiveness of management intended to stem or
reverse those losses. By clearly identifying the risks to the stream and their potential causes, the
public and resource managers may agree on management approaches which will sustain the Big Darby
Creek's ecological system.
Management goals for the ecological risk assessment were identified by reviewing relevant
regulations, by participating in Darby Partners and community meetings, and through numerous
informal conversations with residents and managers in the watershed. The overarching goal of the risk.
assessment is:
Protect and maintain native stream communities of the Big Darby Creek ecosystem.
DRAFT—June 14,1996
-------
To attain the management goal, the work group identified three component management objectives:
•.»• Attain criteria for designated uses throughout the watershed , -
* Maintain exceptional warm water criteria for stream segments having that designation between
1990 and 1995 -
•»• Ensure the continued existence of native species in the watershed
Assessment Endpoints „
Two assessment endpoints were selected for this risk assessment:
* • • . Species composition, diversity and functional organization as measured by the index of biotic
integrity (IBI), the modified index of well-being (Mlwb), and the invertebrate community
index (ICI) '-...-,
. * • • Sustain ability of native fish and mussel species . :
Species composition, diversity, and functional organization have been operationally defined and are
amenable to measurement as a result of the extensive work of Ohio EPA in developing methods to
estimate diversity of fish and invertebrate communities. They are measured with a set of three
indices, the index of biotic integrity (IBI), the modified index of well-being (MIWB) and the '
invertebrate community index (ICI).
The endpoints are directly linked to Ohio EPA's policy goals, since they are used^to assess the
use-attainability of the stream, and they are directly linked to the three goals expressed by the Darby
Partners. ,
Conceptual Model
A conceptual model is a series .of hypotheses on the relationships among sources of stress, stressprs,
effects, and endpoints. The Big Darby risk assessment will focus on six stressors: altered stream
morphology, sediments, increased flow extremes, nutrients, temperature and toxic chemicals in
relation to the two assessment endpoints.
Altered Stream Morphology: Alteration of stream morphology generally results in a loss of habitat
heterogeneity, reducing the number of habitat types available to fish and invertebrates.
Flow Extremes: Flow extremes alter stream morphology, and hence result in many of the same
changes to the fish and invertebrate communities. Increased frequency of flooding increases erosion
and reduces the permanence of habitats, resulting in decreases in pool and riffle habitat. Increased
frequency of low or no flows also increases the frequency of temperature and hypoxie stress on
organisms in the stream, as well as temporarily reducing habitat due to desiccation.
Sediments: In the stream, sediments are conceptually divided into suspended solids that contribute to
turbidity, and larger particles that sink and contribute to siltation. Increased, siltation modifies habitat
by filling in pools and smothering cobble and gravel substrates in riffles and runs.
V1 • . Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Nutrients and Temperature: Increased concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus and organic matter
increase algal and microbial production. Extreme nutrient loading coupled with organic matter loading
(e.g., untreated sewage or animal wastes) promotes the growth of filamentous algae and fungi, which
may smother substrates (similar to siltation), and cause nocturnal hypoxia from microbial
decomposition. Nutrient loading has similar effects on benthic invertebrate communities as on fish.
Toxic Chemicals: Because of the diversity of mechanisms of action of different toxic chemicals, it is
difficult to draw generalizations of community response. In general, many of the invertebrate groups
and ICI metrics that respond to organic pollution respond similarly to toxic contamination.
Analysis Plan
The assessment endpoints (IBI, Mlwb, ICI) are composed of metrics, or indicators. The indices as
well as their component metrics will be used in the risk analysis phase.
The Mlwb incorporates four structural measures offish communities that have traditionally been used
separately; numbers of individuals, biomass, and the Shannon diversity index (based on species
richness and evenness). The IBI incorporates more functionarmeasurements into evaluations of fish
communities. In addition to metrics that target species richness and composition, other metrics target
trophic composition (which reflects the energy base and trophic dynamics of a stream), fish condition,
and reproductive impairment due to habitat degradation! The ICI evaluates the benthic
macroinvertebrate .community. These organisms are important sources of food for the fish and other
aquatic and terrestrial animals The Ohio ICI principally uses metrics of community structural
attributes. .
Three general types of analysis approaches will be used in this risk assessment: •
»• Upstream/downstream comparisons—Particular attention will be paid to evaluating changes in
the IBI downstream of known sources. Information on the sources will be combined with
examination of changes in specific metrics to evaluate the evidence for causes responsible for
changes.
>• Statistical correlation and regression—The first step to this analysis is the matching of
explanatory variables with dependent variables in time and space. Conventional exploratory
data analysis methods will be used along with multivariate methods (e.g. canonical correlation
and principal components analysis) and our conceptual models to reduce data and identify
promising models. Multiple regression analysis will be used to identify relationships with the
best explanatory power.
* Classification and discriminant analysis. Discriminant analysis will be used to identify the IBI
and ICI metrics that best discriminate among the stressor types. Statistical classification
analysis will be used to group sites according to the IBI and ICI metrics. Discriminant
analysis will then be used to identify the physical, chemical, and hydrological variables that
best distinguish among the sites.
DRAFT—June 14, 1996
Vll
-------
viii • Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Big Darby Creek watershed encompasses 1443 km2 (557 mi2) in central Ohio, and is highly
valued for its scenic beauty, its high water quality, and for recreational opportunities (Figure 1). It is
an example of a high-quality ecosystem in the agricultural Midwest that is relatively free of pollution.
A large portion of Big Darby Creek is an Ohio State Scenic River and a National Wild and Scenic
River. Big Darby Creek and its tributaries are home to an exceptional variety of species, especially a
unique assemblage of rare and endangered freshwater mussel iand fish species. Because of these
animals, it has among the highest diversity of aquatic fauna in the Midwest. The watershed contains
remnants of the once common tallgrass prairie and savanna oak plant communities. Riparian areas of
the creeks are used by a wide variety of migratory and nonmigratory birds. Big Darby Creek has
been designated by The Nature Conservancy as one of the "Last Great Places" in the western
hemisphere.
The central issues facing the Big Darby watershed are future land use and implementation of best
management practices for urban and agricultural runoff. The suburbanization of Columbus is
expanding westward into the Big Darby watershed. Agricultural land currently constitutes
approximately 90 percent of the watershed; less than 0.01 percent of the land use is commercial or
industrial; and less than 10 percent of the watershed is covered with forest Current urban and
industrial impacts are less than those of agricultural impacts; however, urbanization of the Hellbranch
Run portion of the watershed (a tributary to the Big Darby)'has occurred as the suburbs of Columbus
and Billiard have grown. Between 1965 and 1988, urban development quadrupled. Given the present
population of the region (1.4 million) and the rapid rate of urban development, urban water pollution
problems are an important issue for the future.
Portions of the watershed show degradation in water quality, habitat quality, and the assemblages of
fish and mussels. Mussels declined significantly in diversity in Big Darby and Little Darby creeks
since 1986. Habitat is degraded in Hellbranch Run, Sugar Creek, and Buck Run and the biological
indexes for the fish assemblages in these three tributaries do not meet Ohio criteria. Studies by the
Ohio EPA show degraded conditions in areas of the watershed subject to unmanaged nonpoint-source
pollution, and in reaches immediately downstream of sewage treatment discharges. The degradation in
the Big Darby is similar to that occurring in other streams across the United States that are subject to
suburban encroachment and unmanaged nonpoint source runoff.
'• , '
Concern over the observed degradation of this unique resource, and growing concern about its future,
has resulted in a partnership of over 40 public agencies and private organizations. The partnership has
the goal of developing a cooperative approach toward the protection and maintenance of this valuable
resource. In part due to the efforts of the partnership and its constituent organizations, the Big Darby
was named an Ohio and a National Wild and Scenic River, and was identified as a "Last Great Place"
by The Nature Conservancy. ,
In concert with these efforts, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Research and Development (ORD) nominated the Big
Darby watershed for inclusion in an EPA-sponsored project to develop watershed-level ecological risk
assessment case studies. Big Darby was selected because of interest by local, state, and federal
organizations in the watershed, the type of watershed (small river), the diversity of stressors and
sources (urban nonpoint sources, agricultural nonpoint sources,' permitted discharges), willingness by
EPA-ORD and OEPA to lead the risk assessment team, and a large existing database'.
DRAFT—June 14, 1996
-------
Streams
Watershed Boundary
Figure 1: The Big Darby Watershed
Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Ecological risk assessment is a tool being used in the Big Darby Creek Watershed to examine the
causes of ecological declines observed in the watershed, including water quality and biological
degradation. The purpose of the risk assessment is to evaluate the risks to the aquatic ecosystem posed
by current and future management practices in the Big Darby watershed. It will provide information
to predict the likelihood of continued losses, and to predict the effectiveness of management intended
to stem or reverse those losses. By clearly identifying the risiks to the stream and their potential
causes, the public and resource managers may agree on management approaches which will sustain the
Big Darby Creek's ecological system.
This document describes the planning process of an interdisciplinary and interagency team of scientists
and managers to identify the major factors that will be considered in the assessment and links the
assessment to the management concerns (USEPA 1992). The first section (Section 1) describes the
management goals and concerns that provide the context for the assessment. The second section is the
problem formulation of the risk assessment. It includes information on the ecosystem and its stressors;
on assessment endpoints; on conceptual models that describe how stressors may cause changes in
assessment endpoints, and identifies the measurements and the analytical approaches that will be used
to characterize risk. The analysis and risk characterization phases of the risk assessment are currently
under development.
DRAFT-June 14,1996
-------
Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
1.0 PLANNING THE RISK ASSESSMENT
The Big Darby Creek watershed ecological risk assessment was based on a proposal by managers in
EPA Office of Research and Development and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)^
who had been involved hi providing information to the Darby Partners, and were concerned with
encroaching threats to the Big Darby system. A risk assessment team was recruited and planning for
the risk assessment began in 1993.
Objectives of the planning phase for this ecological risk assessment were to establish clear and
agreed-upon goals, to. determine the objectives of the risk assessment within the context of those goals,
and to agree on the scope and complexity of the risk assessment. Below is a description of the goal
and an explanation of how it was derived, as well as the regulatory and nonregulatory management
contexts relevant to the ecological risk assessment for the Big Darby.
1.1 ESTABLISHING MANAGEMENT GOALS
Management goals for the ecological risk assessment were identified by reviewing relevant
regulations, by participating in community meetings, and through numerous informal conversations
with residents and managers in the watershed. ' •
1.1.1 Management Goals
A dominant theme in the regulatory and nonregulatory activity within the Big Darby Watershed is the
protection of native stream communities, both fish and invertebrates. Ohio's Biocriteria are based on
assessments of both fish and invertebrate assemblages hi streams. Thus, the comprehensive
management goal is: protect and maintain native stream communities of the Big Darby Creek
ecosystem. It does hot encompass all of the ecological values hi the watershed, for example,
preservation of remnant tallgrass prairie communities, migratory bird habitat, or historical landmarks.
However, it provides a necessary point of focus for the risk assessment. Future assessments can
address other valued ecological characteristics in the watershed.
The management subgoals for the Big Darby include specific statements on the water quality criteria to
be maintained in the system, and a qualitative statement on maintenance of native species. These goals
are in keeping with the stated goals and interests of concerned parties hi the watershed.
(1) Attain criteria for designated uses throughout the watershed
(2) Maintain exceptional warm water criteria for stream segments having that designation between
1990 and 1995
(3) Ensure the continued existence of 'native species in the watershed.
1.1.2 Background of the Management Goals .
The Ohio State Water Quality Standards specifically link stream water quality to the ability of a stream
to support and maintain native species. Ohio classifies stream reaches according to their ability to
support different uses. Waters that do not meet their designated uses are identified as impaired. For
the purposes of ecological risk assessment, the most relevant classifications are the Ohio Biocriteria,
which specify the ability of streams to support and maintain a community of aquatic organisms similar
to those naturally occurring in undisturbed, unpolluted streams.
DRAFT—June 14,1996
-------
The Big Darby, Little Darby and most of the Little Darby's tributaries are classified as "Exceptional
warrawater": waters having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable
to the seventy-fifth percentile of identified reference sites on a statewide basis. In addition, these
streams have been designated as "State Resource Waters", providing additional protection against
degradation. Most tributaries of the Big Darby are classified as "warmwater": waters that are capable
of having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to the twenty-fifth
percentile of the identified reference sites within each of the ecoregions.
