ABSTRACT
EVALUATING OHIO RIVER BASIN WATERS:
A WATER QUAILTY AND WATER RESOURCES INTERNSHIP WITH
THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER SANITATION COMMISSION
by Angela Lynn Defenbaugh
The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) was organized in 1948 to
direct the coordination and action of water quality improvement within the Ohio River Basin
(ORB). Numerous monitoring programs were developed to implement this intent, with focus on
conducting biological assessments, assessing chemical and physical attributes of waterways,
setting wastewater discharge standards, and promoting volunteer monitoring programs. During a
2013 field season internship, environmental specialists monitored ORB water sources through
biological, water quality, and water resource programs. Results from these programs indicate the
entire Ohio River “partially supports” fish consumption use, two-thirds of the Ohio River is
“impaired” for contact recreation use support, rivers and streams should be evaluated on a
national scale, and ORB water resources may be at risk from climate change effects. Observed
trends will supply policy makers with information to make wise decisions that effectively
manage, restore, and protect waters within the ORB.
EVALUATING OHIO RIVER BASIN WATERS:
A WATER QUAILTY AND WATER RESOURCES INTERNSHIP WITH
THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER SANITATION COMMISSION
An Internship Report
Submitted to the
Faculty of Miami University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Environmental Science
Institute for the Environment and Sustainability
by
Angela Lynn Defenbaugh
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio
2014
Major Advisor___________________________
Dr. Jonathan Levy
Committee Member___________________________
Dr. Thomas Crist
Committee Member___________________________
Dr. Donna McCollum
Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v
Chapter I: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
Organizational Structure .......................................................................................................... 2
Internship Unit ......................................................................................................................... 4
Internship Duties ......................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter II: Study Site..................................................................................................................... 7
The Ohio River ............................................................................................................................ 7
The Ohio River Basin .................................................................................................................. 8
Chapter III: Regulatory Framework............................................................................................. 11
Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................................ 11
Safe Drinking Water Act ........................................................................................................... 13
National Aquatic Resource Surveys .......................................................................................... 13
Chapter IV: Biological Programs................................................................................................. 14
Fish Tissue Contamination Study ............................................................................................. 14
Macroinvertebrate Surveying .................................................................................................... 17
Public Outreach Programs ......................................................................................................... 20
National Rivers and Streams Assessment ................................................................................. 21
Chapter V: Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 35
Ammonia and Total Dissolved Solids Study ............................................................................ 35
Contact Recreation Bacteria Sampling Program ....................................................................... 39
Chapter VI: Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 44
Ohio River Basin Climate Change Study.................................................................................. 45
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 51
References ..................................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix A: 1997-2004 Ohio River Water Quality Sample Results for (a) PCB Concentrations
and (b) Dioxin Concentrations ...................................................................................................... 59
ii
Appendix B: 2013/2014 NRSA Water Quality Indicators ........................................................... 60
Appendix C: 2013/2014 NRSA Sample Site Locations ............................................................... 61
Appendix D: ORSANCO 2013/2014 NRSA Sampling Sites ....................................................... 62
Appendix E: 2013/2014 NRSA Fact Sheet for Communities ...................................................... 64
Appendix F: 2013/2014 NRSA Nonwadeable Sampling Protocol Outline .................................. 66
Appendix G: 2013/2014 NRSA Wadeable Sampling Protocol Outline ....................................... 67
Appendix H: 2013/2014 NRSA Regions: (a) Climactic regions, (b) Ecoregions ........................ 68
Appendix I: 2008/2009 NRSA Water Quality Indicator Climactic Results ................................. 70
Appendix J: Contact Recreation Bacteria Sampling Locations .................................................... 73
Appendix K: Most Probable Number Table ................................................................................. 74
Appendix L: Contact Recreation Bacteria Sampling Results 2013 .............................................. 75
Appendix M: Contact Recreation E. coli Bacteria Sampling Results 2013 ................................. 92
Appendix N: ORSANCO Water Resources Committee Meeting Agenda ................................... 93
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: NARS schedule (USEPA 2013 (draft)) .......................................................................... 22
Table 2: NRSA indicators (USEPA 2013 (draft)). ....................................................................... 23
Table 3: Ohio River Basin temperature trends from 1976-2013(Braun 2013). ............................ 46
Table 4: Flow trends of select Ohio River Basin tributaries from 1986-2012 (Braun 2013). ...... 48
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: ORSANCO organizational chart (ORSANCO 2013b) ................................................... 3
Figure 2: Internship organizational structure .................................................................................. 5
Figure 3: Ohio River navigational dams (ORSANCO 2013a). ...................................................... 7
Figure 4: Ohio River Basin and major tributaries. .......................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Freshwater withdrawals in the Ohio River Basin (ORSANCO 2012b). ......................... 9
Figure 6: Ohio River Basin land use types (ORSANCO 2012).................................................... 10
Figure 7: ORSANCO fish tissue sampling locations (Thomas 2013). ......................................... 16
Figure 8: Hester-Dendy sampler. .................................................................................................. 18
Figure 9: Collected Hester-Dendy sampling unit. ........................................................................ 19
Figure 10: Life Below the Waterline aquarium in Paducah, KY. ................................................. 20
Figure 11: ORSANCO mobile aquarium locations 2013 (Thomas 2013). ................................... 21
Figure 12: Wadeable and Nonwadeable NRSA locations. ........................................................... 23
Figure 13: ORSANCO NRSA sampling sites 2013/2014. ........................................................... 24
Figure 14: ORSANCO progress on NRSA (Thomas 2013). ........................................................ 25
Figure 15: Constructed electrofishing boat. .................................................................................. 27
Figure 16: ORSANCO NRSA habitat crew and fish population crew. ........................................ 27
Figure 17: NRSA resampling procedures (USEPA 2013b, USEPA 2013c) ................................ 28
Figure 18: NRSA water sample processing. ................................................................................. 29
Figure 19: 2008/2009 NRSA biological results (USEPA 2013 (draft)). ...................................... 32
Figure 20: 2008/2009 NRSA water quality stressors (USEPA 2013 (draft)) ............................... 33
Figure 21: Ohio River Basin wastewater treatment total ammonia results (outliers/extremes). .. 37
Figure 22: Ohio River Basin wastewater treatment total ammonia results. ................................. 38
Figure 23: Contact recreation bacteria sampling locations (ORSANCO 2013). .......................... 40
Figure 24: Colilert process. ........................................................................................................... 41
Figure 25: E. coli geometric mean results 2013 (Thomas 2013). ................................................. 42
Figure 26: Freshwater use in the Ohio River Basin (ORSANCO 2012c). ................................... 44
Figure 27: Average seasonal temperature trends in IL from 1976-2013 (Braun 2013)................ 46
Figure 28: Change in Ohio River Basin precipitation from 1976-2012 (Braun 2013) ................. 47
Figure 29: Average seasonal flow of the Wabash River from 1986-2012 (Braun 2013) ............. 48
v
Figure 30: Tornado activity in the Ohio River Basin from 1950-2011 (Braun 2013). ................. 49
Figure 31: Ohio River Basin and surrounding interstate basins with compacts (Braun 2013)..... 50
Figure 32: 2013 ORSANCO sampling sites by project (Thomas 2013) ...................................... 51
vi
Commonly Used Acronyms
BWQS – Biological Water Quality Subcommittee
CRBSP – Contact Recreation Bacteria Sampling Program
CWA – Clean Water Act
DDT - Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
FWPCA – Federal Water Pollution Control Act
NARS – National Aquatic Resource Surveys
NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRSA – National Rivers and Streams Assessment
OEPA – Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
ORB – Ohio River Basin
ORMIn – Ohio River Macroinvertebrate Index
ORSANCO – Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
PBDE – Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether
PCB – Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCS – Pollution Control Standards
PFC – Perfluorinated Chemical
POTW – Publicly Owned Treatment Works
QA – Quality Assurance
QAPP – Quality Assurance Program Plan
QC – Quality Control
SOP – Standard Operating Procedure
TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load
USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency
WRC – Water Resources Committee
WSA – Wadeable Streams Assessment
WQS – Water Quality Standard
vii
For my parents, Ralph and Deb Defenbaugh. Thank you for raising me to fall in love with the
outdoors and providing, in every way possible, a path for me to achieve my dreams.
And for my brother, Daniel Defenbaugh. Anything is possible.
viii
Acknowledgements
My internship experience would not have been the same without the dedication and character of
my field crew members: Steve Braun, Environmental Specialist II, Danny Cleves, Fish
Taxonomist, and Ben Stayer, Electrofishing Intern. I am indebted to Steve for recognizing my
potential in water quality assessment, treating me as a colleague, and trusting me enough to take
charge in all aspects of my internship. And to Danny and Ben, for their wealth of knowledge and
expertise in fish population surveying. Thank you for introducing me to flying silver carp the
way they are meant to be observed.
I would also like to express the most sincere gratitude toward the rest of the staff at ORSANCO
for shaping my internship experience. To Jeff Thomas, Manager of Biological Programs, for
being our fearless leader, and Rob Tewes and Ryan Argo, Senior Aquatic Biologists, for their
continuous support during and after my internship. Thank you for showing me both the serious
and entertaining aspects of biological monitoring. Furthermore, a huge thank you to members of
the Water Resources Committee, especially Sam Dinkins, Manager of Water Resources
Assessment, for helping me bridge my internship between biological monitoring and water
resource assessment. Lastly, to the other interns who survived the trenches with me: Tony Bell,
Josh Dewyse, Christa Hurak, and Keara Pringle.
Additionally, I would like to thank my advisors and committee members at Miami University:
Dr. Jonathan Levy, Dr. Thomas Crist, and Dr. Donna McCollum. Without their support through
my professional experience, I would not have been able to accomplish this tremendous goal of a
Masters in Environmental Science. And a huge thank you to the rest of the IES staff and
affiliates, especially Suzanne Zazycki, J.D., for helping me develop my skills as an
Environmental Scientist over the past few years.
I am also eternally grateful to Dr. Keith Summerville, Associate Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences and Associate Professor of Environmental Science and Polity at Drake University. His
guidance and belief that I could contribute greatly to the environmental science profession
helped me turn my passion into a career. Additionally, his recommendation for Miami
University’s IES Masters program allowed me to continue my education and grow as a
professional in an interdisciplinary and motivating atmosphere.
Finally, I would like to recognize my family and friends for sticking with me along this journey.
It has been a rough and bumpy ride, but without the encouragement from each and every one of
you, I would not be where I am today. Little did I know as a child, 20 years later I would be able
to develop my passion into a career.
ix
Chapter I: Introduction
Candidates for a Masters of Environmental Science degree at Miami University must complete
an internship, thesis, or practicum to fulfill the professional experience outlined by the Institute
for the Environment and Sustainability (IES 2012). To obtain professional experience and
support for my Applied Ecology concentration, I chose to complete a four-month internship as a
Biological, Water Quality, and Water Resources Intern for the Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Background
As early as the 1900s, Ohio River water quality had been under scrutiny. By the 1930s, water
quality of the Ohio River significantly declined as a result of rapidly rising metropolitan
populations with growing industrial activity. These factors contributed to an increase in raw
sewage discharges and inappropriate disposal of untreated industrial waste directly into the river
system (USEPA, 2000), which posed a significant threat to the health, welfare, and recreational
uses of populations inhabiting the Ohio River Basin (ORB). At a 1936 congressional hearing on
navigable water pollution, Congressman Brent Spence testified that “the Ohio River is a
cesspool,” and the State Health Commissioner of Kentucky concluded “the Ohio River, from
Pittsburgh to Cairo, is an open sewer.” Ohio River water pollution conditions were so terrible
and overwhelmingly untreatable that cities across the ORB were forced to alter water supply
sources from the Ohio River to wells and other surrounding river systems, such as the
Muskingum River (USEPA 2000).
Because the Ohio River drainage basin spans multiple states, individual states lacked incentive to
take responsibility for the deteriorating state of the river. As a result, there was a rise in support
for federal intervention in water quality management. However, federal involvement was not
popular among the states due to competition for congressional grounds, and was even more
unpopular among industrial stakeholder interests who did not support altered handling of
discharged wastes (Clearly 1967).
Caught in a stand-still between the states and the federal government, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt established a planning and advisory board in 1933 called the National Planning Board
(later renamed the National Resources Board). This advisory board sought to create positive
attention surrounding state-developed regional agencies that would take leadership in the
improvement of local, state, and national well-being.
In 1935, the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce recognized the overwhelmingly degraded state of
the Ohio River and campaigned for regional action concerning water pollution control in the
ORB. This campaign brought together eight states situated within the ORB: Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Together, these eight
states drafted the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact, which outlined the
responsibilities, actions, and coordination of the member states to oversee current and future
water quality issues within the ORB. The Compact was signed by the eight member states,
ratified by Congress, and put into action on June 30, 1948. This was the same day President
1
Harry S. Truman signed the first federal law on pollution control: The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (Clearly 1967).
With a unified interstate water quality management agreement developed from the Compact, the
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) was organized to carry out the
direction, action, and coordination of water quality improvement within the ORB. ORSANCO
has since utilized its right to establish wastewater treatment standards within the ORB, conduct
surveys, recommend state legislation to achieve pollution control goals, and discuss water
pollution control action with any party that has an interest in water pollution control (Committee
on the Mississippi River and the Clean Water Act 2008). Numerous monitoring programs have
been developed to carry out this intent, focusing on: conducting biological assessments,
assessing chemical and physical attributes of waterways, performing specialized surveys and
studies for trend assessment, setting wastewater discharge standards, coordinating emergency
response actions for spills in the river system, and promoting public involvement through
volunteer monitoring programs (ORSANCO 2013b).