A significant portion of Big Darby Creek has been designated an Ohio State Scenic River and a
National Wild and Scenic River (ODNR 1992). The State designation is intended to protect and .
preserve,the few remaining natural, free flowing rivers in Ohio. In so doing, primary concern focuses
on the protection and maintenance of streamside forested corridors. National Wild and Scenic-Rivers
are selected on the basis of a variety of values including aesthetic values, geologic (e.g. fertile topsoil),
fish arid wildlife, .ecological, recreational and historic. Listed management goals for the Big Darby
include protecting the essential aspects of the stream ecosystem; water quality, the biotic community,
instream .flow, and physical and functional integrity of the channel form, bed, and banks (ODNR
1992).
1.1.3 Process for Selecting Management Goals
Big Darby Creek has been locally recognized as an exceptional resource for more than 40 years.
During this time, several groups were formed to promote conservation of the area. Early interest in
the Big Darby watershed was promoted by the ichthyologist Milton Trautman, author of Fishes of
Ohio, who described and catalogued most of the fish species in the watershed. The Darby Creek
Association was formed in 1968 for the protection of the farming way of life in the Big Darby
watershed. Members include homeowners and scientists in Franklin County in the parts of the
watershed nearest Columbus. The Darby Creek Association organized efforts to oppose the
construction of dams for flood control, recreation and water supply for the city of Columbus for over
20 years. The Darby Creek Association continued to keep the river in the public eye and worked with
the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to have the Big Darby Creek designated a state
Scenic River in 1984.
In the late 1980's and early 1990's, a number of organizations were beginning to come together to
better protect the river. Several state and federal agencies including the Conservation Service, Farm
Services Agency, Natural Resources Service and ODNR proposed and received a 319 grant to
coordinate conservation efforts in the watershed, one of 70 "USDA Hydrologic Unit Area Plans". .
These were assisted by the Nature Conservancy in January 1990 to form the "Darby Partners" as a
forum for all concerned parties and organizations (including schools, private organizations and
individuals) to exchange information and ideas concerning the Darby watershed and its future. An
important Darby Partner, Operation Future, a peer group of farmers, promoted conservation in the
watershed while maintaining financial security for farmers. The Nature Conservancy selected the Big
Darby Creek as one of its original 12 "Last Great Places" based on its concentrations of rare species
and on its representation of an endangered ecosystem. In 1994, the Big Darby Creek was designated a
National Scenic River. ^
The Big Darby Partners includes the Nature Conservancy, farmers, land owners, the business
community and more than 30 public and private agencies and organizations. The Darby Partners was
restructured in 1995 to include action-oriented goals, in addition to acting as a conduit for information
exchange. Goals include education and research on the river and its watershed for better management.
Federal and state agencies involved with the Darby Partners (e.g., U.S. EPA, Ohio EPA, U.S.
Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Geological Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.)
now provide technical information to the Partners.
Public Meetings. EPA, in conjunction with Big Darby Partners and constituent groups, held several
public meetings with watershed participants (Table 1) to develop the management goals and achieve
consensus on their formulation. Based on these discussions, management objectives were proposed by
the risk assessment team, and adopted by the Darby Partners following discussion at a meeting on
November 17, 1994.
Table 1. Participants in the Big Darby-Creek watershed
Big Darby Partners
Darby Creek Association
Local government agencies and officials (township, town, city, county)
Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission
Ohio Department of Natural Resources . '
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio State University .
Operation Future
Private businesses .
Residents' and neighborhood associations
The Nature Conservancy "
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Geological Survey
USD A Agricultural Extension Service
USD A Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
USD A Natural Resource Conservation Service
1.2 MANAGMENT DECISIONS
. . * • ••
The principal sources of stressors in the Big Darby watershed are conventional tillage practices,
removal of riparian zones, feed lot operations, point sources, and suburban construction and
development in portions of the watershed. Managers in the watershed are weighing options for
reduction and elimination of the stressors, including implementing best management practices,
restoring and maintaining riparian zones and stream habitat, and planning suburban development.
To achieve short-term improvements, USEPA is providing grants for agricultural projects through
section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), for installation and monitoring of best management
practices. Another grant, under section 104 (b) (3) of the CWA, funds the development of a plan to
control long-term growth.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, the Extension Service, and Americorps, is
involved in improving agriculture and reducing soil erosion and sediment loading to streams. A
program to increase conservation tillage and seed critical riparian areas has reduced sediment loadings
in selected areas of the watershed. The U.S. Geological Survey monitors pesticides, nutrients, and
suspended solids daily. Ohio EPA has a statewide biological monitoring and biocriteria program in
streams, in addition to chemical water quality monitoring.
DRAFT—June 14, 1996
-------
1.3 PURPOSE, SCOPE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE RISK
. , -ASSESSMENT' . * ; :
The Big Darby Creek watershed ecological risk assessment will be divided into phases to make better
use of resources and to ensure timely communication of results and conclusions of the assessment.
The first phase will be conducted entirely with existing and historical databases pertaining to the Darby
watershed of Ohio EPA, Ohio DNR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, The .
Ohio State University, and other sources. Subsequent phases will expand the database for analysis to
the Eastern Cornbelt Plains ecoregion, and may conduct field surveys and experiments.
Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
2.0 BIG DARBY CREEK PROBLEM FORMULATION
2.1 ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
This section describes the watershed and its component ecosystems, existing and anticipated ecological
problems that are of concern to interested parties, and stressors and their sources that are believed to
be causes of the ecological problems (effects). ,
2.1.1 Characterization of the Big Darby Watershed
Big Darby Creek flows southeast approximately 125 km (80 mi) from its headwaters northwest of .
Marysville, Ohio, to its confluence with the Scioto River at Circleville, Ohio. The Big Darby Creek
watershed comprises 1442 km2 (557 mi2) in central Ohio and includes parts of seven counties. It
drained by Big Darby Creek, Little Darby Creek, and two dozen smaller tributaries (Figure 1, Table
2). , .-•..':
The Big Darby system contains a diversity offish and molluscs that is considered exceptional for
streams of its size (ODNR, 1992). Historically, 104 fish (Gordon and Simpson, 1990) and 40 mollusc
species (ODNR, 1992) have been collected in the watershed. Appendix A provides a species list and •
indicates the numerous state and federal endangered and threatened species occurring in the system.
The Big Darby Creek watershed is located in the Eastern Corn Belt Ecoregion, at the eastern edge of
what was once tallgrass prairie and burr oak savannah. Frequent fires thought to have been set by
Native Americans, slowed the encroachment of forest and maintained the relict prairies. After
European settlement (around 1800) the fire regime was halted., The northern portion of the watershed
was poorly drained and had abundant marshes (called wet prairies), which by the mid-1800's had been
drained for agricultural use. This productive agricultural industry persists today, supported by the
fertile but erodable soil of the glacial till plains (TNC no date).
Currently, the western tributaries drain almost exclusively agricultural areas. The northern and
eastern tributaries drain areas of agriculture with increasing suburban and commercial/industrial land
use. The southern most portion of the drainage is narrow with short tributaries draining agricultural
land and small towns.
Agricultural land uses currently comprise 92.4% of the_land use of the watershed. There are an
estimated 1170 farms with an average size of 110 ha (275 acres). Agricultural use is dominated by
cropland (72%), followed by livestock pasture (8.6%). Approximately 80% of the fields are actively
row cropped in a corn-soybean-cover crop rotation. ,
DRAFT—June 14, 1996
-------
Table 2, Stream Characteristics of Big Darby Creek and Tributaries
Wateibody/ID#
Length (Miles)
Big Darbv Creek Tributaries above rnnfliipnrp with
Flat Branch
OH 39 33
Little Darby Cr.
OH39 32
Spain Creek
Pleasant Run
OH3930 "
Hey Run
OH3929
Prairie Run
OH39 27
Buck Run
OH39 27
Sugar Run
OH39 25
Robinson Run
OH3924
Sugar Run
OH3923
Ballinger Ditch
Fitzgerald Ditch
4.7
'
4.5
8.0
3.6
2.5
6.8 .
1
4.4
3.2
5.0
NA
NA
Little Darbv Creek and Tributaries
ThreemileRun 5.3
Clover Run
, OH3918
Jumping Run
OH39 17
Howard Run
OH3914
Proctor Run
OH3913
Treacle Creek
OH3912
Spring Fork
OH399
L Darby Cr. (Headwaters
to Treacle Creek) OH39 15
Barron Creek
OH3911
3.8
2.7
3.2
6.0
14.2
,12
38
4.8
Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.)
Little Darbv
14.46
7.22
9.48
5.82
3.04
L ''
29.98
4.3
11.84
16.20
. NA
NA
5.34
2.1
2.46
2.72
10.52
37.88
38.3
176
6.3
'•,.-•
Gradient (FtM\.)
4.5 .
41.11 ,
, •
42.0
9.4
10.8
5.7
8.9
10.6
7.8
NA
NA
17.4
56.1
43.9
23,1
21.4 - ••
17.9
7.2
5.9
8.3
. • -. '.• -.• ' '.'.' • •' " ' •. •. •
10 Big Darby< Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Table 2(cont): Stream Characteristics of Big Darby Creek and Tributaries
Waterbody/lD#
Length (Miles)
Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.)
Gradient (Ft/Mi.)
Bto Darbv Creek and Tributaries ,
Hamilton Ditch
Clover Groff Ditch
Hellbranch R.
OH396
Springwater R.
OH395
Greenbrier Cr.
OH394
Georges Creek
OH393
B. Darby Cr. (Headwaters
to Spain Creek) OH39 31
Groff Ditch
MA
NA
12.8
0.6
2.6
0.5
78.7
NA
NA
NA
35.56
3.46
f
9.82
•1.2
556.6
NA
NA
NA
11.2
13.3
34.6
40
6.8
. NA
2.1.2 Ecological Effects
The diversity offish and molluscs has declined hi the watershed. Historical species counts have
decreased in the most recent surveys to 86 fish (ODNR, 1992) and 38 mollusc species (Walters,
1990). For example, the bigeye chub (Hybopsis amblops), a state species of special concern, has not
been found in Big Darby Creek since 1964 (ODNR, 1992). Ihe federally endangered Scioto madtom
(Noturus trautmani), known only from the Big Darby Creek, and the eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta
pellucida) (under review for possible federal -listing), have been collected in the watershed, but not
since 1957 and I960; respectively (ODNR, 1992). Biological surveys by the OEPA have indicated
decreases in biological indices of fish and macroinverbrate communities in many stream reaches.
In a study of the unionid molluscs of the stream system, Walters found an overall significant decline in
diversity for Big Darby and Little Darby Creeks between surveys hi 1986 and 1990 (Figure 2). This
decline was attributed to climatic influences: three years of drought followed by three years of floods
(Waters, 1990). However, localized decreases in diversity were seen for several locations and
potentially related to anthopogenic stress (see discussion below). In addition, there was a significant
reductions in the distribution of four species of mollusc, the clubshell (Pleurobema clava), the northern
riffleshell (Epioblasma rangiana), the rabbit's foot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), and the rayed
bean (VUlosafobilis), (Walters, 1990). Walters suggested thait the unionids of the watershed exist in
spatially isolated, fragmented populations, increasing their probability of extirpation.
Three areas of decline between 1986 and 1990 were identified: at the confluence of Hellbranch and
Big Darby (Point 2 on the" figure); adjacent to Olen Sand and Gravel Corporation mining (Point 5 on
the figure), and and at Trautman's Riffle at the town of Fox (at River Mile 3). Figure 3 shows the
same information for the Little Darby. Decreases in diversity and number of unionid species were
seen below West Jefferson (to the left of Point 1), at the mouth of Spring Fork Creek (Point 3), and in
the upper reaches of the stream (miles 25 to 34). These last impacts were attibuted to runoff from
pasture and livestock access to the stream.
DRAFT—June 14,1996
11
-------
to
C*>
O>
a-
99
•CO O5 M
o e si
*
y o t«
S 5' 2-
S ff "
<5 • • g-
o W
^ ^**
•S?w--
• o
• O S2 '
o-
«
3
Ml
60
O
0»
o
s
I'k
5°
CJ»
o
• K I ..---J--^ — 1 1 . 1
<:....••* • V .' ' - : . , ••
. )
'*• i • ••/•••
"""••-•-; +••-•('
-t- 'v \
•-. , \ ,
, - '' / * .
' ' ' *'N. " \v
. ; """v_i_s\. . ' '.
oi A^
Hf^K^
..-*' x^
I..-- /
...-- f- • (
1 . ' \
i ..--f*' >m
1 <-, ••" . 7 - : ' ; '
' '""^%\ .'•••
/ .^4- V • :
+^---~"~"+ .^
'' +"••••• •__ ./^^ ' ' . . , •' ,.;
~""°~-«l^^rJ— • ' - .