ORSANCO’s headquarters is located in Cincinnati, Ohio and comprises approximately 30 fulltime employees. Funding to support ORSANCO’s yearly budget is supplied by state and federal
agencies, and is calculated proportionally based on the states’ population and land area in the
ORB. ORSANCO receives a yearly budget of approximately $2.8 million: $1.4 million from the
states and $1.4 million from annual United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
grants (ORSANCO 2012). Additional income is provided by research grants and public or
private sector donations. In turn, the states and the public obtain:






Highly rated water quality and biological monitoring and assessment programs
Constant watch of services in spill detection and response
Consistent Ohio River discharge standards
Interstate coordination of federal mandated programs, such as the Clean Water Act
Public education events
Regional representation in national issues and broader geographic-based problem solving
(ORSANCO 2009).
Organizational Structure
To oversee the goals of ORSANCO, an Executive Board was developed that includes a
Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary/Treasurer, Executive Director/Chief Engineer, and three
Commissioners assigned by the state governor from each member state. These Commissioners
represent the opinions and values of each respective member state regarding water quality within
the ORB. There is also a federal commission representative, which brings the total to 25
Commissioners. Because ORSANCO operates as a commission, the organization functions as a
group of committees charged with the oversight of water quality in the ORB. ORSANCO’s
commission staff and legal counsel oversee all four categories of committees within ORSANCO:
standing committees, special committees, program advisory committees, and advisory
committees (Figure 1).
2
Figure 1: ORSANCO organizational chart (ORSANCO 2013b).
3
Internship Unit
My internship responsibilities were conducted under three separate organizational units within
ORSANCO: Biological Programs, Water Quality, and Water Resources. Originally, I was hired
as a Biological Intern and Water Quality Intern. Steve Braun, a Level II Environmental Specialist
and my supervisor, focuses on bacteria Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), water resources,
and water quality assessment and monitoring. His projects are directed by the Water Resources
Committee (WRC), but overlap with the Technical Committee and therefore, the Biological
Water Quality Subcommittee (BWQS). Due to the interdisciplinary nature of my supervisor’s
work, I was asked to carry out projects for Water Resources as well.
The majority of my internship responsibilities fell under Biological Programs. Within
ORSANCO, Biological Programs is represented under the BWQS of the Technical Committee.
The BWQS, led by Subcommittee Chair Jeff DeShon, directs and plans the biological
monitoring programs to ensure data collection requirements for ORSANCO and member states.
Jeff Thomas, Manager of Biological Programs, oversees all aspects of these biological
monitoring programs and is reported to by Senior Aquatic Biologists, Aquatic Biologists,
Environmental Scientists, and Contract Biologists. As a Biological Intern, I was classified as a
Contracted Intern under the direction of multiple Biological Programs staff (Figure 2).
My internship responsibilities also included a water quality component. While there is not a
specific water quality committee, all water quality activities fall under the Technical Committee
workgroups: 305(b) Report Coordinators, Emergency Response Coordinators, Nonpoint Source
Strategy, Combined Sewer Overflow, Source Water Assessment, TMDL Coordinators, Nutrient,
and Revaluation of Ohio River Temperature Criteria. These workgroups are run by Jason Hearth,
Manager of Technical Programs, who is reported to by Environmental Specialists III and
Environmental Specialists II. As a Water Quality Intern, I was classified as a Contracted Intern
under the direction of multiple Water Quality staff (Figure 2).
Finally, my internship experience involved a water resources aspect. Under the WRC,
ORSANCO’s Water Resources Department is run by Sam Dinkins, Manager of Water Resource
Assessment. He is reported to by Steve Braun, Environmental Specialist II. As a Water
Resources Intern, I was classified as a Contracted Intern under the direction of multiple Water
Resource staff (Figure 2).
4
Figure 2: Internship organizational structure
5
Internship Duties
ORSANCO’s Compact mandates “the Ohio River be capable of maintaining fish and other
aquatic life, suitable for recreational usage, and in safe and satisfactory condition for public and
industrial water supply” (ORSANCO 2012a). To complete these goals, numerous monitoring
and evaluation programs have been put into action:








Bimonthly Sampling (nutrients/ions)
Clean Metals Sampling
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring (operated by the US Army Corps
and Hydropower Facilities)
Fish Population Monitoring
Contact Recreation Bacteria Monitoring
Longitudinal and Tributary Bacteria Surveys
Fish Tissue Sampling
Special Studies (macroinvertebrates, public outreach, climate change)
Working simultaneously as a Biological Intern, a Water Quality Intern, and a Water Resources
Intern, I was able to study, discuss, and evaluate water quality and quantity concerns within the
ORB through multiple monitoring programs.
As a Biological Intern, I had the opportunity to gain experience in multiple surveying techniques
that utilize physical, chemical, and biological criteria to assess river system health. These
surveying techniques were applied toward fish tissue sampling, macroinvertebrate surveys,
public outreach events across the ORB, and the 2013/2014 NRSA (Chapter IV).
As a Water Quality Intern, I focused on two specific projects: a wastewater treatment plant data
request, and a contact recreation bacteria sampling program (Chapter V).
As a Water Resources Intern, I partook in a climate change project under jurisdiction of the
WRC (Chapter VI).
Supervision and Reporting
My duties as a Biological, Water Quality, and Water Resources Intern were directly supervised
by Steve Braun, Environmental Specialist II for ORSANCO. Through him, I was trained in
ORSANCO’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) (ORSANCO 2013b) as well as Quality
Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) procedures related to the NRSA project (USEPA
2013a). I reported to other lead Biological Programs staff, Water Quality Staff, and WRC staff as
necessary for any related assignments throughout the course of my internship.
6
Chapter II: Study Site
The Ohio River
Beginning at the confluence of the Allegheny and the Monongahela Rivers in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania and draining into the Mississippi River near Cairo, Illinois lies the 10th longest
river in the United States: the Ohio River. Stretching approximately 981 miles, the Ohio River
borders or flows through 6 states: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia.
The Ohio River is the largest single tributary to the Mississippi River by flow, with an average
annual discharge of 260,000 cfs, ranking 3rd in the country (USEPA 2000, ORSANCO 2012a).
The Ohio River averages approximately 0.5 miles in width. The widest point is 1 mile, located at
the Smithland Dam near Louisville, Kentucky (ORSANCO 2013b). The Ohio River is naturally
shallow, averaging about 24 feet, but has been artificially deepened by a series of 20 locks and
dams (Figure 3). The entire river was channelized by 1929 with submergible wicket dams, which
altered the river into multiple backwater pools. High-lift permanent dams have replaced the
originals dams built by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1830 (Tennant et al 1990).
Today, the Ohio River is used to support navigation for more than 230 million tons of cargo
annually (70% of which is coal and other energy products), power generation from 49 plants,
public water supply for more than 5 million people from 33 intakes, warm-water habitats for
more than 120 fish species, and numerous recreational purposes (USEPA 2002).
Figure 3: Ohio River navigational dams (ORSANCO 2013a).
7
The riverbed of the Ohio River drops 429 feet from the headwaters to the confluence with the
Mississippi River, creating a drainage area of 205,000 square miles, or approximately 5% of the
U.S.’s mainland (ORSANCO 2012a). This drainage area is most commonly known as the ORB.
The Ohio River Basin
The ORB reaches 1,306 miles from the headwaters of the Allegheny River to the where the Ohio
River meets the Mississippi River. Nineteen major tributaries discharge into the Ohio River
(Figure 4), which creates a drainage area expanding into 14 states and 3 USEPA regions: Region
3, Region 4, and Region 5 (Benke and Cushing 2011). Approximately 25 million people, or 10%
of the U.S. population, inhabit the ORB (USEPA 2000), 10% of whom receive their water from
the Ohio River (Figure 5). More than 3,700 municipalities, 1,800 industries, and 3 major cities
(Louisville, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh) depend on the ORB for water supply.
Figure 4: Ohio River Basin and major tributaries.
8
Figure 5: Freshwater withdrawals in the Ohio River Basin (ORSANCO 2012b).
Land Use in the ORB
Historically, the ORB was heavily dominated by a forest landscape. Today, land use within the
ORB is highly diverse but is dominated by agricultural use, with large concentrations of urban
areas and industrial-based operations such as coal mining, oil drilling, and gas drilling (Figure 6)
(Benke and Cushing 2011). Approximately 70-80% of the U.S.’s reservoir of bituminous coal is
found within the ORB, along with large amounts of natural gas and oil (USEPA 2000).
Freshwater systems, like rivers and streams, are increasingly susceptible to contamination and
degradation from outside influences. Land use has been a major driver of runoff characteristics
within the ORB, which in turn influences the basin’s water quality (ORSANCO 2012a).
Transitioning from a forest-dominated to an agriculturally-dominated habitat with large urban
areas, water sources within the ORB have long been susceptible to contamination. The leading
cause of contamination to freshwater systems in the ORB is nonpoint source pollution
(ORSANCO 2013b). Certain contributors, such as nutrients from agricultural and urban runoff,
have been observed to impact freshwater systems more frequently and at higher concentrations
than in the past (Chapin et al, 2011). Although better agricultural practices have reduced runoff
within the ORB, soil erosion and fertilizer pollution continue to impact the water sources. Point
source pollution contributors also continue to pose a threat to water quality within the ORB
through permitted industrial discharges, such as power-generating facilities and municipal waste
dischargers (ORSANCO 2012a).
9
Figure 6: Ohio River Basin land use types (ORSANCO 2012).
Contamination impacts have been apparent mostly in the distribution of freshwater organisms,
both within the ORB and the U.S.. Statistically, more species of fish, freshwater mussels, and
crayfish are found within the ORB than in any other U.S. basin. However, they are also more
endangered in the ORB than anywhere else due to a high frequency of habitat degradation and
decreased water quality (Benke and Cushing 2011). Within the ORB, ORSANCO has been a
leading organization in the assessment of the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of
rivers and streams under a framework of regulatory laws and monitoring programs (Karr, 1991).
10
Chapter III: Regulatory Framework
The Ohio River, in addition to many water bodies throughout the nation, has faced a long history
of endeavors to control water pollution. Water quality issues came to the forefront of public
opinion near the late 1960s, with national coverage of events such as the surface fire on the
Cuyahoga River in northeastern Ohio in 1969. This event drew attention to the degraded state of
water quality across the country, and the need for a united front to restore the natural
environment. This united front came in the formation of national agencies, such as the USEPA in
1970 to develop, monitor, and enforce environmental laws and policies, as well state agencies,
such as the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) in 1972, to ensure compliance with
federal and state environmental laws (Zeitler 2001).
To manage our nation’s water quality, an abundance of environmental policies and surveying
techniques with specified criteria and indices have been developed by federal, state, local, and
private agencies. ORSANCO has taken a leading role in monitoring and overall health of waters
within the ORB. Historic water quality legislation has allowed this interstate organization to play
such a role, most importantly through the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), and the National Aquatic Resource Survey (NARS).
Clean Water Act
On the same day in 1948, eight signatory states signed the ORSANCO Compact and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) was passed. The FWPCA of 1948 developed initial water
quality management programs, and provided funding for state and local governments to carry out
these programs. However, enforcement of this Act was limited to interstate waters (USEPA
2013). Eventually, public concern for water pollution control led to major amendments of the
FWPCA, establishing the FWPCA of 1972. This Act is most commonly known as the Clean
Water Act (CWA) of 1972, and created a foundation for regulating pollution discharges into U.S.
waters, as well as regulating water quality standards for surface waters. Additional amendments
have been made to the CWA since the 1970s, such as the CWA of 1977 and the Water Quality
Act of 1987.
The CWA has become the primary U.S. federal law governing water pollution. The CWA
prioritizes support of research to protect the nation’s rivers and streams from nonpoint source
pollution, and the restoration and maintenance of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity
of these waters. ORSANCO helps carry out requirements in sections of the CWA, with guidance
from Sections 106, 301/402, 303(d), and 305(b) (Clean Water Act of 1972):
Section 106
This section of the CWA gives the USEPA the ability to provide federal funding to states and
interstate agencies “to establish and implement ongoing water pollution control programs”
(Clean Water Act of 1972). Aspects of these programs include permitting, developing water
quality standards (WQS) and TMDLs, surveillance, water quality monitoring and enforcement,
11
providing advice and assistance to local agencies, training, and providing information to the
public. ORSANCO works closely with the OEPA and the USEPA to develop basin-wide
approaches to water quality monitoring, which qualifies ORSANCO for Water Pollution Control
Program grants.
Section 301 and 402
Sections 301 and 402 of the CWA outline the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). Under the NPDES, point source pollution, such as industrial and municipal facilities,
cannot be discharged into surface waters without a permit. This permitting program is managed
by both the USEPA and state agencies. As an interstate agency, ORSANCO is authorized to
create sewage and industrial waste discharge standards for all direct discharges into the Ohio
River. These standards are reviewed every 3 years, and are used as a baseline for individual
ORB states to that may want to develop and adopt stricter regulations.
Additionally, ORSANCO works closely with Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW),
commonly known as municipal sewage treatment plants, within the ORB to help them meet
secondary treatment standards. In 1970, ORSANCO Pollution Control Standard (PCS) 1-70
updated PCSs established in 1954 to make secondary treatment standards the minimum level
required for all plants in the ORB (Clearly 1967).
Section 301 also addresses the issues of stormwater runoff, which causes significant water
quality impairment, by requiring industrial stormwater dischargers and municipal separate storm
sewer systems (MS4s) to obtain NPDES permits. ORSANCO’s water quality unit conducts
studies on the discharge levels of MS4s.