_p^p" - ;
i
K. "N
LNj
/• «
CO
»s.
o
o
^3
O
•I
-*<
-------
Cn
I
^
C« Co o
i a
" g «5-
^c n> ^^
f ! 2,
"s ft
!*$ P
n>
r... £
t! —--—-.„ i
±. r^~
CJ
Ol
DRAFT—June 14.1996
13
-------
Figure 4 shows fish biological index values (IBI) from the 1992-93 survey for the different parts of the
watershed. As can be seen, Hellbranch Run, Sugar Run, and Buck Run stand out as having lower IBI
values. '. '
2.1.3 Sources and Stressdrs
Several stressors associated with urban and suburban land development, and with agriculture, affect
the Darby and its biota. Degradation of tributary streams and their biota have been noted by residents
and Ohio EPA in several places.
The watershed contains 8 small cities and is located within a short distance from the city of Columbus.
While the land area in urban and suburban land use are much smaller than that devoted to agriculture,
urbanization of the Hellbranch Run portion of the watershed is occurring as the outskirts of the cities
of Columbus and Milliard expand westward. Developments in the northern portions of the watershed
are also anticipated around Marysville as industrial growth continues in that region. Less than 0.01%
of the land use is currently commercial and industrial. At present, an electrical control manufacturing
company is the major industrial discharger in the watershed. In the future, the most likely significant
industry is expected to be automobile manufacturing and satellite industries associated .with car
manufacture. The automobile manufacturing plant is located on the northern boundary of the
watershed with stormwater run-off from its parking lots draining into the watershed.
• * /. . . - - ': , ,
The three highest priority stresses to the Big Darby System, identified by The Nature Conservancy are
the following:
*• Sedimentation: Listed as the highest priority stress, sediment inputs occur from soil erosion
on agricultural fields, construction sites, and roadways. . -.
*•«.,'• Decreased Water Quality: Non-point source impacts on water quality include
nutrient-enriched runoff from agricultural areas and untreated stormwater runoff from
urbanized areas. Nutrient enrichment and toxicity to molluscs from metals are of particular
concern. Point sources include storm sewers [are storm sewers considered a point or
non-point source?], waste-water treatment plants are currently few hi number and small in
discharge, but may increase in importance in the future.
> Altered Hydrologic Regime: Changes in the timing, frequency, duration and magnitude of
flood .events can alter the stream system. In agricultural systems, the hydrologic regime is
altered because vegetative cover is lost in winter (after fall harvest and before development of
a crop canopy in the Spring) (TNC no date). In urban and suburban areas, increased area in
impervious surfaces (e.g., roofs, pavement) increases surface^runoff, intensifying periods of
high flow and decreasing base flow to the streams. Finally, the City of Columbus has been
investigating the use of Big Darby as a water supply for Columbus (ODNR 1992).
Other stresses identified by The Nature Conservancy (TNC, no date) include changes in the
hydrological and alluvial processes that create specific habitats for the native species. Stresses such as
habitat fragmentation from construction of low head dams, agricultural conversion, and residential and
road development may hinder migration of fish and mussels, disrupt the riparian corridors, and
increase distance between remnant prairie sites, Finally, potential invasion by alien species,
particularly the zebra mussel, could overshadow current stresses. . - ' ' . : . . . •
Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Sugar Run
Median icsburg
Little Darby Creek
West Jefferson
Figure 4: Big Darby Creek:
1992 & 1993 IBI Values
11
26
32"
12 to 18
18 to 28
28 to 36
36 to 40
40 to 46
46 to 50
50 to 60
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Good (ns)
Exceptional (ns)
Exceptional
IBI m Index of Biotic Integrity
A Fish Community Quality Index
Plain City
Big Darby Creek
Hellbranch Run
LDEWWTP
DRAFT—June 14, 1996
15
-------
Table 3 presents available information on stressors and effects noted for specific reaches in the Big
Darby Watershed. As can be seen in Table 3, many reaches are listed in the Ohio 1990 Nonpoint
Source survey as being impacted by crop production, pasture, urban runoff and construction. Of the
tributaries, Flat Branch, Hellbranch Run, Sugar Run, and Buck Run stand out as highly unpaired
streams. In Big Darby Greek, slight sedimentation impacts were indicated for the sections of Big
Darby from the confluence of Buck Run to Fitzgeralds Ditch, and between Fitzgeralds Run to the
confluence with Little Darby Creek (attributed to sand and gravel mining). Sediment impacts on
aquatic life use primarily from residential construction hi portions of Big Darby Creek from the
headwaters to Spain Creek and in Flatbranch.
Table 3. Impact Characterization of Big Darby Creek and Tributaries
Waterbody/ED I
Source* Major Characteristics*.
Big Darby Creek Tributaries
Flat Branch OH39 33
Little Darby Cr. OH39 32
Spain Creek
Pleasant Run OH39 30
Hay Run
OH39 29
Prairie Run
OH39 28
Buck Run
OH39 27
Sugar Run
OH39 25
P.O. Small, low gradient, channelized dream w/ significantcontruction sediment bedload.
Receives runoff from Honda parking lots, no process wastes
305b . Impaired by habitat modification (H), siltation (M), caused by channelization (H),
highway, road, bridge construction (M) & non- irrigated crops (S).
NFS Impaired by agriculture (General), crop production, livestock, pasture, urban
(General), construction sites, surface runoff & channelization.
P.O. Small, high gradient, stream w/ relatively intact riparian buffer, exceptional
wannwater biological communities in imminent danger due to residential
development. : :
305b Impaired by habitat modification (H) & habitat modification CD caused by
channelization (H) & channelization CD- :
P.O. Small stream with exceptional WWH biological performance det. from Newly
upgraded North Lewisburg WWTP(RM 1.50)., Residenul development a definite
threat due to proximity to Honda Plant.
305b No impairments currently listed.
NPS No impairments currently listed. ' '
P.O. Small, high gradient, stream w/exceptional warmwater habitat biological
communities. High quality instream habital and significant ground water inflow.
305b , No impairments currently listed. •
NPS Impacted by agriculture (General), crop production, pasture, urban (General) &
construction sites.
P.O. NA ;
305b No impairments currently listed - . •
NPS Impacted by agriculture (General)', crop production, livestock, pasture, urban
(General) & construction sites.,
P.O. NA
305b No impairments currently listed.
NPS Impacted by agriculture (General), crop production, livestock, pasture, urban
(General) & construction sites.
P.O. Chemically, physically and biologically unpaired stream that has been channelized
locally and subject to poor agricultural practices including free access of livestock,
riparian removal, improper manure handling, etc. .
305b • Impaired by organic enrichment/D.O. (H), siltation (M), habitat alteration (H),
organic enrichment/D.O CD, siltation CD & habitat alteration (T) caused by pasture
land (H), streambank modification (H), pasture land CD & streambank modification
CD- .
NPS Impacted by agriculture (General), crop production, livestock, pasture, urban
(General) & construction sites. ,
P.O. NA
305b, No impairments currently, listed. '
NPS None listed" .
16
•Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Table 3 (continued). Impact Characterization of Big Darby Creek and Tributaries.
Waterbody/ ID t
Major'
RobiiuonRunOH3924
Sugar Run OH39 23
Ballinger Ditch
P.O. Small stream w/very good instream habitat and only warmwater biological
performance Ranco Inc. may be causing small impact. Darby Meadows WWTP
(Rm5.34, 0.42)
305b No impairment currently listed •
NFS No impairments currently listed.
P.O. Chemically, physically and biologically impaired stream that has been channelized
locally and subject to a variety of environmental problems including channelization
improper manure management, improper land application of fertilizer (fish kills),
leaching landfills, package plants, etc. New California WWTP and Kimberly
Woods WWTP only point sources.
305b Impaired by organic enrichmeut/D.O. (H), siltation (M) caused, by pasture land (H),
non-irrigated crops (S). .
NFS Impacted by agriculture (General), crop production, livestock, pasture, urban
(General), & construction sites. ,
P.O. Suburban Mobile Home Community (RM 49.45, 0.22)
Fitzgerald Ditch
Little Pariiv Creek Tribntaries
P.O.
Canaan Community MHP WWTP (RM 44.96, 0.65)
Threemile Run
OH39 20
Clover Run
OH39 18
P.p. None .
305b No impairments currently listed.
NPS No impairments currently listed. .
P.O. NA
305b 305b - No impairments currently listed.
NPS Impacted by agriculture (General), crop production, pasture, urban (General) &
construction sites.
lumping Run
OH39 17
P.O. NA
305b 305b - No impairments currently listed.
NPS Impacted by agriculture (General), crop production, pasture, urban (General) &
construction sites.
Howard Run
OH39 14
Proctor Run OH39 13
Treacle Creek OH39 12
Barren Creek
OH39 11
Spring Fork
P.O. NA
305B No impairments currently listed.
NPS Impacted by agriculture (General), crop production, pasture, urban (General) &
construction sites. '
P.O. Small stream with high quality, instream habitat and exceptional warmwater habitat
biological communities. Good ground water inflow.'
305b No impairments currently listed.
NPS Impacted by agriculture (General), crop production, urban (General) & construction
sites.
P.O. Exceptional water habitat community performance, despite habitat alteration in
lower reaches including channelization and livestock bank trampling.
305B No impairments currently listed. ,
NPS Impacted by agriculture (General), crop production, urban (General), construction
sites.
P.O. NA
303b No impairments listed.
NPS Impacted by agriculture (General), crop production, urban (General), construction
sites & on-site wastewater treatment.
P.O. Channelization has tapped into ground water yielding permanent OH39 9 cool water
flow. Exceptional instream habitat interspersed with disrupted habitat yielding some
of the state's highest biological index scores. Green Meadows MHP WWTP (RM
1.20) immediately upst. '
DRAFT-Jtm£ 14,1996
17
-------
Table 3 (Cont.). Impact Characterization of Big Darby Creek and Tributaries
Waterbody/ID #
Major'
L. Darby Cr.
Headwaters to Treacle Creek
OH39 15
Treacle Creek to Spring Fork
OH39 10
Spring Fork to B. Darby Creek
OH39 8
Big Darby Creek and Trili
Hamilton Ditch
Clover Groff Ditch
Hellbranch R. OH39 6
305b
NFS
P.O.
305b
NFS
305b
NFS
P.O.
305b
NPS
P.O.
P.O.
P.O.
Springwater R.
OH395
Greenbriar Cr.
OH39 4
Spring Creek
305b
P.O.
305b
NFS
P.O.
305b
NFS
P.O.
305b
NFS
Impaired by siltation
-------
Table 3 (continued). Impact Characterization of Big Darby Creek and Tributaries.
W*lerbody/ ID 1
Major'
Georges Creek
B. Darby Cr.
Headwater* to Spain Creek
Spain Creek to Buck Run
OH39 26
Buck Run to Sugar Run
OH3922
Sugar Run to Fitzgerald Ditch
OH39 21
P.O.
OH393
NFS '
P.O.
305b
NFS
305b
NFS
P.O
305b
NFS
P.O.
305b
, NFS
Fitzgerald Ditch to L. Darby Creek 305b
NFS
305b
NFS
L. Darby Creek to Hellbranch R
OH397
Hellbranch Run to Lizard Run 305b
OH39 2 NFS
Darbyvilleto SciotoR. 305b
OH39 1
NA '
305b ' No impairments currently listed.
Impacted by unban (General), ttormsewers, sanitary sewers, construction sites,
surface runoff.
TRC WWTP receives waste water from septic tank pumpers may exert larger load
than expected.
Siltation (H), siltation (T) caused by highway, road, bridge construction (H),
highway, road, bridge construction (T).
Impaired by construction sites,
? check original sheets caused by unknown (H), unknown (T).
Impaired by agriculture (General), crop production, livestock, pasture, construction
sites & on-site wastewater treatment. . '
Unionville Center unsewered community "RM 60.0 not much instream impact. ,
Plain City WWTP RM 52.1 discernable impact.
Impaired by metals (H), organic enrichment/D.O. (H), siltation (S) & siltation (T)
caused by industrial point sources (H), municpal point sources (H), non-irrigated
crops (S), pasture land (S), runoffi'storm sewers (S) & non-irrigated crops CT).
No impairments listed.
Olen Corp. - gravel/quarry operation has discharged gravel wash in past & is now
dumping ground water.to permit quarrying. Battelle Memorial Institute (RM 40.67
-39.80).
Impaired by organic enrichment/D.O. (H), metals (H), siltation (S) caused by
municipal point sources (H), industrial point sources (H) & non-irrigated crops (S).
No impairments listed.
Impaired by organic enrichment/D.O. (I) caused by municipal point sources (T) &
land development (T).
No impairments listed.
Impaired by organic enrichment/D.O. (H), caused by municipal point
sources (H), siltation (M) & on-site waste treatment (S).
No impairments currently listed.
Impaired by siltation (T) caused by agriculture CD
No impairments currently listed.
Impaired by organic enrichment/D.O. (H) & siltation (T) caused by
industrial point sources (H), non-irrigated crops (M) & non-irrigated crops (T).
* P.O. - Personal observation by Marc Smith, Ohio EPA; 30Sb = 305b report, Ohio Water Resource Inventory; NFS = Ohio 1990
NFS Assessment. '
b Magnitude codes: CT) - Threatened, (H) - High, (M) - Moderate, (S) - Slight.
c Does not include sampling results from 1991 and 1992. . .
NA » Not available
2.2 ASSESSMENT ENDPOINT SELECTION
Selection of assessment endpoints was based on the management goals and objectives, as well as an
evaluation of available information to ensure that the endpoints are ecologically relevant and are
susceptible to identified stressors. Assessment endpoints link the management goals to the assessment by
defining characteristics that have an unambiguous operational definition and are amenable to prediction
and measurement (Suter 1990). Determination of assessment endpoints frequently requires measurements,
or variables that are measured or estimated from data on the system. Assessment endpoints and measures
may be, but are not necessarily, the same. Selection of an assessment endpoint does not imply that data
currently exist to evaluate changes in the endpoint in the Big Darby watershed.
DRAFT—June 14,1996
19
-------
Good assessment endpoints have unambiguous operational definitions and are amenable to measurement
(Suter 1990). Preservation of the native stream community emerged as a major goal of interested parties
in the Big Darby Creek watershed. Two specific goals addressed preservation of the native stream
cotamunity:
*• maintenance of exceptional warmwater conditions in the Darby and selected tributaries; and
*•• preservation of native fish and mussel species.
Ohio EPA defines exceptional warmwater conditions as:
... , ,"•.',-• "^
• "waters capable of supporting and maintaining an exceptional or unusual community of
warmwater aquatic organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional
organization comparable to the seventy-fifth percentile of the identified reference sites
on a statewide basis. The attributes of species composition, diversity and functional
organization will be measured using the index of biotic integrity, the modified index of
well-being, and the invertebrate community index as defined in'Biological Criteria for
the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume II, Users Manual for Biological Field
Assessments of Ohio Surface Waters' "
Assessment endpoints relating directly to the above goals are, respectively: ,
» species composition, diversity and functional organization as measured by the index of biotic
integrity (IBI), the modified index of well-being (Mlwb), and the invertebrate community index
(ICI);and /
>' attainability of native fish and mussel species .
The first assessment endpbint for this risk assessment is specifically and operationally defined in terms of
'three measures (BBI, Mlwb, ICI). The following sections discuss these three measures as well as potential
measures related to sustainability of native species. The endpoints and measures are evaluated using three
criteria: (1) policy goals and societal values (2) ecological relevance and (3) susceptibility to stressors
(USEPA1992).
ENDPOINT1:
2.2.1 Composition, Diversity, and Functional Organization of Fish and Invertebrate Communities
In the case of the Big Darby, species composition, diversity, and functional organization have been
operationally defined and, are amenable to measurement as a result of the extensive work of Ohio EPA in
developing methods to estimate diversity of fish and invertebrate communities (Karr 1991). They are
measured with a set of three indices, the index of biotic integrity (IBI), the modified index of well-being
(MIWB)and the invertebrate community index (ICI). These indices and the metrics that comprise them
are Ohio's measures for species composition, diversity, and functional organization,, and are briefly
described below.
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). The IBI includes twelve attributes of fish communities: Species richness
and-composition is measured by the number of native species, benthic species, water-column species,
long-lived species, intolerant species and percentage of tolerant species. Trophic composition is measured
by the percentage of omnivores, insectivores, and top carnivores. Fish abundance and condition is rated
20 • Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
for percentage of hybrids and diseased fish. Each metric was given a rating of 5, 3'or 1; the IBI is the
sum of the ratings for each metric (Karr, 1991). OEPA has adapted the original IBI to account for
regional and stream specific conditions hi Ohio (Karr and Dudley 1981; Hughes et al 1986; Omernik 1988)
(Table 4). ' •
Modified Index of Well-being (Mlwb). Table 5 describes the computational formula for the index of
well-being, another index offish communities (Gammon, 1976; Gammon et al, 1981; OEPA, 1988). As
shown in Table 5^ the Mlwb is based primarily on structural characteristics, abundance, evenness and
biomass.
Invertebrate Community Index (ICI). ICI uses ten metrics that emphasize structural attributes of
macroinvertebrate communities in streams. Ratings of 6,4,2, and 0 are assigned to the following metrics:
number of taxa for total invertebrates sampled, mayflies, caddisflies, and dipterans and percent of
caddisflies, midges, other dipterans and non-insects, tolerant species. The sum of ratings is the final score
given to that site. Table 6 provides information on the metrics used to calculate the ICI.
2.2.1.1 Policy goals and societal values
The three indices, and hence the assessment endpoint, are directly linked to Ohio EPA's policy goals,
since they are used to assess the use-attainability of the stream. By extension, they are directly linked to
two of the three goals expressed by the Darby Partners: (1) to attain criteria for designated uses throughout
the watershed, (2) maintain exceptional warm water criteria for stream segments having that designation
between 1990 and 1995. , , . .
2.2.1.2 Ecological Relevance
Ecologically relevant endpoints reflect important characteristics of the system and are functionally related
to other endpoints (USEPA 1992). The endpoint of species composition, diversity, and functional
organization is based on the assumption that natural, relatively undisturbed stream communities exhibit
an expected reference value for the endpoint (e.g., Karr 1991). In general, the expectations is that
impacted biological communities have higher species richness and diversity. In addition, they are all
evaluated in comparison to expected reference values that consider stream size and zoogeographic factors
(i.e., variations in expected biota with ecoregion).
The Mlwb and IBI evaluate the fish community. Fish occupy, positions throughout the aquatic food web
and they are relatively long-lived, thus they integrate watershed conditions. Their diets, often include
foods from both the terrestrial and aquatic environments (Karr 1986). Because fish are the end product
of most aquatic food webs, the total biomass of fishes is highly dependent on the gross primary and
secondary productivity of lower organism groups (Ohio EPA 1988).
The Mlwb incorporates four structural measures of fish communities that have traditionally been used
separately; numbers of individuals, biomass, and the Shannon diversity index (based on species richness
and evenness). The Iwb was been modified by excluding species thought to be tolerant of environmental
degradation to make the index more sensitive to a wider array of environmental disturbances, particularly
those that result in shifts hi community composition without large reductions in species richness, numbers
and/or biomass (Ohio EPA 1988), . .
DRAFT—June 14, 1996 21
-------
Table 4.
sites.
Index of Biotic Integrity metrics used to evaluate wading sites, boat sites, and headwaters stream
JBI Metric
1. Total number of Species 4
2. Number of Darter Species
% Round-bodied Suckers 6
3. Number of Sunfish Species
Number of Headwater Species
4. Number of Sucker Species
Number of Minnow Species
5. Number of Intolerant Species
Number of Sensitive Species , ,,
6. % Tolerant Species
. 1. . % Omnivores
8. % Insectivorous Species
9. % Top Carnivores
% Pioneering Species
10. Number of Individuals 7
11. % Simple Lithophils
Number Simple Lithophils Species
12. %DELT Anomalies *
Headwaters Sites *•*
X
Xs
x
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
x
X
1 applies to sites with drainage areas less than 20 sq. mi.; 2 sit
•' sites sampled with boat methods; 4 excludes exotic species; 5
suckers in the general Hypentelium, Moxostoina. and prjijivfton
commersioniV: 7 excludes species designated as tolerant, hybri<
deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and external tumors (BELT).
Wading Sites2
X
X
> X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
X
Boat Sites3
X
X
X
X
X *
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
es sampled with wading methods; 3
includes sculpins; 6 includes
, excludes white sucker fcatostomus
is, and exotics; 8 includes
The IBI incorporates more functional measurements into evaluations of fish communities (Karr 1986).
In addition to metrics that target species richness and composition, other metrics target trophic
composition (which reflects the energy base and trophic dynamics of a stream), fish condition, and
reproductive impairment due to habitat degradation. .
The ICI evaluates the benthic macroinvertebrate community. These organisms are important sources
of food for the fish and other aquatic and terrestrial animals. In addition, feeding groups
22
Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Table 5. Computational formulae for the modified index of well-being (Iwb) and the Shannon diversity
index, (OEPA, 1988). __ __ _ ; _
Mpdified Index of Well-Being Hwb) ,
iwb = 0.5 In N + 0.5 In B + H'(no.) + H'(wt.)
where:
N » relative numbers of all species excluding species designated "highly tolerant" .
B = relative weights of all species excluding species designated "highly tolerant".
H'(no.) s Shannon diversity index based on numbers.
H'(wt) = Shannon diversity index based on biomass. .
Shannon Diversity Index • •
N
N
where:
r\t s relative numbers or weight of the ith species
N=* total number or weight of the sample ,
Table 6. Macroinvertebrate community metrics and criteria for calculating the Invertebrate Community
Metric
1 . Total Number of Taxa
2. Total Number of Mayfly Taxa
3. Total Number of Caddisfly Taxa
4, Total Number of DipteranTaxa
5. Percent Mayfly Composition
6. Percent Caddisfly Composition
7. Percent Tribe Tanytarsini Midge
Composition
8. Percent Other Dipteran and Non-
Insect Composition
9. Percent Tolerant Organisms
10. Total Number of Qualitative
EPT Taxa
Score
0
2 , 4 6
Varies with drainage area
Varies with drainage area
Varies with drainage area
Varies with drainage area
0
> 0,<; 10 > 10,^25 >25
Varies with drainage area
0
>0,slO > 10,^25 >25
Varies with drainage area
Varies with drainage area
Varies with drainage area
present in the community reflect energy sources that predominate in the system. The Ohio ICI
principally uses metrics of community structural attributes.
DRAFT-June 14, 1996
23
-------
Both the IBI and ICI analyses retain all of the original information. If needed, the biological
information can be disaggregated to perform .analyses on particular metrics, individual species, or
functional guilds.
*'•--, " - '
2.2.1.3 Susceptibility to Stressors
In order to be useful, assessment endpoints must be susceptible to the hazards being assessed (USEPA
1992). Susceptibility results from a potential for exposure and responsiveness of the organisms to the
exposure (Suter 1990). In the case of the Big Darby, the measures will be used to evaluate changes in
water quality, sedimentation, and hydrological regime. This section discusses the susceptibility of the
component measures of the assessment endpoint, the IBI, Mlwb and the ICI, to stressors of interest in
the Big Darby. ,....'
Several general responses to anthropogenic stress would be expected to be detected by all three
indices. One general response to increased environmental perturbation is a reduction in the number of
species and to dominance by a small number of tolerant species (Patrick 1949, Karr 1986). As human
influence increases, the number of specialist species decrease and the number of generalists increase
(Karr 1993). Another general response is for biomass or total numbers of organisms to be reduced
without a change in community structure (Lenatetal. 1981). ,
Other more specific responses to changes in energy sources and flow, and sensitivity of certain taxa to
specific stressors will vary with the community index and its associated metrics.
Mlwb
The Mlwb contains both biomass and community structure components, and has been modified to
emphasize response of native species that are thought to be generally intolerant of environmental
changes. River studies have shown a positive relationship between the IWB and the quality of the
water and habitat. This approach relies on the assertion that least impacted stream segments support a
larger variety and abundance offish man stressed segments in the same system. This hypothesis has
been tested and verified in several different situations (Gammon 1976; WAPORA 1978; Gammon et
al. 1981; Yoder et al. 1981; Ohio EPA 1988.
i
IBI
The IBI has a large experience base to draw on in evaluating susceptibility. It has demonstrated its
usefulness in reflecting changes in land use within a watershed, and also impacts from point sources.
The IBI is thought to be an improvement over more traditional diversity indices, such as those included
in the Mlwb. For example, it more accurately and consistently detected degraded water quality and
habitat conditions than did the Shannon-Weiner diversity index H1 (Angermeier and Schlosser 1987).