Section 303(d)
As mentioned above, ORSANCO works closely with the USEPA and contracting companies,
such as TetraTech, to develop and set WQSs and TMDLs within the ORB. Section 303(d) of the
CWA specifically deals with the development of TMDLs, the maximum amount of a pollutant a
water body can collect and still meet WQSs. WQSs set allowable pollutant levels for rivers,
streams, lakes, and wetlands. They are risk-based limits that apply water quality criteria to
protect the designated uses of these water bodies. Water bodies that do not meet their set WQSs
are put on a Section 303(d) list and must have TMDL development or management. Although
ORSANCO helps set WQSs, it is not required to prepare a 303(d) list.
Section 305(b)
Section 305(b) of the CWA is the main mechanism used to provide information on general water
quality conditions to Congress and the public, and its contents assist in the development and
revision of water quality action across the country. This section requires states, tribes, and
territories to submit biennial reports that include all information relevant to designated use on
healthy, threatened, or impaired waters. These biennial reports are reviewed and presented in the
form of a 305(b) report, the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress (USEPA
2013). ORSANCO conducts studies on the four designated uses for the Ohio River: warm water
aquatic life, public water supply, contact recreation, and fish consumption (ORSANCO 2012a).
The data from these studies are then analyzed and summarized in the required 305(b) reports.
12
Integrated Report
The Integrated Report is a combination of 303(d) and 305(b) requirements, and may be utilized
by states EPAs to submit water quality assessment data in a single report. Each state completes
an Integrated List, which contains information on impaired waters requiring TMDLs.
ORSANCO is not required to compile an Integrated List, but they do prepare one as a guidance
tool for states, including Ohio River segments to be included on the states’ 303(d) lists
(ORSANCO 2012a).
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) passed in 1974, and is the main federal law that ensures
the quality of U.S. drinking water. Under this act, the USEPA is required to develop WQSs for
drinking water and regulate the states and water suppliers who implement the WQSs (USEPA
2004). The SDWA contains provisions for a Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) which
requires states to “delineate source water protection areas for public water systems, identify the
origins of regulated and certain unregulated contaminants in the delineated areas, determine the
susceptibility of public water supplies to contamination by sources inventories, and describe how
the states will attempt to coordinate assessments of interstate waterways with other states, tribes,
and nations, known as the ‘maximum practical effort’” (ORSANCO 2013b). ORSANCO has
developed work groups to discuss interstate components of the SWAP and how they may apply
to the ORB. Using information from these work groups, ORSANCO is in the process of
developing approaches for states for outlining and recording data on 33 surface water intakes
within the ORB. The long-term plan for this information is to develop a report that can be
tailored to and utilized by individual ORB states’ source water protection program actions.
National Aquatic Resource Surveys
The National Water Quality Inventory Report does not assess the conditions of our nation’s
waters on a national scale or over the long-term. To meet this need, the USEPA instituted the
National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS) in 2006. NARS is a series of national assessments
that will provide consistent data across the nation. These assessments are implemented through
the USEPA, states, and tribes based on probability-based surveys conducted every five years.
These assessments can then be used to track changes in U.S. waters over time, and worked into
policies and future actions that will address the improvement of water quality. Currently, four
different water resources are studied on a rotating basis: rivers and streams, lakes, coastal waters,
and wetlands (USEPA 2013b, USEPA 2013c).
Because of ORSANCO’s monitoring and assessment of water quality within the ORB, they have
taken on responsibilities pertaining to data collection for the 2013/2014 National Rivers and
Streams Assessment (NRSA).
13
Chapter IV: Biological Programs
There has been much debate over which criteria and indices most accurately represent the current
health status of a river or stream, especially in relation to reporting habitat conditions (Karr 1999,
Bain and Stevenson 1999). Most recently, it has been found that physical habitat and water
chemistry indicators alone do not sufficiently detect river and stream health (Karr 1991, Bartram
and Balance 1996). While these parameters may be easily measured and standardized, they do
not identify certain sources of environmental stress and imbalance that biological criteria can
pick up. Therefore, the integration of physical, chemical, and biological indicators to assess river
and stream health has proven most representative of actual river and stream condition.
The goal of ORSANCO’s Biological Program is to quantitatively and qualitatively measure and
report the overall health of the Ohio River system. This goal is carried out through completing
three objectives: 1) report on the condition of aquatic life-use of the Ohio River, 2) educate ORB
residents about the Ohio River system, and 3) assess diversity and characterize the distribution of
fish and macroinvertebrates in the Ohio River through real-time surveys that assess biological
criteria, or “biocriteria.” Biocriteria utilize the abundance and distribution of fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate communities to determine the quality of streams based on fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages. These assessments, when conducted at a river-wide scale, can be
used to characterize and compare water quality along the entire Ohio River (Emery and Vicory
1998). Biological condition has been determined to be one of the most comprehensive indicators
of water quality; when a water body exhibits healthy biological conditions, chemical and
physical water quality indicators have been shown to be in good condition as well (USEPA 2013
(draft)).
The data collected from these biocriteria are analyzed and results are provided for monitoring
projects, such as the CWA 305(b) biennial report. Results from biocriteria serve a variety of
functions: detect problems that other methods fail to estimate, provide a systematic process for
assessing the effectiveness of water management programs and permits, and help measure
current status and trends (ORSANCO 2013b).
I participated in projects related to fish tissue collection, macroinvertebrate surveying, public
outreach, and the 2013/2014 NRSA to help complete the objectives of Biological Programs.
Fish Tissue Contamination Study
Many people utilize the Ohio River for recreational fishing, most of whom have been found to
save and consume their catch. Due to the history of poor water quality within the ORB,
ORSANCO began a fish tissue contaminants program in 1975 to help provide fish consumption
advisories to protect human health. Originally, this program focused on pollutants such as
pesticides and other organic chemicals. However, most recreationally important fish species have
great longevity that provides a larger window for the assessment of contaminants that take a long
time to bioaccumulate, such as methylmercury.
14
ORSANCO began studying mercury bioaccumulation in 2009, the results of which indicated
small fish species contained an excess of mercury (>0.3ppm) in their systems. However, water
quality results did not mirror this conclusion; water sample analysis did not show high mercury
content (ORSANCO 2012a). Due to evidence that mercury concentrations may be directly
correlated to body weight and trophic status within fish species (Stokes and Wren 1987),
ORSANCO has chosen to focus attention on larger fish in mercury bioaccumulation studies.
Currently, fish tissue contamination results are generated for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
mercury (total and methyl), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), chlordanes, polybrominated
diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), and dioxins. The fish tissue
contaminants of main concern are PCBs and mercury. These fish tissue contamination results
help determine whether ORSANCO PCSs are supporting diverse and healthy ecosystems along
the Ohio River. Results are also included in the CWA 305(b) biennial reports under fish
consumption use.
Fish Tissue Collection
To determine contaminant concentrations in ORB fish, fish tissue samples are collected from
July to October and shipped to contract laboratories to be analyzed. Contamination results are
returned to ORSANCO within 60 days, and then distributed to ORB states so that human health
advisories can be adjusted appropriately. To avoid conflicting health advisory statements,
ORSANCO developed the Ohio River Fish Consumption Advisory Protocol (ORFCAP) to
distribute health advisories for the Ohio River. These health advisories are available for public
viewing online.
During the 2013 field season, 75 fish vouchers were obtained from fixed collection stations
along the Ohio River (Figure 7). ORSANCO’s Biological Programs staff collected the samples
using standard electrofishing techniques (ORSANCO 2010) and following their own quality
assurance program plan (QAPP) (ORSANCO 2013a). After collection, samples were
individually wrapped in aluminum foil and preserved on ice until they could be brought back to
ORSANCO’s office.
The fish species collected were those most likely to be consumed; channel catfish, freshwater
drum, largemouth bass, and hybrid striped bass. Targeting highly consumed fish species assured
that contaminant levels were relevant to human consumption trends and applicable human
consumption advisories could be developed.
15
Figure 7: ORSANCO fish tissue sampling locations (Thomas 2013).
Data Collection
Once brought back to the office, I assisted Biological Programs staff in determining and
recording fish vouchers’ species name, gender, weight, and length. Fish voucher length was
recorded to nearest 3cm size class; size class 1 (0.1-0.3cm) and size class 2 (3.1-6cm) I then
scaled and filleted fish vouchers according to standard operating procedures (ORSANCO
2011a). To maintain consistency between samples, the left side of each fish voucher was filleted,
rinsed, and packaged in aluminum foil. If the fish were small in size, a fillet was taken from both
the left and right sides to ensure enough tissue for analysis. I then labeled the foil packages with
the location of collection, date of collection, species name, number of fish, the side from which
the fillet came, and the name of the fillet collector. The foil packages were placed in labeled
plastic bags, and the labeled plastic bags were surrounded with ice in a marked cooler. Coolers
were shipped by Biological Programs staff to third-party laboratories for analysis.
Conclusions
Recent studies on fish tissue analysis have concluded that concentrations of organic pollutants,
such as PCBs, PBDEs, and DDT are present in great rivers (Upper Mississippi, Missouri, and
Ohio rivers) across the central U.S. These organic pollutants are known to be unhealthy if
16
ingested (ORSANCO 2013). In these studies, concentrations were highest in the Ohio River,
with results from the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers following close behind. Levels of PCBs
were well above acceptable limits for human health in 98% of Ohio River miles, and PBDEs
were highest in large fish on the Ohio River (Blocksom et al 2010).
ORSANCO’s PCB, dioxin, and methylmercury fish tissue results from the 2013 field season will
be utilized to determine fish consumption use for the Ohio River. Water quality samples for
PCBs and dioxin will also be collected to support fish tissue results. Depending on the status of
fish tissue and water quality results, the Ohio River will be deemed as “fully supporting,”
“partially supporting,” or “not supporting” fish consumption use. Each fish consumption use
designation is described below:



“Fully supporting”: Water quality criteria for the protection of human health from fish
consumption are exceeded in no more than 10% of water samples, and no fish tissue
criteria are exceeded.
“Partially supporting”: Water quality criteria for the protection of human health from fish
consumption are exceeded in more than 10% of samples, or fish tissue criteria are
exceeded.
“Not supporting”: Fish tissue criteria are exceeded in many commonly consumed species
(ORSANCO 2012a).
ORSANCO previously developed WQSs for dioxin and PCBs to estimate thresholds in the water
column for these water quality parameters that, if exceeded, would cause the concentrations in
fish tissue to be elevated beyond safe consumption levels. From 1997-2004, ORSANCO
conducted water column surveys for dioxin and PCBs, and results exceeded the WQSs for these
water quality parameters (Appendix A). Regardless of actual fish tissue concentrations of dioxin
and PCBs, ORSANCO reported the entire Ohio River as “partially supporting” fish consumption
use for these water quality parameters in the 2012 305(b) report (ORSANCO 2012a). However,
fish tissue continues to be analyzed for concentrations of dioxin and PCBs to support the
conclusions from the previously observed water column violations.
In the past, conclusions concerning appropriate methylmercury concentrations in fish tissue had
not been made due to limited data for a limited number of species in varying trophic levels.
However, for the upcoming 305(b) report, ORSANCO believes there will be enough data from
both water column and fish tissue studies to make an appropriate assessment on the status of
methylmercury concentrations in fish tissue (ORSANCO 2012a).
Macroinvertebrate Surveying
ORSANCO has used biocriteria to assess water quality within the ORB since the late 1950s
(USEPA, 2002), but ORSANCO’s Biological Programs has developed more sophisticated
approaches to utilizing biocriteria since the 1990s. Both fish population and macroinvertebrate
indices have been developed for the Ohio River, but my involvement in ORSANCO biocriteria
assessment pertained solely to the macroinvertebrate index.
17
Macroinvertebrates are utilized as a water quality indicator because their presence in rivers and
streams directly reflects the environmental conditions of their surroundings. Several
characteristics make macroinvertebrates prime indicators of water quality: they are relatively
immobile, easy to sample in large numbers, and engineered for a short lifespan. Their short
lifespan allows them to react to environmental changes quickly: pollution-tolerant species will
replace pollution-intolerant species until conditions become too toxic and present species are
exterminated. Prominent intolerant genera found in the Ohio River include mayflies, stoneflies,
and caddisflies. When macroinvertebrate diversity is high, or when all intolerant genera are
represented, the water quality in the surrounding environment has to be stable enough to support
those organisms (Emery and Vicory 1998).
Ohio River Macroinvertebrate Index
Historically, macroinvertebrate indices have been used on smaller tributaries to target species
that are highly sensitive to pollution and are relatively immobile. However, aquatic biologists at
ORSANCO were recently able to create a multimetric macroinvertebrate index specifically to
determine the health of the larger water body Ohio River called the Ohio River
Macroinvertebrate Index (ORMIn). ORMIn specializes in combining multiple measures of
macroinvertebrate assemblage into a single score that determines how much current sampling
events deviate from previous sample events. By including multiple measures within the index,
such as species habits, species tolerances, feeding habits, and taxonomic groups, a more sensitive
index can be provided to pick up on trends within macroinvertebrate assemblages and can give
the indicator more strength in assessment. ORMIn allows ORSANCO to conduct
macroinvertebrate sampling for site-specific studies, pool-wide studies, and river-wide surveys.
Two specific means of collecting data for ORMIn were tested in the development of the index,
and have been determined to provide the most sensitive index results: Hester-Dendy (HD)
samplers and shoreline kicks using a kick net (Applegate et al 2007).
Hester-Dendy Sampling
Data for the macroinvertebrate index were collected at ORSANCO through both quantitative and
qualitative surveying methods following the Biological Programs QAPP (ORSANCO 2013a).
Quantitative methodology was carried out through
use of modified HD samplers, in both shallow and
deep waters. HD samplers are multi-plate artificial
substrates made of 1/8 inch Masonite cardboard cut
into 3-inch square plates, and 1-inch square spacers
(Hester and Dendy 1962). I constructed HD samplers
by placing eight plates and twelve spacers on a ¼ by
¼ inch eyebolt, so there were three single spacers
(1/8 inch), three double spacers (¼ inch), and one
triple spacer (3/8 inch) between plates. Plates and
spacers were secured to the eyebolt with two ¼ inch
washers and one ¼ inch nut (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Hester-Dendy sampler.
18
Individual HD samplers were combined into sampling units, a series of five HD samplers bound
together in a circle with 1/8 inch twine or cords such that the eyebolts from each individual HD
sampler are facing inward. I assembled these sampling units in late June/early July 2013, and
Biological Programs staff placed them across the Ohio River in mid September to take advantage
of low flow conditions during early fall. For three pools across the Ohio River, one HD sampling
unit was placed at 15 locations within each pool selected through a random, probability-based
survey design by the EPA (ORSANCO 2011).
HD sampling units were retrieved by
Biological Programs staff in late October 2013
(Figure 9), approximately six weeks after
placement to provide ample time for
macroinvertebrate colonization. The HD
sampling units were approached from
downstream to prevent substrate disturbance
surrounding the HD sampling units, detached
from the cement blocks, and placed into a fivegallon bucket filled with water. The plates of
each HD sampler were disassembled from the
eye bolt, scraped or brushed using another
plate while submerged in water, and rinsed
Figure 9: Collected Hester-Dendy sampling unit.
with distilled water. After all plates had been
scraped and rinsed, the water containing remnants from the plates were filtered through a
standard #30 sieve and the bucket rinsed until all residue was contained in a sample container.
The samples were preserved using 10% formalin, and shipped in a third-party laboratory for
analysis. At the same time HD sampling units were retrieved, Biological Programs staff also
conducted shoreline kicks as a qualitative multiple habitat approach to collecting
macroinvertebrate assemblages (ORSANCO 2011).
Validity of Artificial Substrates
Use of artificial substrates, like HD samplers, assumes macroinvertebrates colonize artificial
substrates as they would a natural substrate. This factor is important when determining if the
collected macroinvertebrate assemblage is representative of the macroinvertebrate community in
question. The use of an artificial substrate to collect macroinvertebrates assumes that the
macroinvertebrate assemblage is accurately represented and that the macroinvertebrates respond
to the artificial substrate in the same way they would a natural substrate (Rosenberg and Resh
1982). In habitats where wood is most common, HD samplers have been found to be more
precise in mirroring the natural substrates (Rinella and Feminella 2005). On a river prone to lots
of woody debris, such as the Ohio River, HD samplers and many other artificial substrates are
comprised of material meant to mock woody substrates (ORSANCO 2011).
19
Public Outreach Programs
ORSANCO actively incorporates public participation in water quality assessment within the
ORB. To execute this intent, Biological Programs assists in the development and execution of
public water quality education events across the ORB. Programs run during 2013 included River
Sweep, Riverwatchers, the Foundation for Ohio River Education (FORE), and Life Below the
Waterline. Life Below the Waterline, a traveling freshwater aquarium, is one of the most popular
and longest running public education programs funded by ORSANCO.
Life Below the Waterline
Life Below the Waterline utilizes a traveling freshwater aquarium run by ORSANCO to display
the diversity of the fish species within the Ohio River, and demonstrate a visual representation of
the improvement in Ohio River water quality (Figure 10). Communities, school groups, and
other organizations can rent the aquarium for display at river-related events throughout the ORB.
The aquarium holds 2,200 gallons of water, and Ohio River fish species that are collected
through standard electrofishing protocol (ORSANCO 2010). ORSANCO’s electrofishing team
works to provide a diverse fish species collection for display, but ultimately obtains a
representative sample of which fish species are currently inhabiting certain areas.
Figure 10: Life Below the Waterline aquarium in Paducah, KY.
Throughout the 2013 field season, the aquarium was present at events in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia (Figure 11). At certain locations, I helped Biological
Programs staff fill the aquarium with water and fish species from sites along the Ohio River that
were close to the aquarium location. When the aquarium was set up, I was able to interact with
20
local residents by answering questions about Ohio River fish species and water quality issues
within the ORB.
Figure 11: ORSANCO mobile aquarium locations 2013 (Thomas 2013).
Increased water quality awareness throughout the ORB is the hope that stems from the
promotion of ORSANCO water quality goals to local residents at public outreach events. With
more local residents talking about water quality issues within their hometowns, ORSANCO can
provide unbiased quantitative information on the current status of water quality and engage
residents as critical stakeholders in the management of ORB water quality. Typically, study sites
such as the ORB may discourage people and leave them feeling disengaged from water quality
issues because the scope of the issues may seem too large for individuals to make a difference
(Mayer and Frantz 2004). However, ORSANCO’s public outreach education programs allow
local residents to discuss what difference they can make on an issue that spans both basin-wide
and at the local level.
National Rivers and Streams Assessment
Rivers and streams across the nation in healthy condition provide multiple ecosystem functions
and services: a source of drinking water, wastewater dilution, pollution filtering, erosion control,
habitat for fish and other aquatic species, irrigation for crops, hydroelectricity, and recreational
and commercial opportunities (Loomis et al. 2000). Even the smallest of streams plays a
prominent role in providing these benefits. To ensure the quality and continued support of these
21
water sources, rivers and streams have been assessed by physical, chemical, and biological
indicators (USEPA 2013).
The variability of assessment methods within physical, chemical, and biological indicators has
been found to hinder the ability of agencies to compare and condense results into valuable water
quality conclusions and trends. Variability is most widely observed in habitat assessment
approaches, but unsuitable collections of fish habitat information by fishery agencies across the
country have also been observed (Bain and Stevenson, 1999). This observation has been traced
to inadequate or underdeveloped goals for collecting river and stream water quality information.
Therefore, a more defined purpose for the collection of biological criteria has been warranted. To
account for this, and the lack of any long-term assessment of our nation’s waters and the national
scale, the USEPA developed the National Aquatic Resource Survey (NARS) in 2006 to maintain
consistency within data collection methodology and analysis (USEPA 2013 Wadeable, USEPA
2013 Non-Wadeable). The NARS is a national assessment of four water source categories: lakes,
rivers and streams, coastal, and wetlands. The assessment of these four water source categories
has been on a rotating cycle since 2006 (Table 1).
Table 1: National Aquatic Resource Surveys schedule (USEPA 2013 (draft)).
As part of the NARS, the National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA) serves to produce a
national assessment of our nation’s rivers and streams. The NRSA has become a collaborative
effort of federal, state, and university organizations to carry out the first baseline statistical
survey of the nation’s larger rivers. The long-term goal of the project is to “determine whether
our rivers and streams are getting cleaner and how we might best invest in protecting and
restoring them” (USEPA 2013 (draft)).
The NRSA has been designed to answer the following questions:
1) What is the current condition of the nation’s rivers and streams as reported nationally and
regionally?
2) Which stressors are contributing the most to the degradation of river and stream
condition?
3) What are the trends in stream condition since the Wadeable Streams Assessment (WSA)
in 2004/2005?
4) What are the trends in river and stream condition since the 2008/2009 NRSA?
River and Stream Condition Indicators
The 2013/2014 NRSA will work to answer these questions through the collection and analysis of
multiple river and stream health indicators (Table 2).
22
Table 2: National Rivers and Streams Assessment indicators (USEPA 2013 (draft)).
River and stream health indicators have been further broken down by the USEPA into core
indicators and supplemental indicators (Appendix B) Core indicators were collected during the
2008/2009 NRSA, and are directly applicable to water quality analysis outlined in the CWA
(CWA 1972). Supplemental indicators were developed to be tested during the 2013/2014 NRSA,
and are still researched for their applicability to water quality assessment under CWA programs
or have never before been tested on the national scale. The protocol for collecting indicator data
was also divided based on the type of water body being sampled: wadeable or nonwadeable.
The current schedule for the NARS as set forth by the USEPA is on a rotating 5-year cycle.
(Table 1). The first round of the NRSA was conducted in 2008/2009, and is currently in a second
cycle during 2013/2014.The NRSA is in the 2013 Field Season, and findings from the 2013/2014
NRSA expect to be issued in a national report during 2016.
Target Study Area
The target population for the 2013/2014 NRSA
were all streams and rivers within the continental
US states that had flowing water during 2013 and
2014 field seasons (June-September). Sampling
sites were selected by the USEPA using an unequal
probability-based survey, which weighted the
difference in size between streams and rivers. By
nature rivers tend to be spatially larger than streams,
and should therefore be sampled at a higher rate to
obtain appropriately proportioned data.
The sample was taken from the National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD) in a 1:100,000 scale
map. In total, 1800 sampling sites were identified
by Strahler stream order (Appendix C): 900 Strahler
Order 1-4 and 900 Strahler Order 5 and above.
Strahler Order 1-4 were deemed “Wadeable” and
Strahler Order 5 and above were deemed “Nonwadeable (Figure 12).”
Figure 12: (Top) Wadeable, Big Cave Run
Creek (Bottom) Nonwadeable, Allegheny
River.
23
Revisit Sampling Sites
The purpose of the 2013/2014 NRSA is to evaluate change in river and stream condition from
the 2008/2009 NRSA. To accomplish this purpose, revisit sites were developed as a means of
comparison. These sites were sampled in the 2008/2009 NRSA, and will be sampled again
during the 2013/2014 NRSA. Of the 900 Strahler Order 1-4 sites, 420 were selected as revisit
sites. Of the 900 Strahler Order 5 and above sites, 390 were selected as revisit sites (USEPA
2013b, USEPA 2013c).
Site Distribution
NRSA sites were distributed for sampling using a hierarchical system. The USEPA offered
sampling sites to the States, and any sampling sites not chosen were then presented by the States
to governmental agencies, such as ORSANCO. After governmental agencies decided which
sampling sites they wanted to take on, any remaining sampling sites were offered to contracting
companies, such as the Midwest Biodiversity Institute and Tetra Tech.
ORSANCO chose to take on 44 of the 1800 sites: 39 sites and 5 QA/QC resample sites located
within the ORB (Figure 13). During the 2013 field season, I completed 24 sites and 3 QA/QC
resample sites with an NRSA field crew. The remaining 15 sites and 2 QA/QC resample sites
will be completed during the 2014 field season (Figure 14, Appendix D).
Figure 13: ORSANCO National Rivers and Streams Assessment sampling sites 2013/2014.
24
Figure 14: Current ORSANCO progress on 2013/2014 National Rivers and Streams Assessment.
Green sample sites were completed during the 2013 field season. Red sample sites will be
completed during the 2014 field season (Thomas 2013).
Sampling Preparation
To prepare for 2013/2014 NRSA sampling, I completed multiple pre-sampling tasks throughout
the field season. These tasks included laying out sampling sites, field reconnaissance, and
preparing field equipment.
Site Layout
ORSANCO was provided with “x-site” location coordinates for each sampling site. The x-site
for each sampling site is the mid-point of the sampling reach, and is used to determine the extent
of the sampling reach. However, the x-site for sampling sites were laid out differently depending
on if the sampling site was in a nonwadeable or wadeable body of water. Nonwadeable site
layout was developed using Google Earth imagery. The USEPA provided compressed data files
(.kmz files) of 2013/2014 NRSA sampling sites, and ORSANCO 2013/2014 NRSA sampling
sites were extracted from these files. Each sampling site included the name of the water body, the
site ID given to the water body, whether the water body was nonwadeable or wadeable, and the
xy coordinates of the x-site. At the x-site, the wetted width was measured and multiplied by 40 to
obtain the total sampling reach. The total sampling reach was then divided by 10 to obtain the
25
length of the 11 transects necessary for sampling (USEPA 2013a). If the calculated sampling
reach covered areas that would inhibit appropriate sampling, such as the presence of dams or
severe riffles, the sampling reach was moved upstream or downstream of the barrier. Transect xy
coordinates were recorded and imported into Google Earth for visual representation of the
sampling reach. I imported these xy coordinates into hand-held GPS units that were utilized in
the field to mark transects.
While I laid out nonwadeable sites in-office, I also laid out wadeable sites on-site. I drove to the
provided x-site locations for wadeable sites, and measured the wetted width of the water body inperson. Like nonwadeable sites, the wetted width was multiplied by 40 to obtain the sampling
reach and then divided by 10 to obtain the length of the 11 transects.
Field Reconnaissance
For both nonwadeable and wadeable sampling sites, field reconnaissance and contact with local
landowners was carried out when necessary. Access points to water bodies were plotted ahead of
time using Google Earth imagery, but were occasionally deemed unfit or unsafe for sampling
procedures when viewed in-person. When this was the case, I was required to talk to local
residents to find alternative access points.
Additionally, not all pre-determined access points were publicly available. Occasionally, most
easily accessible points were located on private property and required permission from local
landowners. I contacted landowners prior to sampling, either over the phone or in-person. When
in-person, I provided the landowners with a USEPA-developed 2013/2014 NRSA fact sheet for
more information (Appendix E). If denied landowner permission to access a water body, I
followed 2013/2014 NRSA protocol for replacing a sampling site with an alternative site
(USEPA 2013b, USEPA 2013c).
Field Equipment
Field equipment was prepared before every sampling event. Many sampling sites were
completed in day trips, and only required equipment for the individual sampling site. However,
many sampling sites were also distributed throughout the ORB and required overnight sampling
trips. Therefore, I prepared field equipment based on the location and number of sampling sites
completed in each sampling trip. I also prepared field equipment based on whether the sampling
sites were nonwadeable or wadeable. The same water quality indicators were sampled at both
nonwadeable and wadeable water bodies. However, nonwadeable sites required a canoe and
survey electrofishing boat for sample collection and transport, while wadeable sites required
additional equipment to measure discharge, slope, and bearing of the water body.