Because it incorporates a broader range of fish community attributes, the IBI often lags behind the
Mlwb as communities recover from reduced detrimental impacts (Yoder and Rankin 1995) '
Steedman (1988) found that linear models based on measures of watershed urbanization and forest
cover accounted for 11-78 % of the variation in IBI scores, depending on the spatial scale of the
analysis. Significant relationships between IBI and land use were found with whole-basin IBI estimates
and for IBI estimates from individual stream reaches.
The IBI has also been used to identify a variety of degradation types including effects of siltation
(Berkman et al. 1986), domestic sewage and mine drainage (Leonard and Orth 1986) and chlorine and
24 • , Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
ammonia (Karr et al. 1985), and municipal effluents (all as cited in Angermeier and Schlosser 1987).
Karr et al. (1984; 1986), found that municipal effluents depressed total numbers of fishes and altered
the trophic structure of the community. Habitat modifications, however, most affected lithophils, fish
that disperse eggs over clean rock or cobble substrate with no subsequent parental care. Several of the
native darter species are lithophils.
Yoder and Rankin (1995) recently examined how patterns of IBI metrics vary with different types of
stress in the Eastern Corn Belt Plains (Figure 5). As can be seen, the percent sensitive species and
percent offish with deformities, erosion, lesions, or tumors (DELT anomalies) were particularly good
at distinguishing stresses involving toxic impacts. The percent Sunfish species indicated the
channelization impact type reasonably well. The impact types involving nutrient enrichment
(Municipal Conventional, CSO/Urban, and Agricultural NFS) had similar response patterns.
ICI
There have been some recent analyses of the response of ICI metrics to different stressor types. In
general, there appears to be more overlap in responses to different stressors among the invertebrate
metrics than the fish metrics.
As a group, mayflies and tanytarsini midges are pollution sensitive and are .often first to disappear with
the onset of perturbation. In contrast, some dipterans are present even under enrichment or heavy
metals concentration (EPA 1989). As these stresses increase,, the total number of dipteran taxa,
percent other dipteran and non-insect composition, and percent tolerant organism metrics would be
expected to increase. Yoder and Rankin (1995) found that percent tolerant taxa metric distinguished
sites impacted by toxics.
Artificial substrates are used for nine of the ten metrics of the ICI. Since these substrates are designed
to reflect riffle habitats, they are expected to be less sensitive to siltation impacts since riffles are
among the last habitats to become silted. However, the total number of qualitative EFT taxa metric, is
collected in several different habitats and may distinguish some of these impacts. Yoder and Rankin
(1995), found that this metric and the percent caddisfly composition metric were sensitive to
channelization impact (Yoder and Rankin in press).
Finally, Yoder and Rankin (1995) found that several measures that are not direct components of the
ICI were useful in distinguishing toxic impact types. For toxic impacts, these include percent
Cricotopus spp., percent Oligoctiaeta spp., and organism density.
ENDPOINT2:
2.2.2 Sustainability of Native Fish and Mussel Species
Population Sustainability has been operationally defined in several different ways. Most commonly, it
has been assessed by inference by examining critical life history processes including mortality,
recruitment, and dispersion. If none of these processes are impaired, than it is concluded that the
population is at minimal risk. In more sophisticated cases, life history models are constructed, and
population viability is operationally defined in terms of probabilities of extinction extrapolated over a
particular amount of time (e.g. Akcakaya, 1992).
DRAFT—June 14, 1996 25
-------
• •
Figure 5:
IBI
Mlwb
sensitive Sp.
Intolerant Sp.
Darter Sp.
%Round-BodIed Suckers t*»
%Delt
Number of Species
Sunfish Sp.
%Simple Lithophils
%Omnivores
%Tolerant
%Top Carnivores <
Density Less Tolerant Sp.
Density
Biomass
Patterns of IBI metrics by Stressor Type in the Eastern Cornbelt Plains
Ecoregion (adapted from Yoder and Rankin 1995)
o
o
"O
s
26
Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
2.2.2.1 Measurements
To implement this approach in the Big Darby, representative species would need to be selected
because of the large number of native species present in the Big Darby; Then, life history processes
would be identified and the impact of stressors'on each process would be assessed. The endangered
and threatened species hi the watershed are darters and unionid mussels, and representatives of these
groups would be logical candidates for such an analysis. However, current data collection activities in
the Big Darby are not designed to support such a life history approach. In addition, the life cycles for
all the species of potential interest are not known.
The information that is available or likely to be collected for fish is in the form of organism and taxa
counts. Karr (1986) admits that the use of biotic indices are not particularly useful for evaluating
individual species. However, some of the individual metrics collected for the fish indices could be
relevant to the assessment of native species. These include the number and biomass of native fish
species; percent simple lithophils; and number of darter species.
Measurements made on threatened and endangered species should be nondestructive. Adult mussels
can be sampled, identified, marked, and returned to the stream with no damage, when done; by trained
individuals. Since they are relatively sedentary, they are likely to be observed repeatedly in the same
bed. Potential measurements for mussel species .include abundance within a bed; relative abundance of
small individuals as a measure of recent recruitment; and frequency of occurrence (number of beds or
sites where the species occurs). On the other hand, capture and marking of fish is potentially
traumatic to the fish, and may cause mortality. Species counts and biomass measures are available for
molluscs (Watters 1990).
The sustainability of native populations can be assessed using a series of metrics as measures.
,. For fish:
»• the number and biomass of native fish species,
*• percent simple lithophils, ,
*• number of darter species.
For molluscs:
»• abundance of selected threatened or endangered species
»• distribution (number, of sites) of the selected species
>• Percent small individuals of the selected species, as a measure of recruitment
These metrics do not reflect all the processes that influence sustainability, and will have limited value
in identifying causal factors. A stronger analysis would focus on life history processes for specific
species in the Big Darby. This approach is not currently feasible because of a lack of both data and
knowledge, but we hope that such an analysis can be conducted in the future.
These metrics could be observed over time, and thus serve as measures of increases or declines of the
selected species. However, they operationally define sustainability of native species populations in
only a limited way. The use of these metrics as measures is discussed further below in the context of
the three criteria discussed in USEPA (1992).
2.2.2.2 Policy goals and Societal Values
The link between fish and mollusc species counts and biomass to the management goal of sustaining
native species is limited at best. The presence of live organisms of a particular species may indicate
DRAFT-June 14, 1996 . . ' 27
-------
that mortality rates are not exceeding reproduction rates. However, in the case of long-lived species,
simple presence data (without also defining population age or size-structure) does not necessarily mean
that reproduction is currently successful. Similarly, immigration or movement from undisturbed areas
may mask local reproductive impairment.
For mussel species, representative estimates of total abundance, abundance of new recruits, and
frequency,, all observed over time, can provide sufficient information on increases and declines of the
population.
2.2.2.3 Ecological Relevance
Because fish occupy positions throughout the aquatic food web, the decline in species counts of native
populations may reflect a broader change in the ecosystem from historical conditions. Decline in
mussel taxa or biomass may also indicate broader community and ecosystem changes. In particular,
because unionid mussels depend on the fish community for part of their life cycle, the decline of
mussels may indicate changes in the fish community.
2.2.2,4 Susceptibility to Stressors
. The susceptibility of the fish metrics was discussed under Section 3.1.3 above. In general, species
numbers and biomass are expected to decline with increasing stress. The percent simple lithophils
metric would be expected to be particularly susceptible to sedimentation. The percent darters metric
would be expected to be'susceptible to nutrient enrichment and toxic effects, since darters make up a
large number of the species classified by Ohio EPA as intolerant.
Unionid mussels have been declining in abundance and diversity throughout the United States since
approximately 1900 (Pennak 1978). They have been found to be sensitive to sedimentation and metal
contamination (Walters 1990). Because of the limited number of metrics, the likelihood of identifying
specific causes of any effects will be reduced.
2.3 CONCEPTUAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT
A conceptual model is a series of hypotheses on the relationships among sources of stress, stressors,
effects, and endpoints. It is often expressed in a diagram that graphically demonstrates the
hypothesized relationships in the context of the risk assessment.
2.3.1 Conceptual Model Description
Figures 6-9 show a conceptual model for the Big Darby watershed. Land use practices, broadly
characterized as agriculture, residential development and industry, generate stressors, which then
influence the stream community as characterized by the IBI, Mlwb, and ICI. The Big Darby risk
assessment will focus on six stressors: altered stream morphology, sediments, increased flow
extremes, nutrients, temperature and toxic chemicals. Because of the complexity of the conceptual
models, we have organized the following sections as follows: Pathways leading from general land
uses to instream stressors are discussed in Section 4.2.. Section 4.3 discusses the linkages of instream
stressors with biological responses in aquatic communities of interest in the Big Darby Watershed.
Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
2.3.1.1 Pathways Linking Land Uses and Management Practices with In-stream Stressors
Rgure 6 shows in greater detail the sources and Stressors associated with different land uses. This
diagram is by necessity simplified, and all of the interactions aire not reflected. The intent is to show
the major pathways that will be evaluated in the risk assessment. This section is organized according
to the six in-stream Stressors discussed above; however, the physical Stressors of morphology, flow^
and sediment are closely interconnected.
In an undisturbed, natural stream, the stream's morphology, flow, and sediment load are in a dynamic
equilibrium that are the product of climate, watershed geomorphology, vegetation, and watershed
soils. Anthropogenic alteration of any one of morphology, flow, or sediment load causes the stream
system to move towards a new equilibrium state (Hupp and Simon 1991; Hupp 1992; Rosgen 1994),
usually by erosion and deposition to form a stream with a different geomorphological characteristics,
flow pattern, and sediment load. Because they are so closely interrelated, these three Stressors must be
considered together in conceptual model development and in analysis. , ,
Stream Morphology
Direct alteration of stream morphology includes channelization, effects of cattle wallowing, and
structures such as bridge abutments or levees. Channelization is the most severe. It straightens
meander patterns, results in linear banks, increases the gradient of the stream, and removes most ,
habitat heterogeneity. Because channels are constructed to remove water rapidly and efficiently, the
flow pattern is altered. As a result of the altered flow pattern, upstream areas are dewatered and
eroded, and downstream areas are subject to increased flow variability and sedimentation (Hupp
1992). Once the stream channel has been altered, recovery may take 50 years or longer to reach a
new state of dynamic equilibrium (Simon and 'Hupp 1991). . :.
When cattle are allowed unrestricted access to stream channels and riparian areas, they can overgraze
• and trample the riparian vegetation as well as damaging the .stream bank structure. This leads- to
erosion of the channel and the riparian zone, altering stream morphology and increasing sediment
loading. Leaves from riparian vegetation are an important food source for stream invertebrate
communities, and woody debris from riparian trees provides habitat heterogeneity.
Flow Pattern
Construction of impervious surfaces in a watershed, such as roofs, roads, and parking lots of urban
and suburban areas, changes the hydrology of a stream, which in turn alters stream morphology.
Impervious surfaces prevent percolation of rainwater into soils and groundwater, and increase the
amount of water that enters the stream directly through surface runoff. Rainfall is instantly converted
to runoff in storm drains, and streams may have erosive flash floods from relatively small rainstorms.
In an undisturbed "watershed, soil and groundwater acts as a reservoir, providing flow ("baseflow")
during times of little rain, and-absorbing rainfall in time of heavy rain. Floods in flashy streams
subside as soon as the rain ends, and baseflow of the stream is reduced because there is little ;
infiltration of rain into groundwater. The stream channel erodes more rapidly during the flash floods,
downcutting into its bed and eroding its banks. As downcutting progresses, the stream loses access to
its floodplain and becomes more entrenched. Floods become more severe and more frequent.
Downstream, there is likely to be increased sediment deposition (Hupp 1992). ,
DRAFT—June 14,1996 29
-------
1
a
03
*M«
cro
O
£0
£>•
•3
o
•n
3
I
(R
<*>
o
"*.
v>
Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Sediment
In addition to sediment loads resulting from instream and riparian erosion due to channel or flow
alteration, described above, sediment may enter, a stream from tributaries or from poor management
practices of agriculture or construction. Tillage practices, particularly the implementation of
conservation tillage, can influence the amount of soil that washes off of fields. Similarly, construction
practices used when developing housing or roads can influence the amount of soil added to the
stream. As outlined above, impervious surfaces enhance sediment input by increasing in-stream
erosion. Riparian vegetation can mitigate sediment input by trapping particles in surface runoff.