26
Development and maintenance of field equipment was done routinely throughout the field
season. With assistance from ORSANCO’s Fish Taxonomist, I constructed an electrofishing boat
from a modified aluminum jon boat; motors, a generator, grounding wire, electrofishing probes,
bilge pumps, live well air pumps, and
railing were added (Figure 15).
In terms of maintenance, I
consistently calibrated and repaired
water quality meters to ensure
accurate data collection. Additionally,
I sanitized all field equipment, the
canoe, and the electrofishing boat
after each sampling trip to prevent
transfer of species and chemical
contamination throughout water
bodies in the ORB.
Figure 15: Constructed electrofishing boat.
Site Sampling
Water quality indicator data collection was divided amongst two sampling crews: a habitat crew
and a fish population crew (Figure 16). As part of the habitat crew, I collected samples for all
water quality indicators, excluding fish assemblage, fish tissue plug, and whole fish tissue
indicators. The fish-related indicators were collected by the fish population crew through
electrofishing procedures.
Figure 16: (Left) Habitat crew, (Right) Fish population crew.
The habitat and fish population crews sampled nonwadeable and wadeable sites for water quality
indicators according to USEPA sampling protocol (USEPA 2013b, USEPA 2013c, Appendix F,
27
Appendix G). Data were recorded electronically into the NRSA iPad App, and submitted to the
USEPA for each sampling site.
Site Resampling
Site resampling followed the same sampling procedures as initial site visits, and the same water
quality indicators were sampled. However, site resampling was required to take place at least two
weeks, but not more than one month, after the initial site visit (Figure 17).
Figure 17: Resampling procedures (USEPA 2013b, USEPA 2013c).
Rain Events
Due to the heavy amount of rain the ORB experienced during the 2013 field season, field
sampling for the NRSA was delayed. NRSA sampling protocol outlines components that label
rivers and streams either “Sampleable” or “Non-Sampleable (USEPA 2013b).” Part of “NonSampleable” rivers and streams boils down to sampling during or after rain events. Rain events,
especially when there is high flow, develop unsafe conditions for the field staff conducting
sampling and alter the biological and chemical conditions from what would be observed at
baseflow conditions.
The influence of rain events on NRSA sampling sites was determined in two ways. If sites were
within reasonable driving distance (1-2 hours), I visited them in-person to determine if the river
28
or stream was running at bank full discharge or if the water seemed much more turbid than
typical for the class of river or stream. If sites were not within reasonable driving distance (2+
hours), I assessed their condition using USGS river and stream gages present in the ORB. When
I detected water flow and levels to be out of the ordinary for a particular river or stream,
sampling for that particular site was delayed until conditions returned to relatively normal values.
These delays ultimately reduced the number of sampling sites I could complete during the 2013
field season.
Sample Processing
To prepare water quality indicator samples for analysis, I filtered, processed, and preserved
samples until they could be shipped to USEPA contracted laboratories (Figure 18). I followed
standard protocol for filtering and processing samples for Enterococci, water column
chlorophyll, periphyton chlorophyll, and periphyton biomass samples (USEPA 2013b, USEPA
2013c). To avoid contamination of the Enterococci bacteria sample, the samples were processed
in the aforementioned order.
If a sampling site had a resample
scheduled in the future, I processed a
blank sample for the Enterococci bacteria
sample. Additionally, I preserved benthic
macroinvertebrates in 95% ethanol,
converted the periphyton assemblage
identification sample to a shipping tube
and added 2mL of 10% formalin. I then
labeled all samples with site ID, site
name, sampling date, whether the
sampling visit was the initial visit or the
resample, and a sample identification
number.
Figure 18: Water sample processing.
I was also able to assist the fish population crew with sample processing. For each
electroshocked fish, the species name, length, weight, location of collection, and date of
collection were recorded in the NRSA iPad App. Fish plug and fish tissue specimens were
preserved in 10% formalin.
My duties extended into shipping samples to third party laboratories for additional processing
and analysis based on how storing and preservation requirements. Within 24 hours of collection,
water chemistry, water column chlorophyll, periphyton chlorophyll, and periphyton biomass
samples required shipment on ice for processing. Benthic macroinvertebrates and periphyton
assemblage identification samples were brought back to ORSANCO’s office and shipped for
processing without ice when multiple samples from multiple site visits were collected. Similarly,
algal toxin, fish plug, and fish tissue samples were shipped from ORSANCO’s office on dry ice
for processing when there were multiple samples to be shipped at once.
29
Most sites were sampled on overnight trips so that multiple sites could be sampled within the
same week. Being away from ORSANCO’s office, appropriate samples still needed to be
shipped on ice within 24 hours of collection to a third-party testing laboratory. In these cases, I
dropped samples off at nearby FedEx locations, or had samples picked up by FedEx at hotel
accommodations.
Data Analysis
Further data collection and analysis were executed by USEPA contracted laboratories utilizing
2008/2009 NRSA laboratory methods (USEPA 2008). Most water quality indicators were
assessed through basic statistical calculations observing the presence or absence of the indicator.
However, biological condition indicators were analyzed through a series of indices:



Macroinvertebrate Multimetric Index (MMI): combines taxonomic richness, taxonomic
composition, taxonomic diversity, feeding groups, habits/habitats, and pollution tolerance
Fish Multimetric Index (FMI): combines taxa richness, taxonomic composition, pollution
tolerance, habitat and feeding groups, spawning habits, % and number of taxa that a
migratory, and % taxa native
Periphyton Multimetric Index (PMI): combines 12 metrics relative to sensitive-tolerant
species, functional composition, and diversity composition
These indices, as well as the other water quality indicator results, were developed nationally, for
3 climactic regions and 9 “ecoregions” (Appendix H) across the US. Results were developed on
different scales to enhance distinct water quality patterns between climate regions and
ecoregions, and draw conclusions on which US areas exhibit which water quality levels in rivers
and streams.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
QA and QC methods for the 2013/2014 NRSA were developed by the USEPA to ensure high
quality data for appropriate analysis. These methods were outlined in the NRSA Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (USEPA 2013a). Most of the quality control methods were
relevant to site resampling, and USEPA field evaluation and assistance events.
Site Resampling
The purpose of the site resampling is to collect temporal replicate samples that can provide
estimates of variance in measurement and index period. The same field crew resamples
approximately 10% of target sites sampled during the same field season. Each state has four
resample sites: two wadeable and two nonwadeable. Two wadeable sites are resampled from the
2008/2009 NRSA 1-4 order streams, and two nonwadeable sites are resampled from the
2008/2009 NRSA 5 order and above streams (USEPA 2013a, USEPA 2013b).
Field Evaluation
Field evaluation and assistance visits were conducted by the USEPA for every organization that
has chosen to take on NRSA sampling in order to obtain uniform evaluation of data collection
methods. A USEPA representative joined both our habitat and fish population crews during one
30
sampling event and observed our collection methods. The USEPA representative addressed any
necessary corrections in data collection to ensure all sampling crews were consistent in NRSA
methodology. Additional quality control methods involved appropriately functioning data
collection equipment. Equipment malfunctions have been common, especially concerning pH
meters and the inability to read correct values after calibration. I resolved these issues by
returning pH meters to manufactures and having them recalibrate devices to ensure consistent
collection of water quality parameter values.
Fish Voucher Specimen
Fish voucher specimens were collected by the fish population crew at pre-designated sampling
sites as QA voucher samples. I assisted the fish population crew in preserving the voucher
samples in 10% buffered formalin, or photographing the voucher samples, and sending them to a
contract laboratory to check the accuracy of ORSANCO’s Fish Taxonomist. These measures
were taken to ensure correct identification of fish species across NRSA data collectors.
ORSANCO QA/QC
ORSANCO implemented their own form of QA/QC protocols to ensure correct identification of
fish species during fish population data collection. For each fish species collected during
sampling events, I assisted in photographing specimens with numbered tags and preserving them
in 70% alcohol. The NRSA Fish Taxonomist identified the species, and the species names were
recorded. The vouchers were then brought back to ORSANCO’s office, and identified by the
Manager of Biological Programs. The species list from the Fish Taxonomist was compared with
the species list from the Manager of Biological Programs to determine accuracy of fish species
identification. The vouchers were then labeled with the common name of the species, the site ID
where the vouchers were collected, the collection date, and at what velocity the fish were
electroshocked. Voucher specimens were used as educational material for future ORSANCO
public outreach events.
Results
Results from the 2013/2014 NRSA will not be published until 2016. However, results from the
2008/2009 NRSA were presented as a draft in February 2013 (USEPA 2013 (draft), Appendix I).
Key findings from this report include the following:

Biological condition: Nationally, 21% of rivers and streams in good condition, 23% in
fair condition, and 55% in poor condition. In the ORB (or the Eastern Highlands),
approximately 17% of river and stream length is in good condition (Figure 19).
31
Figure 19: 2008/2009 National Rivers and Streams Assessment biological condition by climactic
region (USEPA 2013 (draft)).

Water chemical stressors: Phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations were identified as the
most widespread chemical stressors. 40% of rivers and streams had high phosphorus
levels, 28% had high levels of nitrogen (Figure 20). Lower biological condition was 50%
more likely with the presence of excess phosphorus, and 40% more likely with the
presence of excess nitrogen.

Physical habitat stressors: Poor riparian vegetative cover and high levels of riparian
disturbance were the most widespread stressors. Lower biological condition was reported
in 60% of rivers and streams with extreme streambed sediment levels.

Human health assessment: Mercury concentrations in fish tissue exceeded human health
advisory levels in 13,144 miles of US rivers. Enterococci concentrations in water samples
exceeded human health advisory levels in 9% of river and stream length.
32
Water quality indicators were transformed into levels of stressor extent, and were compared to
the 2004 WSA. Findings concluded over half of US rivers and streams sampled for biological
condition were rated poor, and that almost a tenth of US rivers and streams had high levels of
potentially harmful bacteria. Poorly rated biological condition across the nation indicated aquatic
life in rivers and streams were stressed from high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen (Figure 20).
Figure 20: Extent of 2008/2009 National Rivers and Streams Assessment water quality stressors
(USEPA 2013 (draft)).
Observations potentially supporting 2008/2009 NRSA conclusions were made during my data
collection efforts for the 2013/2014 NRSA. At multiple power plant outsources I observed
discharges from pipes and trash along shorelines within sampling site reaches. Around these
outsource pipes, foul smells and hot running water were produced, and mixed into the main
channel of rivers and streams. Within these reaches, I observed water samples to be more yellow
33
in color and a substantially smaller number of fish species were recorded by the fish population
crew.
Conclusions
Humans have utilized rivers and streams across the U.S. as sources of drinking water, waste
filters, support for hydroelectricity, and sustenance for recreational and commercial opportunities
(USEPA 2002). However, human influence has drastically altered U.S. rivers and streams
through development of dams and levees, farmlands, cities, and channel modification for
navigation or irrigation purposes. The 2008/2009 NRSA survey results indicate the need to
address water quality stressors, especially sources of runoff and wastewater, to provide
sustainably healthier water bodies across the nation to support human uses. Results from the
2013/2014 NRSA will be used to further build upon 2008/2009 NRSA conclusions, and to
provide data for US river and stream water quality trend analysis. These trends will supply water
quality policy makers with the information they need to “effectively manage, restore, and protect
these rivers and streams to make wise water quality decisions” (USEPA 2013 (draft)).
34
Chapter V: Water Quality
The water quality sector of ORSANCO manages multiple workgroups simultaneously
throughout the year: 305b report coordination, emergency response coordination, nonpoint
source strategies, combined sewer overflow, source water assessment, TMDL coordination,
nutrient loading, and revaluation of Ohio River temperature criteria.
Ammonia and Total Dissolved Solids Study
Part of the responsibility ORSANCO water quality workgroups is to abide by CWA Sections 301
and 402 to set Ohio River discharge PCS for sewage and industrial waste treatment. States within
the ORB set their own PCS that apply only to wastewater treatment facilities in that state,
whereas ORSANCO pollution controls standards apply to every direct discharge into the Ohio
River regardless of state boundaries (ORSANCO 2013).
As part of ORSANCO’s water quality monitoring and assessment, the Publicly Owned
Wastewater Treatment Works (POTW) Committee works to provide data and advice to the
Commission on issues pertaining to wastewater treatment. The POTW Committee is made up of
representatives from the wastewater treatment departments within the ORB, and holds frequent
conference calls to discuss current issues in wastewater treatment. The latest conference call was
held in August of 2013. Topics of discussion included mixing zones at wastewater treatment
plants, updates of Ohio River PCS and municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) reports,
and the progress of a pilot water quality credit program developed by an Environmental
Specialist at ORSANCO.
I was asked by the POTW Committee to complete a data request for raw water intake levels of
total ammonia (NH3) and total dissolved solids (TDS) from each wastewater treatment facility
within the ORB. Ammonia is an inorganic form of nitrogen whose un-ionized component can be
toxic to aquatic life, impact drinking water supplies, and destroy recreational use through
eutrophication. TDS is a measure of the amount of dissolved material in water, and can
contribute to increased salinity within a water supply when mining, sewage, and agricultural
practices are present. As a result water may be undrinkable, unable to be used for agricultural
purposes, and unsupportable for aquatic life. Both water quality parameters are negatively
impacted by the presence of mining, sewage, and agricultural practices (Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks of BC 1998).