Nutrients
Nutrients can be added through surface water runoff, ground water and tile discharge, and direct
addition to the stream. In the Big Darby Watershed, sources of nutrients associated with agriculture
include fertilizer application to fields, runoff from pastures, and direct defecation of livestock in the
stream. In residential and industrial areas,.,sources include the application of fertilizer to lawns and
gardens, septic systems, municipal treatment plants, and combined sewer overflows. Impervious
surfaces increase nutrient input from garbage, domestic pets, and atmospheric deposition. Riparian
vegetation is thought to mitigate nutrient inputs by trapping nutrient-laden particles in surface runoff,
by adsorbing soluble phosphorus and by enhancing denitrificalion (e.g., Peterjohn and Correll 1989).
Temperature
Stream water temperature is affected by the amount of solar radiation reaching the water surface, and
the temperature of tributary waters. Removal of riparian vegetation raises the temperature of streams,
often beyond the tolerance of cool-water adapted species. Impervious surfaces such as roofs and
pavement absorb heat from sunlight in the summer, thus runoff from impervious surfaces also
contributes heat to streams. Oxygen is less soluble in warm water, and warm waters have more t
frequent episodes of hypoxia than cool waters.
* . • •
Toxic Chemicals
The addition of toxic chemicals to streams has been historically addressed from the perspective of
industrial point discharges. More recently, this view has expanded to include sources from residential
areas and non-point sources associated with agriculture. Pesticides can enter the stream system from
surface runoff from agricultural fields and residential lawns and gardens. Pesticides can also enter
grouhdwater and tile systems from these sources and subsequently discharge to streams. Industrial
point sources and combined sewer overflows can contribute toxic chemicals directly into the stream.
Increased impervious surfaces can add to the amount of toxic chemicals entering the system by
facilitating runoff of oil, grease and other substances spilled in these areas. Toxic substances adsorbed
to particulate matter may be intercepted by riparian vegetation. _ ;
2.3.1.2 Biological Responses to In-stream Stressors
Figures 7-9 show how the generalized in-stream Stressors shown in Figure 6 are linked to changes in
the biological communities of interest in the Big Darby Watershed.,
DRAFT-June 14,1996 v .. ' • - 31
-------
2
m •
I
-a
70 CD
o
R
e
9
I
I
2
e
£
• *
TJ
3
.3
sT-
w»
3
C/5
»*•
1
O
o
S
e
9
4?
D
(D
O
Q)
(0
(D
Q.
I
•
U|
2
5 2 CL &>
11 I
32
fiz^ Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
I
00
O w
D
8
D)
(O
8.
Q
er
2
DRAFT—June 14, 1996
33
-------
ore
i
ft
»i
8 g
a »
o "O
e
I
.
S
as
I'
3
r
I
34
/^ Oar&y Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
The Fish Community
Stream Morphology: Alteration of stream morphology generally results in a loss of habitat
heterogeneity, reducing the number of habitat types available to fish and invertebrates. Morphological
changes resulting from channelization, altered flow, and erosion decrease pool and riffle habitat, and
increase run habitat. The location of these habitats can change more frequently as a result of erosion
and deposition from altered flow. Loss of riparian vegetation causes a loss of cover and shelter areas
for many species offish, from the reduction of woody debris and shade. The decreased area in pool
and riffle habitat results in decrease abundances of the species that depend on these areas, especially
darters, madtoms, and sculpins. The decreased proportion of riffle substrates also will influence
simple lithophils, fish that lay their eggs directly on the substrate with little subsequent parental: care.
Successful reproduction of these fish relies on substrate that has not been silted in. In the most
modified areas, we expect to see a decrease hi the number of all species.
Flow Extremes: Flow extremes alter stream morphology, and hence result in many of the same
changes to the fish community. Increased frequency of flooding increases erosion and reduces the
permanence of habitats, resulting hi decreases in pool and riffle habitat. Increased frequency of low or
no flows increases the frequency of temperature and hypoxic stress on organisms in the stream, as well
as temporarily reducing habitat due to desiccation. Streams that experience increased flooding usually
also experience increased frequency of low flows. We expect that in addition to decreases in species
associated with these habitats, the proportion of pioneering species may increase. .
Sediments: In the stream, sediments are conceptually divided into suspended solids that contribute to
turbidity, and larger particles that sink and contribute to siltation (Figures 8-10). Increased siltation
modifies habitat by filling in pools and smothering cobble and gravel substrates in riffles and runs.
Lithophilic fish are not able to spawn in silted substrate. Extreme turbidity may influence visually
foraging fish (e.g., Janssen 1983).
Nutrients and Temperature: The biological effects of adding nutrients to stream systems have been
extensively studied, and a complex picture has emerged. Increased concentrations of nitrogen,
phosphorus and organic matter increase algal and microbial production. Moderate nutrient loadings
tend to increase fish production (e.g., Oglesby 1977). Omnivores may take advantage of the increased
algal growth, and increase in dominance. The increased success of these organisms may result in
increased fish biomass as a whole. Extreme nutrient loading coupled with organic matter loading ,
(e.g., untreated sewage or animal wastes) promotes the growth of filamentous algae and fungi, which
may smother substrates (similar to siltation), and cause nocturnal hypoxia from microbial
decomposition.
Because the capacity of water to hold oxygen "decreases with increasing temperature, higher
temperatures can intensify hypoxic conditions. Fish intolerant to hypoxia include trout, darters, and
madtoms. .
Toxic Chemicals: Because of the diversity of mechanisms of action of different toxic chemicals, it is
difficult to draw generalizations of community response. The percent DELT anomalies metric
responds to the presence of toxins (Yoder and Rankin 1995). In the areas most impacted by toxic
chemicals, we expect a decrease in many IBI metrics, including the total number of species, the
number of individuals and biomass (Yoder and Rankin 1995).
DRAFT-June 14, 1996 35
-------
The Benthic Invertebrate Community
Stream Morphology and Increased Flow Extremes. Altered stream morphology and increased flow
extremes are expected to influence the invertebrate community by increasing erosion and
impermanence of habitat and increasing the frequency of conditions with no flow. ' We expect the
.qualitative EPT metric to be among the most sensitive of the invertebrate metrics because it uses
samples from natural substrates and combines samples from several different habitats. Unfortunately,
because the qualitative,EPT metric is also expected to respond to many other stressors (see discussions
below), we do not expect to be able to discriminate this stressor using invertebrate metrics. The other
invertebrate metrics are measured using artificial substrates that .were designed to minimize the impact
of habitat alterations. These metrics may be impacted in more severe habitat alteration circumstances,
when upstream sources of colonizing species have been reduced or eliminated.
Sediments. Increased sedimentation contributes to the reduction of invertebrate habitat by silting of
cobble and gravel substrates. The qualitative EPT metric is expected to resppnd to siltation. In
addition, high turbidity may reduce the proportion of suspension feeding species, including mussels.
These species feed by filtering food particles; high amounts of suspended solids effectively dilutes the
food source. Analysis of suspension feeders would require recalculation from the raw invertebrate
data because the ICI does not use functional feeding groups.
Nutrients. Nutrient loading has similar effects on benthic invertebrate communities as on fish.
Moderate nutrient loading generally increases production, and may increase diversity of many streams.
High' nutrient loading and organic matter loading shifts the benthic invertebrate community to tolerant
organisms, principally chironomids and oligochaetes, at the expense of ephemeropterans," plecopterans,
and trichopterans (EPT). The combination of increases in tolerant organisms and decreases'ih
sensitive organisms is expected to result in an overall decrease in the numbers of species. The
response of the suite of organisms that are tolerant of organic enrichments is expected to be a good
discriminator of this stressor type.
An interaction may occur between increased nutrients and riparian modification. Removal of riparian
trees increases sunlight on the water, which increases both algal production and temperature, and also
decreases the amount of oxygen that water can hold. This will contribute to the increases in tolerant
and decreases of intolerant organisms.
Toxins. Because of the variety of toxic chemicals and organismal response, it is difficult to draw
generalizations about the response of the ICIand component metrics. In general, many of the'
invertebrate groups and IGI metrics that respond to organic pollution respond similarly to toxic
contamination. These organisms tend to include dipterans and non-insect species, species in the genus
Cricotopus and many of the oligochaetes (DeShon 1995, Yoder and Rankin 1995). Diagnostic
orgahisms that are tolerant to many toxic chemicals, but intolerant to organic pollution may be the
stoneflies (plecopterans) (ref.). -
The Mussel Community
The unionid mussels are long-lived (some may require 8 years to reach maturity), relatively sedentary,
and require fish for dispersal and recruitment. Their ecological characteristics make them highly
vulnerable to extirpation and extinction in stream systems where human activities have increased the
frequency of disturbances and stressors, and have possibly removed the agents of their dispersal (fish).
At worst, habitat alteration can destroy mussel beds and extirpate local populations of mussels, by
removal during channelization, or scouring or burial. Altered flow can also cause scouring or burial
• ' '*-•*.,.•"
36 ( Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
of beds, as well as temperature, desiccation, and hypoxic stress during low flow extremes. Sediment
loading may lead to silting and burial of beds. Turbidity may interfere with suspension feeding in _
species adapted to clear, fast-flowing waters. Tolerance of umonids to organic pollution, hypoxia, and
toxic substances is not well-known.
2.3.2 Risk Hypotheses .
The conceptual model diagrams have led the team to a series of working hypotheses that will provide
the focus for future analysis. These working hypotheses are summarized below. As shown in the
conceptual models, our overall framework for this analysis is that land use and land use activities will
influence stream characteristics and instream stressors, which in turn will influence the biological
community (Figures ,6-9).
The hypotheses described below fall into four general categories. The first category is at the broadest
level of aggregation, relating land uses directly with biological responses. However, these
relationships may be weak because many different land-use activities may cause similar changes, and
there are many different land-use activities in the Big Darby watershed. The second category of
hypotheses attempts to address this complexity by dividing the above framework into two steps; (1)
relating land use/land use activities, including riparian zone characteristics with stream characteristics
and instream stressors and (2) relating stream characteristics and instream stressors with biological
response. Category 3 is the converse of categories 1 and 2. -It centers around the use of biological
responses to help identify potentially responsible stressors and land use activities.
Hypothesis Category 1: An increase in certain land uses or land use activities will result in a
decrease in the Index of Community Integrity and/or the Index of Biological Integrity. Broad
historical changes in the watershed community have already occurred. These vast changes will not be
addressed in this study. Instead analysis focus on the following specific hypotheses related to more
recent and anticipated future changes in land use and land use activities:
s
> An increase in the proportion of land use as urban/suburban will result in a decrease in the IBI
and/or ICI.
»• An increase in the proportion of agricultural, land in no-till agriculture will result in an increase
in the IBI and/or ICI.
Hypothesis Category 2a: An increase in certain land uses or land-use activities will result in an
increase in the intensity or spatial or temporal extent of instream stressors. Stronger relationships
between specific land use activities and instream stressors that are connected with lines in the
conceptual models. For example, an increase in the amount of channelization and impervious surface
will result in increased flow extremes. Table 7 details the relationships between land-use activities and
instream stressors indicated by our conceptual models. As can be seen, more than one land use
activity may contribute to the amount or intensity of ah instream-stressor. A key component of this
category of hypotheses is that decreasing the extent of forested riparian area will increase flow
extremes, sedimentation, nutrients, and stream temperature.
Hypothesis Category 2b: An increase in the intensity or spatial or temporal extent of instream
stressors will result in a change in the biological community as quantified by ICI and IBI metrics
and species abundances. As with Hypothesis Category 2 above, stronger relationships among the
instream stressors and biological responses that are connected with lines in the conceptual models.
Table 8 shows those relationships indicated by our conceptual models. As can be seen, one stressor
DRAFT—June 14, 1996 37
-------
can cause an entire suite of biological changes. For example, an increase in the frequency of low or
no flows is expected to result in a decrease in the percentage of headwaters species, minnows, and
pioneering fish species; a decrease in the number of species found in the qualitative EPT sampling, and
the number of mussel species that are intolerant of low and no flow conditions.
Hypothesis Category 3: The pattern of response of the stream community can discriminate
among the different types of stressors. The best discriminating responses will be those that respond
primarily to one type of stress as shown in the conceptual models. These variables are shown in bold
in Table 8. For example, finding a decrease in the percentage of Tanytarsini midges along with an
increase in the percent of toxic tolerant invertebrate species, percent Cricotopus species and percent
DELT anomalies found in fish, is expected to be consistently associated with an increase in the
concentrations of toxic chemicals in the water. . ' "
Table 7. Expected relationships between land-use activities and in-stream stressors.
Land-use Activities
(explanatory variables)
In-stream Stressors
(dependent variables)
Increase in pesticide application, number of point
sources and combined sewer overflows, amount of
impervious surfaces.