Based on land use within the ORB, these two water quality parameters are of concern in drinking
water supplies. I initiated a data request for these water quality parameters with wastewater
treatment facilities within the ORB because these facilities already test Ohio River raw intake
water for total ammonia and TDS levels to determine effective water treatment action. Data
concerning total ammonia and TDS levels were required by the POTW to determine if
concentrations flowing throughout the Ohio River were in compliance with Ohio River PCS.
Currently, the standard for total ammonia is less than 1 mg/L and less than 500 mg/L for TDS.
35
Data Collection
To obtain raw water intake total ammonia and TDS data, I contacted approximately 40
wastewater treatment companies in the ORB by phone or email for a data request. Out of the 40
wastewater treatment companies, 32 responded to my data request with total ammonia data, TDS
data, both total ammonia and TDS data, or no data. Those that responded with no data reported
they did not collect information on either water quality parameter.
Out of the 32 wastewater treatment companies, 9 supplied appropriate data on total ammonia, 2
supplied appropriate data on TDS, and 1 supplied appropriate data on both total ammonia and
TDS.
Additional data were supplied from other ORSANCO programs. I was able to add measured
values for total ammonia data from 18 sites along the Ohio River from ORSANCO’s Bimonthly
Sampling Program, and TDS data for 12 wastewater treatment companies will be incorporated
later in the year from ORSANCO’s Water Users Study in 2005.
Data Analysis
I organized total ammonia and TDS data in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets according to
wastewater treatment company, with a master list detailing the data status of each wastewater
treatment company. For every set of total ammonia and TDS data, I calculated the minimum,
maximum, median, total number of samples, and sampling period. This information was then
added to the master list spreadsheet to supply an overview of the data.
From advisor input, as well as my own conclusions, there was found to be insufficient
information to run statistical trends on TDS data. Therefore I only further analyzed total
ammonia data in Statistica, the main statistics and analytics software utilized by ORSANCO. I
developed box and whisker plots, with and without outliers and extremes, to depict the overall
trends observed in the data.
Results
Because total ammonia and TDS data were requested confidentially by ORSANCO, the names
of the wastewater treatment companies have been blocked out in any public presentation of the
data in this report.
36
Analyzing total ammonia levels with outliers and extremes, I found most wastewater treatment
company intake concentrations fell under 0.5 mg/L. The median value was approximately 0.1
mg/L, well below 1 mg/L set by ORSANCO PCS (Figure 21). However, the presence of outliers
and extremes valued a few total ammonia concentration levels at 20-150 mg/L. Because there
were only a few outliers and extremes outside the range of required Ohio River PCS set by
ORSANCO, I contacted individual wastewater treatment companies and inquired about potential
causes. These outliers and extremes were attributed to water quality equipment malfunction
and/or data entry error. Therefore, I discarded these values from overall analysis.
Figure 21: Ohio River Basin wastewater treatment total ammonia results with outliers and
extremes.
37
Analyzing total ammonia levels without outliers and extremes, I found all wastewater treatment
company intake concentrations fell under 0.5 mg/L. The median value was approximately 0.1
mg/L, well below 1 mg/L set by ORSANCO PCS (Figure 22). Values appeared to be skewed
right, indicating a wider range in higher concentration levels than lower concentration levels.
Lower concentration levels were more prominent than higher concentration levels.
Figure 22: Ohio River Basin wastewater treatment total ammonia results without outliers and
extremes.
I presented these results to the Manager of Water Resources Assessment at ORSANCO. Results
from this study will be reported in the CWA 305(b) biennial report, and utilized in further water
quality management programs.
Data Collection Challenges
Multiple challenges arose during the collection of total ammonia and TDS data from ORB
wastewater treatment companies. One of the main issues I faced was tracking down the correct
contact from each wastewater treatment company. Some companies had on-site laboratories with
laboratory managers or chemical analysis specialists that were in charge of monitoring certain
38
water quality parameters. However, other companies did not have facilities and were run by a
select number of plant managers that were not as knowledgeable about certain water quality
parameters.
Other issues included obtaining the correct form of TDS data from the wastewater treatment
companies. Multiple companies derived TDS values from conductivity values, but ORSANCO
required collection of pure TDS values. Utilizing pure TDS values is more accurate than deriving
TDS values from conductivity due to conversion factor variation. Conversion factors were not
supplied within the provided data, therefore ORSANCO was unable to determine if TDS values
were consistently derived among wastewater treatment companies. If wastewater treatment
companies tested for TDS in-house, TDS values were derived from conductivity. If wastewater
treatment companies outsourced water samples to third-party contract laboratories to test for
TDS, then TDS results were pure. Therefore, it was necessary that I confirm testing methodology
with each wastewater treatment company to determine if their TDS values were appropriate for
ORSANCO analysis.
Contact Recreation Bacteria Sampling Program
Total coliform, fecal coliform, and Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria are part of normal human
and animal intestinal flora. Fecal coliform bacteria are a subgroup of total coliform bacteria, and
E. coli bacteria is a subspecies of fecal coliform bacteria. Enterococcus species (Enterococci)
also contain potentially harmful pathogens, but are present only in human waste. While most of
these bacterial species are harmless, some species can play a role in providing harmful pathogens
that have the potential to produce serious infections in young children, the elderly, and the
chronically ill.
These forms of bacteria can enter rivers and streams directly from animal discharge, agricultural
and storm runoff, and combined sewer outflows. Risk of bacteria in water sources utilized by
human populations depends on the type of bacteria present. If only total coliform bacteria are
present, the bacterium most likely occurs naturally in the soil or vegetation of the surrounding
area, and fecal contamination is not of high concern. However, if fecal coliform bacteria, E. coli
bacteria, or Enterococci bacteria are present, it may indicate recent fecal water contamination of
concern to humans through direct contact (Washington State Department of Health 2013).
Under Section 305(b) of the CWA, ORSANCO is required to set water quality criteria and report
on the condition of the four designated water uses of the Ohio River: warm water aquatic life,
public water supply, contact recreation, and fish consumption (CWA 1972). Because the Ohio
River is utilized for many recreational purposes, such as swimming and boating, ORSANCO
created a Contact Recreation Bacteria Sampling Program (CRBSP) to collect and analyze
bacteria samples along the Ohio River during “contact recreation season.” The contact recreation
season lasts April – October, which has been found to be the most recreationally active time for
people accessing the Ohio River (ORSANCO 2013b). Results from total coliform, fecal
coliform, E. coli, and Enterococci samples are detailed in the contact recreation section of the
biennial 305(b) reports. Results from fecal coliform and E. coli are also posted weekly on
39
ORSANCO’s contact recreation bacteria webpage so local residents have access to updated
information on bacterial exceedances. This information is meant to provide a platform for
residents to make informed decisions regarding their recreational river use.
Data Collection
Bacteria levels were measured upstream, downtown, and downstream of six major urban areas
along the Ohio River: Pittsburgh, Wheeling, Huntington, Cincinnati, Louisville, and Evansville
(Figure 23, Appendix J).
Figure 23: Contact recreation bacteria sampling locations. Black points indicate the sampling
city and red points indicate the sampling locations near each city (ORSANCO 2013).
I collected water samples for the Cincinnati area throughout my internship period. Seven water
samples were collected per sampling event: one upstream, three downtown, and three
downstream. Due to budget constraints, ORSANCO is not able to provide additional sample
collection. It is thought that most water contamination along the Ohio River comes from the
highly populated downtown area of Cincinnati, and therefore it is most pertinent to efficiently
sample downtown and downstream locations from this city.
40
Using a 25-foot government survey boat with twin outboard engines, as well as a 23-foot Boston
Whaler with twin outboard engines, I collected water samples five times a month: every Tuesday
and the last Thursday of the month. I transported water samples back to an ORSANCO
laboratory and filtered them to obtain quantifiable total coliform, E. coli, and Enterococci
concentrations. I also transported additional samples to a third-party contract laboratory to where
E. coli and fecal coliform concentrations were assessed.
Bacterial Analysis
I analyzed total coliform, E. coli, and Enterococci concentrations in ORSANCO’s laboratory
using Colilert© quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methodology, which detects and
quantifies bacteria by targeting DNA molecules specific to a certain bacterium (ORSANCO
2013b). This methodology utilizes sources of carbon to be metabolized by total coliform and E.
coli enzymes, β-galactosidase and β-glucuronidase. Because these enzymes are primary
characteristics of these organisms, they are solid indicators of their presence. As total coliform
grow, they metabolize carbon and change cells from clear to yellow. As E. coli grow, they
metabolize carbon and create fluorescence.
Colilert© reagents were added to 100 mL water
samples, indicating the reagent could detect as
low as one organism per 100 mL. The water
samples were then shaken and poured into QuantiTray/2000©. These trays contain 97 cells, 49
large cells and 48 small cells (Figure 24). Sample
were then distributed throughout the cells and
sealed closed by the Quanti-Tray© Sealer, and
stored in a 35ºC incubator for 24 hours. After the
holding time, I counted the number of large cells
and the number of small cells for the presence of
total coliform and E. coli. Cells that were tinted
yellow indicated a presence of total coliform, and
cells that were fluorescent under a UV light
indicated the presence of E. coli. I then compared
the total number of positive large cells and small
cells for total coliform and E. coli against a most
probable number (MPN) table to convert the
positive number to an MPN (Appendix K). An
MPN obtains quantitative data on concentrations
of bacteria from data that reads positive or
negative, and is used to scale how many bacteria
are present within a sample.
Figure 24: Colilert process.
The same process was utilized to analyze water samples for Enterococci, but was run through
Enterolert© qPCR methodology. Enterolert© utilizes a nutrient-indicator to detect Enterococci.
When a nutrient-indicator fluoresces, it has been metabolized by Enterococci. Cells were counted
for positive indicators, and positive values were converted into an MPN based off of the MPN
table.
41
While I conducted bacterial analysis in ORSANCO’s laboratory, I also transported water
samples to a third-party contract laboratory for membrane filtration analysis on E. coli and fecal
coliform. The results from the water samples were returned to ORSANCO, and E. coli results
were used to produce USEPA-recommended, single-sample bacterial values as well as a monthly
bacterial geometric mean. The geometric mean measures the typical value in a set of values by
looking at the product of the values instead of the sum (USEPA 2002a). By ORSANCO contact
recreation water quality standards, the single-sample E. coli values cannot exceed 240CFU
(Colony Forming Unit)/100 mL in any single sample, and the monthly E. coli geometric mean
cannot exceed 130 CFU/100 mL. These standards are established for ORB states, and are
consistent with USEPA regulations that prevent no more than 8 gastrointestinal illnesses in every
1,000 recreational water-users. There are currently no fecal coliform, total coliform, or
Enterococci standards for human health criteria under ORSANCO contact recreation water
quality standards (Thomas 2013).
Results
Looking at CRBSP data from the 2013 Contact Recreation Season (Appendix L), all sampling
locations indicated one or more monthly E. coli geometric means exceeding the ORSANCO
maximum standard of 130 CFU/100 mL. E. coli levels were found to be highest at sampling
locations near Wheeling, WV and Evansville, IN (Figure 25, Appendix M). Results from 20072011 CRBSP data found approximately two-thirds of the Ohio River to be “impaired” for contact
recreation use support. This status was reported by ORSANCO on the 2012 305(b) Report
(ORSANCO 2012a). Because there is currently no ORSANCO fecal coliform, total coliform, or
Enterococci standard for human health, there were no exceedances for these bacterial levels.
2013 E.coli Monthly Geometric Mean
600
CFU/100mL
500
400
April
300
May
June
200
July
130 CFU/100mL
100
August
0
September
Site
Figure 25: E. coli geometric mean results 2013 (Thomas 2013).
42
Colilert© versus Membrane Filtration
Results from ORSANCO’s Colilert© E. coli analysis have been compared against third-party
contract laboratory’s membrane filtration E. coli analysis to determine consistency of
ORSANCO analysis results. ORSANCO conducted studies in 2006 to develop a relationship
between the two methods, and found Colilert© methodology utilized by ORSANCO laboratories
performed better than six of seven third-party contract laboratories using membrane filtration.
This study also concluded that the seven different contract laboratories each produced very
different E. coli results when using standardized membrane filtration methods (Dinkins 2006).
However, both methodologies are currently certifiably accepted by the USEPA (USEPA 1986).
Laboratories implement one methodology over the other based on time availability and monetary
funds. Colilert© analysis performs with very little hands-on time, can detect the presence of E.
coli in 18 hours, and does not require preparation of medias or counting of colonies. However,
there is a high cost per sample. Membrane filtration analysis is more cost efficient, and the use of
colonial growth provides an opportunity for additional testing if necessary. However, membrane
filtration can take more than 24 hours to detect the presence of E. coli, results may be skewed by
false positive results, or the colonies may be atypical (Lewis and Mak 1989)
Bacteria Sampling Challenges
Collecting water samples from six urban areas along the Ohio River only accounts for
approximately 18% of the river’s total mileage. Therefore, only a small amount of the total river
is assessed for contact recreation water quality standard compliance. Limited funding and the
strict, six-hour holding time for bacteria samples led ORSANCO to only depend on water
samples from urbanized “problem” areas. However, in 2003, ORSANCO purchased a mobile
laboratory as a cost-effective solution to analyzing large amounts of water samples within the
short holding time. Using the mobile laboratory, ORSANCO was able to conduct longitudinal
bacteria sampling across the entire length of the Ohio River. Results proved approximately 475
miles, or about half of the total river length, qualified as “impaired” for recreational use. Due to
these results and Section 303(d) of the CWA, TMDLs were developed for these portions of the
Ohio River and continued monitoring is used to determine further TMDL improvements
(ORSANCO 2013).
43
Chapter VI: Water Resources
Managing water quantity within the ORB is a relatively new concept for ORSANCO. Currently,
the Compact only pertains to involvement in water quality issues; it does not include any
mention of directing water quantity. After discussing the growing importance of integrating
water quality and quantity management, ORSANCO Commissioners believed in the need for an
ORB organization with the power to regulate inter-basin water transfer. Therefore, the Water
Resources Committee (WRC) was established in June 2010 to “study, discuss, and evaluate
water resources issues of concern or interest to the Commission and basin states,” and provide
counsel and direction to the Commission on water resource issues (ORSANCO 2012b). Because
water resource management is not outlined in the Compact, only funding for water quality
programs is allocated. Therefore, the WTC cannot be funded by state or federal funding and
must be financially self-supported through private entities and foundations, such as Colcom,
Heinz, Mellon, Benedum, and Pulliam (ORSANCO 2012c).
The WRC meets quarterly, with the latest meeting held in August of 2013. Main topics
presented and discussed during the WRC meeting included: a general status update of the Water
Resources Initiative, a proposed water resource collaborative initiative from Abt Associates, an
overview of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association and their integration of water quality
and quantity, results from a climate change study conducted by the US Army Corps of Engineers
and the National Weather Service, and new developments in water resources issues from each
member state (Appendix N). Most discussions throughout this meeting, as well as past meetings,
have aimed to address the growing concern and importance of water supply in the face of climate
change within the ORB. Currently, most water from the ORB is used to generate thermoelectric
power, provide public water supply, and aid in industrial development (Figure 26)
Thermoelectric (79%)
34,452
Public Water Supply
(8%)
Industrial (8%)
3,584
Aquaculture (3%)
3,639
Irrigation (<1%)
359
324
155
217
Total = 43,817Mgal/day
1,086
Figure 26: Freshwater use in the Ohio River Basin (ORSANCO 2012c).
44
Ohio River Basin Climate Change Study
Due to the WRC’s focus on water supply in the midst of climate changes, I was asked to conduct
a trend analysis of climate change impacts to the ORB was conducted. The main goal of this
study was to determine the trends of major climate change indicators that may significantly
impact the sustainable use of water resources in the ORB. To reach this goal, I analyzed
temperature, precipitation, river flow levels, and tornado activity within the last 50 years.
Data Analysis
I obtained climatological information from 1976-2013 from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and United States Geological Survey (USGS). Monthly
temperature, precipitation, flow, and tornado data for ORB states were pulled and organized into
separate Microsoft Excel spreadsheets based on state for analysis.
Temperature
Temperature data were pulled from the NOAA for seven primary ORB states: Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia. This information was organized
by year, and monthly data were translated into seasons: Winter (November – January), Spring
(February – April), Summer (May – July), and Autumn (August – October).
I formatted the data into pivot tables for each ORSANCO member state, with season, year, and
average seasonal temperature values represented from 1976-2013. Pivot table information was
graphically represented, and the slope of each season’s temperature data was calculated. Slope
values were multiplied by the number of years over which the data was collected to obtain the
maximum change in temperate for each season. Total change in temperature for each season was
calculated by subtracting the slope value from the maximum change in temperature.
Precipitation
I collected precipitation data for 1976-2012 from the NOAA for the entire ORB, and organized
the data by HUC 8 Watershed. Pivot table data were analyzed by ORSANCO in the same
manner as temperature data. Precipitation data were then visually represented in ArcGIS.
River Flow
River flow data from the NOAA for selected main tributaries of the Ohio River was collected by
ORSANCO. The data was then formatted into pivot tables for each main tributary, with season,
year, and average river flow values represented from 1976-2013. Pivot table data were analyzed
in the same manner as temperature data to depict river flow trends for each main tributary.
Tornado Activity
I collected tornado data from the USGS for ORSANCO member states. I summed individual
state tornado counts into a total count of tornadoes within the ORB for 1950-2011. I then plotted
the total counts against their respective year to graphically represent the trend in ORB tornado
activity.
45
Results
Temperature
Based off of gathered temperature data, trends indicate the potential for temperature level
increases across the ORB within the past 40 years (Table 3, Figure 27). Largest average
temperature increases were found during winter months for all ORB states. However, further
analysis will be necessary to separate seasonal and yearly variation from long-term trends.
Table 3: Ohio River Basin temperature trends from 1976-2013. Increases/year represents the
slope of each season’s temperature data. Total values indicate the total change in temperature for
each season (Braun 2013).
Temperature (oF) Trends from 1976-2013 for the Ohio River Basin States
Season
IL
IN
State
KY
OH
PA
TN
WV
Winter
increase/year
Spring
4.8
4.3
3.8
3.6
4.4
3.9
3.5
0.132
0.121
0.104
0.101
0.121
0.108
0.096
1.6
1.8
1.5
2.0
1.3
1.4
1.5
increase/year Summer increase/year Autumn increase/year
0.044
0.051
0.041
0.055
0.036
0.040
0.041
0.9
0.9
1.2
2.0
1.9
1.2
1.4
0.025
0.024
0.032
0.057
0.052
0.032
0.038
1.7
1.5
1.2
1.9
3.4
2.4
1.3
Increase in Temp
Decrease in Temp
Figure 27: Average seasonal temperature trends in IL from 1976-2013 (Braun 2013).
46
0.048
0.042
0.032
0.053
0.095
0.067
0.035
Precipitation
Results suggest most of the ORB may have experienced an increase in precipitation from 19762012. Approximately 50% of the ORB may have undergone a total increase of 0-5 inches from
1976-2012, and approximately 25% of the ORB may have encountered a total increase of 5-10
inches from 1976-2012. Therefore, an increase in precipitation may have occurred throughout
75% of the total ORB (Figure 28).
Figure 28: Change in Ohio River Basin precipitation from 1976-2012. Values indicate the total
change in inches of precipitation (Braun 2013).
River Flow
Results dictated the potential for an increase in river flow for each tributary during at least one
season, with the exception of the Kanawha and the Tennessee rivers. Both the Kanawha and
Tennessee rivers appeared to experience negative average change in flow for every season.
An average increase in river flow during every season was not observed in every tributary in this
analysis. Spring was observed to potentially have the most number of tributaries experience an
increase in average change in flow, whereas in Summer the least number of tributaries possibly
experienced an increase in average change in flow (Table 4, Figure 29).
47
Table 4: Flow trends of select Ohio River Basin tributaries from 1986-2012. Values indicate the
total change in flow for each season (Braun 2013).
Flow Trends of Select Tribs of the Ohio River Basin (1986-2012)
Average change in flow (cfs) by season
River
Confluence
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Muskingum
172.2
1958.68
4377.75
-1236.13
1032.75
Kanawha
265.7
-1450.90
-1489.28
-1720.75
-2001.87
Big Sandy
317.1
-1865.14
1118.68
137.37
-979.11
Scioto
356.5
3009.50
4312.50
-85.10
2553.98
Licking
470.2
-1174.00
1074.50
-161.59
210.80
Great Miami
491.1
2595.53
3851.25
-642.35
1503.36
Kentucky
545.8
-3710.72
2714.50
-1454.25
-1041.38
Green
784.2
-6458.92
3106.25
-623.03
-1122.50
Wabash
848
6250.40 21819.25
8019.50
-5576.48
Cumberland
920.4 -19442.80
1475.65 -12560.75 -10703.42
Tennessee
934.5 -23808.46 -25562.50 -30480.00
-7827.56
Ohio R. at Cairo
-42330.60 61800.00 -25467.50 -15314.00
Figure 29: Average seasonal flow of the Wabash River from 1986-2012 (Braun 2013).
48
Tornado Activity
Results potentially suggest an overall increase in tornado activity from 1950-2011 (Figure 30).
Figure 30: Tornado activity in the Ohio River Basin from 1950-2011 (Braun 2013).
Conclusions
Temperature, precipitation, river flow, and tornado activity have been identified as potential
indicators of climate change by the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)
and the USEPA (National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee 2009).
Analysis of these potential climate change indicators within the ORB proposes the possibility of
a trend of increasing activity over the past 50 years. However, additional analysis will be
necessary to draw statistically meaningful conclusions regarding these climate change indicators
and their trends.
Results from this study were presented at the WRC meeting on August 13, 2013. According to
the USGCRP, the USEPA, and the WRC, climate change effects may possibly add further
burdens on currently stressed water resources. Increased precipitation levels may lead to flood
events that will produce new water management challenges such as increased flood damage,
strained drainage systems, and a reduction in summer water availability. Increasing temperatures
and precipitation may contribute to faster plant growth, altered growing seasons, stress on
animals and insects that help regulate plant development. and increased drought. These effects
may then lead to an increase in agricultural water use and take away from other pertinent water
uses within the ORB (Braun 2013).
49
To date, water management strategies are built from observed historical trends. These historical
trends may be upset by climate change impacts, which will add additional challenges to water
management. Therefore, the WRC and collaborating agencies are in the process of developing
strategies to combat these challenges ahead of time.
ORB Water Resource Regulations
Because the federal government does not regulate water withdrawals, oversight of water usage
falls to individual states. Therefore, individual states will be in charge of managing water
resources in the face of climate change. While this process may be difficult and daunting,
interstate waters only further complicate it. Rivers designate many of the state borders within the
ORB, and many water bodies run through multiple ORB states. These water bodies must adhere
to multiple intra- and inter-state regulations as part of water withdrawal regulation.
ORSANCO’s WRC is in the process of managing water resources at the ORB level, which
requires the Commission to adhere to and incorporate water resource laws and regulations from
each of the 14 states within the ORB. Water resource laws and regulations are categorized under
multiple water uses: water management, water withdrawal, interbasin transfer, drought response,
and oil and gas water-use. Therefore, there are multiple laws and regulations for each ORB state
for each water use category.
Furthermore, multiple ORSANCO member states have additional water quality compacts outside
the ORB (Figure 31). These compacts may have different water withdrawal regulations than
ORSANCO, which may result in conflicting ORB water withdrawal management strategies.
Figure 31: Ohio River Basin and surrounding interstate basins with compacts (Braun 2013).
50
Conclusions
Candidates for a Masters of Environmental Science degree at Miami University must complete
an internship, thesis, or practicum to fulfill the professional experience outlined by the IES. I
chose to complete a four-month internship with ORSANCO to gain real-world, hands-on
experience as an environmental professional in water quality and water quantity management.
An internship with ORSANCO broadened my view on the complexity of water quality and water
quantity management. ORSANCO plays a huge role in water quality and water resources
monitoring and assessment by coordinating 14 ORB states and the national government to run
more than 20 programs, each with multiple subprograms, geared toward improving water sources
at a basin-wide scale (Figure 32). It is incredible to think of the number of state agencies with
interest in water quality and quantity within the ORB, individuals within those state agencies,
and contracting laboratory companies that work together to produce well-respected water quality
and water quantity regulations. Project management and prioritizing tasks was highlighted as an
important aspect of successful water monitoring programs.
Figure 32: 2013 ORSANCO sampling sites by project (Thomas 2013).
51
I was able to observe extreme dedication and drive by those on whom the ORB relies to run
water quality and water quantity programs. ORSANCO has worked to advance their water
quality and quantity programs by taking on new projects, such as the NRSA and including a
water quantity component to ORSANCO’s mission through the WRC. They have also been
innovators in the water quality field by including a biological aspect to water quality monitoring
and developing new data analysis techniques such as the ORMIn.
Working at a basin-wide scale as extensive as the ORB, it hit home that decisions regarding
water quality and water quantity issues are not clear-cut. Data are collected to support water
quality and quantity regulation decisions, but input from ORSANCO Commissioners, the public,
and outside companies is valued in these decisions as well. Data also are collected at multiple
scales (locally, basin-wide, nationally, by climactic region, by ecoregion, etc.) to observe
different trends. Conflicting trends in data are occasionally observed, which creates multifaceted
development of water quality and water quantity regulations. As stated in the 2012 305(b) report,
“Some inherent difficulty exists when monitoring a river system as expansive as the Ohio.
Challenges related to both spatial and temporal coverage of the river must be approached in
order for the Commission to be most effective” (ORSANCO 2012a).
While an internship with ORSANCO provided positive context on the complexity of water
quality and quantity management, the internship made clear the naturally inefficient aspects of an
interstate governmental agency. With numerous programs running simultaneously under the
jurisdiction of multiple states, there was apparent redundancy of effort and data collection, and
conflicting water resource laws and regulations. Additionally, allocation of monetary resources
to programs appeared imbalanced. Funding for the NRSA seemed abundant, whereas programs
such as the CRBSP appeared to lack funding to support equal data collection along the Ohio
River.
IES Experience
Experience I gained during my time with Miami University’s IES program directly supported my
internship experience with ORSANCO. Throughout the internship, I learned to assess and
monitor the Ohio River and its tributaries through biological, chemical, and physical criteria
surveys. Survey data were applied to real-world water quality and resource management issues
facing the ORB.
The interdisciplinary nature of the IES program prepared me to simultaneously manage multiple
projects that were not directly related to one another. While projects during my internship
involved the assessment of water quality and quantity, each project had its own goals and
objectives with different methodology and analysis techniques. Courses such as Environmental
Problem Solving and the Professional Service Project (PSP) developed my project management,
problem solving, and communication skills so that I was able to effectively communicate with
different units of ORSANCO and carry out my internship projects. My PSP focus on nonpoint
source pollution from agricultural runoff was directly related to many aspects of water quality
assessment throughout the ORB. Because nonpoint source pollution is one of the most widely
contributing factors to decreased water quality within the ORB, knowledge of managing
sustainable agricultural practices within a watershed to improve water quality gave me the basis
to address water quality issues and discuss them with local landowners.