Increased channelization, amount of livestock pasturing
& feedlots, highway construction and maintenance and
gravel operations:
> . Increased housing and road construction,
channelization, amount of livestock pasturing
and feedlots, amount of impervious surfaces.
»• Decrease in the amount of agricultural land
using low or no-till practices.
•• Decreased extent of forested, riparian area.
Increase in toxic substances in water column and
sediments ,
Altered stream morphology
Increased sedimentation of stream
Increased numbers of septic systems,
municipal treatment plants. CSOs, lawn and
garden maintenance, fertilizer application,
livestock pasturing and feedlots,.impervious
surfaces.
Decreased extent of forested riparian area.
Increased impervious surfaces (buildings and
roads), and channelization.
Decreased extent of forested riparian area.
Increased nutrients in water column
Increased flow extremes of stream
Increased stream temperature
38
Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
Table 8. Expected relationships between in-stream stressors and biological responses
In Stream
Stressors
(explanatory
variables)
Decreased pool
habitat
Decreased riffle
habitat
Increased
frequency and
severity of low/no
flow
Increased turbidity
Increased
phosphorus,
nitrogen, organic
matter
Decreased
dissolved oxygen
Increased
concentrations of
toxic chemicals
Increased physical
trampling
Biological Responses (dependent variables)1
Fish
Decreased # sp., # sunfish sp.,
# sucker sp., # headwater sp.
Decreased # sp., #
darters/sculpins, % simple
lithophils, % insectivorous sp.
Decreased # headwaters sp., #
minnow sp. Increased
pioneering sp.
Decreased % insect ivores, %
top carnivores, # sight feeders,
Increased algal productivity,
biomass, # and % moderately
tolerant fish sp., tolerant fish
sp., and omnivores
Decreased # sp., #
intolerant/sensitive sp., #
sucker sp., # darter sp., #
sunfish sp., biomass
Decreased # sp., # individuals,
biomass. Increased % tolerant
sp., % DELT anomalies
Macroinvertebrates
Decreased # EPT sp.
# EPT sp.
Decreased # EPT sp.
Decreased % filterer-
gatherers, % scrapers, %
collector-gatherers
Increased # sp., biomass,
# caddisfly sp., # EPT sp.,
mayfly sp., % organic
tolerant sp. , % dipteran
& non-insect sp., %
Glyptotendipes, %
Oligochaetes '
Decreased # sp., % & no.
Caddisfly sp., # EPT sp., '
% & no. Mayfly sp.
Increased biomass, %
organic tolerant sp, %
dipteran & non-insect sp.
% Glyptotendipes, %
Oligochaetes
Decreased # sp., % & no.
Caddisfly, % & no.
Mayfly, # EPT sp., %
Tanytarsini midges.
Increased % Toxic
tolerant sp. % dipteran &
non insect sp., %
Crtcotopus, %
oligochaetes.
Unionids
Decreased # pool sp.
(List C)
Decreased # riffle sp.
(ListE)
Increased #
desiccation tolerant
sp. Decreased #
intolerant sp. (List J)
Increased # turbidity
tolerant sp. Decreased
# intolerant sp. (List
K)
Increased # organic
enrichment tolerant
sp., Decreased #
intolerant sp. (ListH)
Increased # DO
tolerant sp.
Decreased # intolerant
sp. (List H)
Increased # toxic
tolerant sp.
Decreased #.
intolerant sp
Decrease in young
and thin-shelled sp.
1. Responses shown in bold are expected to be used to discriminate among stressors types (see Hypothesis
category 3.)
DRAFT-June 14.1996
39
-------
2.4 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS PLAN
Three general types of analysis approaches will be used: (1) upstream/downstream comparisons (2)
statistical correlation and regression and (3) classification and discriminant analysis.
Upstream/downstream comparisons. The first method that will be used to evaluate the hypotheses
involves the plotting of the IBI and ICI by stream mile. Particular attention will be paid to evaluating
changes in the metric values downstrearn of known sources. Information on the sources will be
combined with examination of changes in specific metrics to evaluate the evidence for causes
responsible for changes.
Preliminary results indicate that the indices and several component metrics are depressed downstream
of point source discharges and downstream of agricultural land use where BMPs have not been
implemented. The upper reaches of Big Darby Creek are most affected by agriculturarNPS. Little
Darby Creek is less affected, in part because the area is less erosive. The lower reaches of Big Darby
Creek, below its confluence with the Little Darby, is the best overall because the topography in the
river valley is too steep for agriculture and the riparian forest buffer is intact. In the lower reach,
several biological metrics and the indices are affected below two point sources: the confluence with
Hellbranch Run, itself affected by suburban NPS, and a wastewater treatment discharge.
Statistical correlation and regression. Correlation and regression methods will be used to evaluate
hypotheses 1, 2a and 2b. The first step to this analysis is the matching of explanatory variables with
dependent variables in time and space. To simplify this task we intend to focus on data from two
calendar years, 1979 and 1992. Two approaches will be used to link date in space. The first averages
land activity information over the subbasin (or portion of the subbasin) upstream of the biological "
sampling point. The second approach will employ a spatially-weighted model to give greater emphasis
on land use changes and activities closer to sampling locations.
Conventional exploratory data analysis methods will be used along with multivariate methods (e.g.
canonical correlation and principal components analysis) and our conceptual models to reduce data and
identify promising models. Multiple regression analysis will be used to identify relationships with the
best explanatory power.
. • ' >"
Classification and discriminant analysis. Classification and discriminant analysis will be used to
evaluate hypothesis 3. We anticipate using two approaches for this analysis. In the first approach we
will use best professional judgement in conjunction with our conceptual model to classify sites
according to the predominant stressor types present.. Discriminant analysis willthen be used to
identify the IBI and ICI metrics that best discriminate among the stressor types. In the second
approach (after Green and Vascotto, 1987) we will use statistical.classification techniques to group '
sites according to the IBI and ICI metrics. Discriminant analysis will then be used to identify the
physical, chemical, and hydrological variables that best distinguish among the sites. Depending on
the results of this analysis, indicator metrics (i.e., those metrics that most influence the classification)
may be identified, and discriminant functidns may identify promising regression models.
40 Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
3. LITERATURE CITED
Akcakaya, H. R. 1992. Population viability analysis and risk assessment, in D. R. McCullough and
R. H. Barrett, eds. Wildlife 2001: Populations. Elsevier, London, p. 1163.
Hupp, C.R. 1992. Riparian vegetation recovery patterns following stream channelization: A
geomorphic perspective. Ecology 73: 1209-1226.
Hupp, C.R., and A. Simon. 1991. Bank accretion and the development of vegetated depositional
surfaces along modified alluvial channels. Geomorphology 4: 111-124.
Janssen, J. 1983. How do bluegills "select" large Daphnia in turbid water? Ecology 64: 403-
Oglesby, R.T. 1977. Relationships of fish yield to lake phytoplankton standing crop, production, and
morphoedaphic factors. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34: 2271-2279.
Fox, G. A. 1991. Practical causal inference for ecoepidemiologists. Journal of Toxicology and
Environmenal Health. 33:359-373. -
Gammon, J. R. 1976. The fish populations of the middle 340 km of the Wabash River. Tech. Report
No. 86. Purdue University. Water Resources Research Center, West Lafayette., IN.
Gammon, J. R., A. Spacie, J. L. Hamelink and R. L. Kaesler. 1981. Role of electrofishing in
assessing environmental quality of the Wabsh River, pp 307-324. In: Ecological assessments
of effluent impacts on communities of indigenous aquatic organisms. ASTM STP 703, J. M.
Bates and C. I. Weber (eds.) Philadelphia, PA
Gordon, S.I. and J.W. Simpson. "Final Report-The Big Darby Creek Watershed Project", June 1990.
Gregory S.T., F.J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective
of riparian zones. BioScience 41:540-551.
Hughes, R.-M., D. P. Larsen, J. M. Omernik. 1986. Regional reference sites: a method for assessing
stream pollution. Env. Mgmt. 10:629-635.
Jordan.T.E., D.L.Correll, and D.E. Weller. 1993. Nutrient interception by a riparian forest
receivinginputs from adjacent crop lands.. J. Environ. Qual. 22: 467-473.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6: 21-27.
Karr, J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of resourc management. Ecological
Applications. 1:66-84.
Karr, J. R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals.env. Mgmt. 5:55-
68.
DRAFT-June 14,1996 . . 41
-------
Karr, J. RM LI A. Toth, and G. D. Carman. 1983. Habitat Preservation for Midwest Stream Fishes:
, Principles and Guidelines. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Laboratory Corvalis, Corvalis, Oregon. EPA-600/3-83-006 February 1983.
Kuznik, Frank. America's aching mussels. 1993. National Wildlife, October/November:35-38.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves. "Big and Little
Darby Creek Ohio Scenic River, National and Wild Scenic River System Application, Part
One:(Revised), Plan arid Environmental Assessment", February 1992.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. "Big Darby Creek Technical Support Document", 1992'.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987 a. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life:
Volume I. The role of biological date in water quality assessment. Div of Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus ,OH.
' ' . X
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life:
Volume n. Users Mamual for biological assessment of Ohio surface waters, Div of Water
Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus ,OH.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1990 a. Ohio Water Resource Inventory, Executive
Summary & Volume I. , -
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1990 b. Ohio Water Resource Inventory, Volume II:
Waterbody Segment Assessment Summaries.
Ohio-Environmental Protection Agency. 1990 c. Compendium Volume :(June 15-October 25).
Omernik, J. M. 1988. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc. Amer. Geogr.
77(1): 118-125. -
Rankin, E. T. 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, medhods, and
application. Div. of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Colunbus, OH.
Peterjohn, W. T. and Cprrell, D. L. 1989. The effect of riparian forest on the volume and chemical
composition of baseflow in an agricultural watershed, pp. 244-262 in Watershed Research
Perspectives. ,
Shindel, H. L., Mangus, J. P., and Trimble, L. E., 1993. Water resources data, Ohio, water year
1993: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report OH-93-I,p. 320.
' ' i
Smith, M. , "Risk Assessment Forum Technical Panel Ecological Risk Assessment Case Study
" Questionnaire" ' ; . '.-,.-,
Trautman, M. B. The fishes of.Ohio with illustrated keys. The Ohio State University Press in
collaboration with the Ohio Div. of Wildlife and the Ohio State University Development Fund:
1-683, 7 colot pis, 202 fig., 183 maps.
42 : . , , Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. "Darby Creek USDA
Water Quality Hydrologic Unit Proposal (H.U. No.05056 0001) Ohio", Revised February
1991.
Watters, G. T. 1986. The Distribution and relative abundance: of the unionid mollusks of the Big
Darby Creek System hi Ohio. Columbus: The Ohio State University Museum of Zoology.
Watters, G. T. "Final Report - 1990 Survey of the Unionids of the Big Darby Creek System",
December 1990.
Wollman 1967
DRAFT—June 14, 1996
43
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
Exhibit 1.2.6.1
Common Name
FISH SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE B18 DARBY CREEK MAINSTEM
Scientific Name > ' • Sources
Goldfish T~~
Skipjac^ herring
Northern brook lamprey
Least brook lamprey
Logperch
Northern Hadtom
Scioto madtorn
Brindled madtom
Tadpole madtom
Suckermouth minnow
Si Tverjaw minnow
Bullhead minnow
Fathead minnow
Bluntnose minnow
Muskellunge
Paddlefish
Grass pickerel
Pumpkinseed
Quill back
Silver redhorse
Black redhorse
Golden redhorse
, Shorthead redhorse
River redhorse
Sauger
Mottled sculpin
Gizzard shad
Golden shiner
Emerald shiner
Silver shiner
Rosyface shiner
Redfin shiner
Rosefin shiner
Striped shiner
Steel col or shiner
Spotfin shiner
Sand shiner
Mimic shiner
Blacknose shiner
Brook 'silverside
Stonecat
Central stoneroller
Northern hog sucker
White sucker
Spotted sucker
Green sunfish
Orangespotted sunfish
Longear sunfish
Carassius auratus
Alosa chrysochloris
Ichthyomyzon fossor
La/npetra aepyptera
Percina caprodes
Noturus stigmosus
Noturus trautmani
Noturus miurus
Noturus gyrinus
Phenacobius mirabilis
Ericymba buccata
PimephaJes vigilax
Pimephales promelas
Pimephales notatus
Esox masquinonjgy
Polyodon spathula
Esox americanus
Lepomis gibbosus
Carpi odes cyprinus
Hoxostoma am'surun
Moxostoma duquesnei
Hoxostoma ery thru rum
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Mosostoma carinatum
Stizostedipn canadense
Cqttus bairdi
Dorosoma cepedianum
Notemrgonus crysoleuca
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis photogenis
Notropis rubellus
Notropis umbratilis
Notropis ardens
Notropis chrysocephalus
Notropis whipplei
Notropis spilopterus
Notropis stramineus
Notropis volucelius
Notropis heterolopis
Labidesthes& sicculus
Naturus flavus
Campostoma anomalua
Hypenteliun nigricans
Catostomus commersoni
Hinytrema melanops
Lepomis cyaneTlus
Lepomis humilis
Lepomis megalotis
3
3
3,4
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,4,5
3
3 ,
1,2,3,4,5
2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
4,5
1,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
3
4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,273,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
2,3,4,5
1,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
-------
Common Name
Exhibit 1.2.6.1. (Cent.)
FISH SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE BIG DARBY CREEK MAINSTEH
Scientific Name Sources
Warmouth sunfish
White bass
Rock bass
Smallmouth bass
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
Bluegill
Bigmouth buffalo
Black buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Yellow bullhead
Brown bullhead
Black bullhead
Common carp
River carpsucker
Highfin carpsucker
Channel catfish
Flathead catfish
Hornyhead chub
River chub
Silver chub
Bigeye chub
Streamline chub
Creek chub
Creek chubsucker
White crappie
Black crappie
Blacknose dace
Southern redbelly dace
Redside dace
Dusky darter
Blackside darter
Slenderhead darter
Eastern sand darter
Johnny darter
Greenside darter
Banded darter
Varigate darter
Spotted darter
Bluebreast darter
Tippecanoe darter
Rainbow darter
Orangethroat darter
Fantail darter
Least darter
Freshwater drum
American eel
Longnose gar
Lepomis gulosus
Horone chrysops
Ambloplites rupestris
Hicropterus doloaieui
Hicropterus punctulatus
Hicropterus salmoides
Lepomis macrochirus
Ictiobus cyprinellus
Ictiobus niger
.Ictiobus bubal us
Ictalurus natal is
Ictalurus nebulosus
Ictalurus me7as
Cyprinus carpi o
Carpi odes carpio
Carpi odes velifer
Ictalurus punctatus
Pylodictis olivaris
Nocomis biguttata
Nocomis micropogon
Hybopsis storeriana
Hybopsis amblops
Hybopsis dissimilis
Semotilus atromaculatus
Erimyzdn oblongus
Pomoxis annularis
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Phoxinus erythrogaster
Clinostomus elongatus
Percina sciera
Percina maculata
Percina phpxocephala
Amocrypta pellucida
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma zonale
Etheostoma variatum
Etheostoma maculatum
Etheostoma camurum
Etheostoma tippecanoe
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma spectabile
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma microperca
Aplodinotus grunniens
Anguilla rostrata
Lepisosteus osseus
3,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
3,4
3,4
1,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,5
1,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
4
1,3,4,5
3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,5
1,3,4,5
3
3
1,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
3,4
3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,4,5
3,4
1,2,3,4,5
-------
Exhibit 1.2.6.1 (cent)
FISH SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE BIG DARBY CREEK MAINSTEM
Common Name Scientific Name Sources
Goldeye"Hiodon alosoides~~:3,4
Blackstripe topminnow Fundulus notatus 1,2,3,4,5
Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus l.'sU.V
Walleye Stizosiedion vitreum 2,3,4 5
Green sunfish x Bluegi11 125
Green sunfish x Pumpkinseed lV
Green sunfish x Orangespotted '
sunfish 15
Green sunfish x Longear '
sunfish 15
Total Species 104 '
Key to Source Identification on Table: '. ~~~: ~ : ~
1. Ohio EPA 1981
2. Ohio EPA 1979 '
3. Trautman 1978 .
4. Trautman 1957
5. Ohio EPA 1987
Modified from ODNR, 1992
-------
Exhibit 1.2.6..2. HOLLUSK SPECIES LIST FOR BIG DARBY WATERSHED
Common Name Scientific Name
Paper Pond Shell
Giant Floater
Cylindrical Paper Shell
Squaw Foot
Elk Toe
Slipper Shell
Simpson's Mussel
White Heel-Splitter
Hackle-Back
Creek Heel-Splitter
Washboard
Buckhorn
Maple-Leaf
Rabbit's Foot
Pimple-Back
Blue-Point
Wabash Big-Toe
Purple Pimple-Back
Northern Club-Shell
Ohio Pig-Toe
Elephant Ear
Lady Finger . *
Horn-Shell
Kidney-Shell
Mucket
Hickory-Nut
Deer-Toe
Fawn's Foot
Fragile Paper-Shell
Pink Heel-Splitter
Fragile Heel-Splitter
Liliput Shell
Black Sand-Shell
Bean-Shell
Rainbow-Shell
Fat Mucket
Pocketbook
Pocketbook
Small Mucket
Snuffbox
Northern Riffle-Shell
Total Species 41
Anodonta imbecillis 1,2
Anodonta grandis grandis 1,2
Anodontoides ferussacianus 1,2
Strophitus undulatus undulatus 1,2
Alasmidonta aarginata 1,2
Alasmidonta vin'dis 1,2
Simpsonaias ambiqua 1
Lasmigona complanata 1,2
Lasmigona costata 1,2
Lasmigona compressa 1,2
Negalonaias nervosa 1
Tritogonia verrucosa 1,2
Quadrula quadrula 1,2
Quadrula cylindrica 1,2
Quadrula pustulosa pustulosa 1,2
Amblema plicata piicat a 1,2
Fusconaia flava 1,2
Cyclonaias tuberculata 1,2
Pleurobema clava 1,2
Pleurobema sintoxia 1,2
Elliptic crassideus 2
Elliptic dilatata 1,2
Um'omerus tetralasmus 1,2
Ptychobranchus fasciolaris 1,2
Actinouaias carinata 3
Obovaria subrotunda 1,2
Truncilla truncata 1
Truncilla donaciformis 1,2
Leptodea fragilis . 1,2
Potmailus alatus I
Pot ami 1 us ohiensis 1,2
Toxolasma parvus 1,2
Ligumia recta 1,2
Villosa fabils 1,2
Villosa iris iris 1,2
Lampsilis radiata luteola 1,2
Lampsilis ovata 3
Lampsilis ventricosa 1,2
Lampsilis fasciola 1,2
Epioblasma triquetra 1,2
Epioblasma rangiana 1,2
Source: 1-Watters, 1986
2-Watter, 1990
3-ODNR, 1992
-------
Exhibit 1.2.6.3.
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS RECORDED WITHIN THE DARBY CREEK CORRIDOR
(From ODNR 1992)
1. Common musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus)
2. Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina)
3. Painted turtle (Chrysenys pi eta)
4. Common map turtle (Graptemys geographica)
5. False map turtle (Graptemys pseudoqeographica)
6. Common slider (Trachemys scripta)
7. Common box turtle (Terrapene Carolina)
8. Spiny softshell turtle (Trionyx spiniferus)
ft. Black racer (Coluber constrictor)
10. Black rat snake (Elaphe obsolete)
11. Eastern hog-nosed snake (Heterodon platyrhinos)
, _12. Milk snake (Lampropeltistriangulum)
13. Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon)
14. Smooth green snake (Opheodrys vernal is)
15. -Queen snake (Regina septemvittata) •
16. Dekay's brown snake (Storeria dekayi)
17. Common garter snake (Thamnophis sirta1is)
18. Mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus)
19. Spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum)
20. Small-mouthed salamander (Ambystoma texanum)
21. Tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum)
22. Two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata)
23. Eastern red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus)
24. American toad (Bufo amen'canus)
25. Woodhouse's• toad. (Bufo woodhousii)
26. Northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans)
27. Spring peeper (Hyla crucifer)
28. Gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor)
29. Striped chorus frog (Pseudacris trisenata)
30. Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)
31. Green frog (Rana clami tans)
32. Pickerel frog (Rana palustris)
33. Northern leopard frog (Rana pi pi ens)
-------
.Exhibit 1.2.6.4.
MAMMALS RECORDED WITHIN THE DARBY CREEK CORRIDOR
AT BATTELLE-DARBY CREEK HETROPARK
(From ODNR, 1992)
1. Virginia opossum (Didelphis virqiniana)
2. Northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda)
3. Masked shrew (Sorex cinereus)
4. Star-nosed mole (Condylura cristaia)
5. Hairy-tailed mole (Parascalops breweri)
6. Eastern mole (Sealopus aquaticus)
7. Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus)
8. Red bat (Lasiurus boreal is)
9. Little brown bat (Myotis lucifuqus)
10. Eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus sublfavus)
11. Coyote (Cam's latrans)
~12. Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)
13. Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)
14. Raccoon (Procyon lotor)
15. Long-tailed weasel (Hustela frenata)
16. Least weasel (Mustela m'valis) *
17. Mink (Hustela vison)
18. Badger (Taxidea taxus)
19. Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis)
20. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
21. Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans)
22. Wobdchuck (Marmdta monax)
23. Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensi's)
24. Fox squirrel (Sciurus niger)
25. Thirteen-lined ground squirrel (Spermophilus
tridecetnlineatus)
26. Eastern chipmunk (1'amias striatus)
27. Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus)
28. Beaver (Castor canadensis)
29. White-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus)
30. Meadow vole (Hicrotus pennsylvanicus)
31. Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)
32. House mouse (Mus musculus)
33. Norway rat (Rattus norveqicus)
34. Meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius)
35. Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus)
-------
Exhibit 1.2.6.5.
BREEDING BIROS RECORDED WITHIN DARBY CREEK WATERSHED
BETWEEN 1983-87
(From ODNR, 1992)
1. Acadian Flycatcher
2. Alder Flycatcher
3. American Goldfinch
4. American Kestrel
5. American Redstart
6. American Robin
; 7. American Woodcock
8. Bank Swallow
9. Barn Swallow
10. Barred Owl
11. Belted Kingfisher
12. Black-and-White Warbler
13. Black-billed Cuckoo
14. Bl-ue Jay
15. Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher
16. Blue-Winged Warbler
17. Bobolink
18. Bobwhite
19. Brown Thrasher
. 20. Brown-Headed Cowbird
21. Canada Goose
22. Cardinal
23. Carolina Chickadee
24. Carolina Wren .
25. Cedar Waxwing
26. Cerulean Warbler
27. Chestnut-Sided Warbler
28. Chimney Swift
29. Chipping Sparrow
30. Common Crow
31. Common Flicker
32. Common Grackle
33. Common Nighthawk
34. Common Yellow-Throat •
35. Cooper's Hawk
36. Dickcissel
37. Downy Woodpecker
38. Eastern Bluebird
39. Eastern Kingbird
40, Eastern Meadowlark
41. Eastern Phoebe
42. Eastern Wood Pewee
43. Field Sparrow
44. Grasshopper Sparrow
45. Gray Catbird
46. Great Crested Flycatcher
47. Great Horned Owl
48. Green Heron
49. Hairy Woodpecker
50. Henslow's Sparrow
51. Horned Lark
53. House Sparrow
54. House Wren
55. Indigo Bunting
56. Kentucky Warbler
57. KiTldeer
58. Loggerhead Shrike
59. Louisiana Waterthrush
60. Mallard
61. Mockingbird
62. Mourning Dove
63. Northern Oriole
64. Orchard Oriole
65. Ovenbird
66. Pileated Woodpecker
67. Prothonotary Warbler
68. Purple Martin
69. Red-Bellied Woodpecker
70. Red-Eyed Vireo
71. Red-Headed Woodpecker
72. Red-Tailed Hawk
73. Redwinged Blackbird
74. Ring-Necked Pheasant
75. Rock Dove
76. Rose-Breasted Grosbeak
77. Rough-Winged Swallow
78. Ruby-Throated Hummingbird
79. Rufous-Sided Towhee
80. Savannah Sparrow
81. Scarlet Tanager
82. Screech Owl
83. Song Sparrow
84. Spotted Sandpiper
85. Starling
86. Summer Tanager
87. Tree Swallow
.88. Tufted Titmouse
89. Turkey Vulture
90. Upland Sandpiper
91. Veery
92. Vesper Sparrow
93. Warbling Vireo
94. Western Meadowlark
95. White-Breasted Nuthatch
96. White-Eyed Vireo
97. Willow Flycatcher
98. Wood Duck
99. Wood Thrush
100. Yellow Warbler
101. Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
102. Yellow-Breasted Chat
103. Yellow-Throated Vireo
-------
------- |