52
Coursework I completed to fulfill the requirements for my concentration in Applied Ecology was
also supported through my work at ORSANCO. The basis of this concentration utilizes the
understanding of ecological studies to support and resolve real-world environmental
management issues. Ecosystem and Global Ecology, and Stream Assessment Protocols Ecology
broadened my understanding of ecosystem functions, heightened my plant and fish identification
techniques, and increased my knowledge of water quality and quantity assessment and
management. Through the internship, I learned to assess and monitor the Ohio River and its
tributaries through physical, chemical, and biological criteria surveys. Information from these
surveys was then applied to real-world water resource management issues facing the Ohio River
Basin. Underlying principles of the CWA and stream habitat surveying techniques explored in
the aforementioned courses, as well as volunteer work with the Butler County Stream Team,
prepared me with the analytical techniques needed to assess and monitor water quality
parameters.
Additionally, coursework to complete the Certificate in GIScience heightened my analytical
techniques, which were utilized in water quality and quantity studies at ORSANCO. ArcGIS was
heavily used to map out information for ORB water studies, and data collected for water studies
was implemented through database programs. Therefore, courses such as Advanced GIS, Python
Programming, Environmental Analysis and Modeling, and Database Management provided
applicable skills for me to utilized in a real-world setting. Aerial Photographic Interpretation
skills were also employed during in-office field reconnaissance of sampling sites for the NRSA
on Google Earth.
Multiple aspects of the IES program prepared me for my internship responsibilities with
ORSANCO. However, obtaining real-world experience as an environmental professional was
invaluable to my understanding of water quality and quantity assessment. Internship projects
allowed me to discover new data analysis software and obtain training in areas where my
experience was limited: electrical components of monitoring equipment, boat maintenance, and
electrofishing techniques.
Looking to the Future
At the present time, my goal is to direct my career path toward environmental consulting work.
Ideally, this would entail gaining experience with an environmental consulting firm as an entrylevel environmental scientist. Because of my IES background and ORSANCO internship
experience in problem solving, GIS, and water resources intertwined with ecological
applications, I would like to interact with clients (watershed districts, local and federal agencies,
private sectors) to assess, improve, and maintain water quality to ensure the long-term health of
streams, rivers, wetlands, and lakes. Additionally, my experience with environmental law and
policy sparked an interest to be more involved with environmental impact statements and
environmental permitting concerning industrial treatment facilities with inflow and outsources to
water sources.
In the long run, I envision the progression of my career as a transition from an entry-level
environmental scientist to a senior environmental scientist, and ultimately a project manager. I
enjoy the interdisciplinary nature of environmental science, and would like to manage projects
53
where input from multiple specialties (such as air quality specialists, water resource scientists,
civil engineers, ecologists, etc.) is necessary.
This internship, specifically the work related to NRSA, provided me with experience in
environmental law and policy, water quality assessment techniques, GIS, and communication
with private landowners. These skills are necessary and pertinent for a successful career in
environmental consulting. Also, working for an interstate organization provided me with the
opportunity to observe how the collaboration among multiple parties with different interests and
policies operates to fulfill a single goal.
In addition to the work I conducted, the people I interacted with during my internship had a great
impact on the skills and knowledge I took away from this experience. I was able to learn from
many experienced environmental professionals, each with their own specialty and background in
environmental issues. Many of these environmental professionals had a water quality-related
specialty, which is applicable to my future goal of maintaining healthy water bodies as an
environmental scientist. Due to the relationships I developed during my internship, I was able to
extend my involvement with ORSANCO after my internship. Further involvement included
sampling, processing, and shipping aspects of a Bimonthly Water Quality Sampling Program and
a Clean Metals Sampling Program.
54
References
Applegate, J.M., P.C. Baumann, E.B. Emery, and M.S. Wooten. 2007. First steps in developing a
multimetric macroinvertebrate index for the Ohio River. River Research and Applications. 23:
683-697.
Bain , M.B. and Stevenson, N.J. 1999. Aquatic habitat assessment: common methods. American
Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland. 1(1): 1-136.
Benke, A.C., C.E. Cushing. Rivers of North America. London: Elsevier Academic Press, 2011.
1168 p.
Blocksom, K.A., D.M. Walters, T.M. Jicha, J.M. Lazorchak, T.R. Angradi, and D.W. Bolgrien.
2010. Persistent organic pollutants in fish tissue in the mid-continental great rivers of the United
States. Science of the Total Environment. 408(1):1180-1189.
Braun, S. 2013. “Ohio River Basin Climate Change.” Water Resources Committee Meeting,
August 13, 2013.
Chapin, F.S., P.A. Matson, and P.M. Vitousek. 2011. Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem
Ecology. Springer Science & Business Media. New York, New York.
Clean Water Act 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. 2002. Retrieved June 3, 2013 from
http://epa.senate.gov/water.pdf
Clearly. E.J. The ORSANCO Story: Water Quality Management in the Ohio River Valley under
an Interstate Compact. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1967. 335 p.
Committee on the Mississippi River and the Clean Water Act. Mississippi River Water Quality
and the Clean Water Act: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities. Washington D.C.: The
National Academies Press, 2008. 229 p.
Dinkins, S.A. 2006. “Comparing E. coli Results Analyzed by Colilert© and Membrane
Filtration.” 2006 National Monitoring Conference. May 7-11.
Emery, E.B. and A. H. Vicory Jr. 1998. Biological Criteria Development for the Ohio River,
USA. PP. 411-418. In U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Proceedings of the
NWQMC National Conference Monitoring: Critical Foundations to Protect Our Waters. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 663 pp.
Emery, E.B., T. Simon, F. McCormick, P. Angermeier, J. Deshon, C. Yoder, R. Sanders, W.
Pearson, G. Hickman, R. Reash, and J. Thomas. 2004. Development of a multimetric index for
assessing the biological condition of the Ohio River. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society. 132: 291-308.
Hester, F.E. and J.S. Dendy. 1962. A multiple-plate sampler for aquatic macroinvertebrates.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 91(4): 420-421.
55
IES (Institute for the Environment and Sustainability, Miami University). 2012. Graduate
Student Handbook. Retrieved October 2, 2013 from http://www.cas.miamioh.edu/men/docs
/ieshandbook.pdf
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological Integrity: A Long-Neglected Aspect of Water Resources
Management. Ecological Applications. 1(1): 66-84.
Karr, J.R. 1999. Defining and measuring river health. Freshwater Biology. 41(2): 221-234.
Lewis, C.M. and J.L. Mak. 1989. Comparison of membrane filtration and Autoanalysis Colilert
presence-absence techniques for analysis of total coliforms and Escherichia coli in drinking
water samples. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 55(12): 3091-3094.
Loomis, J., P. Kent, L. Strange, K. Fausch, and A. Covich. 2000. Measuring the total economic
value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent
valuation survey. Ecological Economics. 33(1): 103-117.
Mayer, S. and C. Frantz. 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individual’s
feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 24: 503-515.
Migliaccio, K.W., Y. Li, and T.A. Obreza. 2011. Evolution of Water Quality Regulations in the
United States and Florida. ABE 381, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department,
Florida Cooperative Extension Services, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. University
of Florida. pp 1-4.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks of BC. 1998. Guidelines for Interpreting Water
Quality Data. 7680000553. Integrated Land Management Bureau, Land Use Resources
Inventory Committee.
National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee. Global Change Impacts in
the United States. Cambridge University Press, 2009. 196 p.
ORSANCO. 2009. “Working to Abate Interstate Water Pollution for 60 Years.” Retrieved
September 8, 2013 from http://caistage.nku.edu/orsanco_upgrade/jupgrade/images/stories/files/
aboutUs/presentations/2009/june/alanoct%2009%20roundtable.pdf
ORSANCO. 2010. Standard Operating Procedures for the Boat Electrofishing Population
Survey. pp 1- 6.
ORSANCO. 2011. Standard Operating Procedures for Macroinvertebrate Sampling Using
Modified Hester-Dendy Samplers. pp 1-14.
ORSANCO. 2011a. Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection of Fish Tissue (Fillet)
Samples. pp 1-3.
56
ORSANCO. 2012. “About the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission.” Retrieved
August 4, 2013 from http://caistage.nku.edu/orsanco_upgrade/jupgrade/images/stories/files/
aboutUs /presentations/2012/feb/orsanco-general1.pdf
ORSANCO. 2012a. Biennial Assessment of Ohio River Water Quality Conditions: 2007-2011.
pp 1-75.
ORSANCO. 2012b. “Defining ORSANCO’s Role in Water Resources Management.” Retrieved
September 8, 2013 from http://www.pecpa.org/sites/pecpa.org/files/downloads/ORSANCO
_and_Water_Resources_4-2012_-_revised_ver_1.pptx
ORSANCO. 2012c. “Water Resources.” Technical Committee Meeting, October 9-10.
ORSANCO. 2013. ORSANCO Annual Report 2013.Ohio River Water Sanitation Commission.
pp. 1-22.
ORSANCO. 2013a. Quality Assurance Program Plan for the Biological Monitoring and
Assessment Program. pp.1-60.
ORSANCO. 2013b. The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. Retrieved August 8,
2013 from www.orsanco.org
—. “Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact.” June 30, 1948.
Rinella, D.J. and J.W. Feminella. 2005. Comparison of Benthic Macroinvertebrates Colonizing
Sand, Wood, and Artificial Substrates in a Low-Gradient Stream. Journal of Freshwater
Ecology. 20(2): 209-220.
Stokes, P.M. and C.D. Wren. Lead, Mercury, Cadmium and Arsenic in the Environment:
Bioaccumulation of Mercury by Aquatic Biota in Hydroelectric Reservoirs. John Wiley & Sons
Ltd, 1987. 24 p.
Thomas, J. 2013. “2013 Monitoring Activities: Summer Water Quality Conditions.” Technical
Committee Meeting, October 8-9. Agenda Item #6.
USEPA. 1986. Bacteriological ambient water quality criteria for marine and fresh recreational
waters. EPA 440/5-84-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH.
USEPA. 2000. Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment in
Municipal Wastewater Treatment, Chapter 11: Ohio River Case Study. Retrieved September 2,
2013 from http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/wastewater/treatment/upload/2002_06_28_wquality_
chap11.pdf
USEPA. 2004. “Understanding the Safe Drinking Water Act.” Retrieved August 2, 2013 from
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidanc/sdwa/upload/2009_08_28_sdwa_fs_30ann_sdwa_web.pdf
USEPA. 2002. “ORSANCO Biological Programs: Lifting the fog on Great Rivers.” Retrieved
August 4, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/emap2/html/pubs/docs/groupdocs/symposia/
symp2002/Emery.pdf
57
USEPA. 2002a. Time-relevant Beach and Recreational Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting.
EPA-625-R-02-017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH.
USEPA. 2008. National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Laboratory Methods Manual. EPA841-B-07-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research
and Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2013. “History of the Clean Water Act.” Retrieved June 4, 2013 from http://www2.epa.
gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act
USEPA. 2013a. National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA841-B-12-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2013b. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013-2014: Field Operations Manual –
Non Wadeable. EPA-841-B-12-009a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2013c. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013-2014: Field Operations Manual –
Wadeable.EPA-841-B-12-009b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2013 (draft). National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2008-2009: A Collaborative
Survey. EPA-841-D-13-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office
of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Washington State Department of Health. 2013. “Coliform Bacteria in Drinking Water.”
Retrieved September 20, 2013 from http://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/
DrinkingWater/Contaminants/Coliform.aspx
Zeitler, J. 2011. Restoration of the Cuyahoga River in Ohio, 1968-present. Restoration and
Reclamation Review. 7(4): 1-13.
58
Appendix A: 1997-2004 Ohio River Water Quality Sample Results for (a)
PCB Concentrations and (b) Dioxin Concentrations
(a)
14000.0
12000.0
PCB (pg/L)
10000.0
8000.0
6000.0
Water Quality
Standard
(64 pg/L)
4000.0
2000.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
600
700
800.0
900.0
1000.0
Ohio River Mile
(b)
2500
Dioxin TEQ (fg/L)
2000
1500
1000
Water Quality Standard
(5 fg/L)
500
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Ohio River Mile
59
800
900
1000
Appendix B: 2013/2014 NRSA Water Quality Indicators
Indicator
In situ measurements
(pH, DO, temperature,
conductivity)
Core or
Supplemental
Indicator
Core
Wadeable Protocol
Nonwadeable
Protocol
Measurements taken at X
site at midchannel; readings
taken at 0.5m depth, or
mid-depth if water depth is
less than 1m.
Measurements taken
at Transect A at midchannel; readings
taken at 0.5m depth,
or mid-depth if water
depth is less than 1m.
Measurements taken
at Transect A at midchannel, collected
from depth of 0.5m,
or mid-depth if water
depth is less than 1m.
Same as wadeable.
Water chemistry (TP,
TN, basic anions and
cations, alkalinity, DOC,
TOC, TSS, conductivity)
Core
Measurements taken at X
site at midchannel;
collected from depth of
0.5m, or mid-depth if
water depth is less than 1m.
Chlorophyll-a
Core
Collected as part of water
chemistry and periphyton
samples.
Collected from index site.
Collected from 11 locations
systematically placed at
each site and combined into
a single composite sample.
Collected from 11 locations
systematically placed at
each site and combined into
a single composite sample.
Sampled throughout the
sampling reach at specified
locations.
Measurements collected
throughout the sampling
reach at specified locations.
Collected at the last transect
one meter off the bank at
0.3m depth.
Target species collected
through the sampling reach
as party of fish assemblage
sampling.
Target species collected
throughout the sampling
reach as part of fish
assemblage sampling.
Microcystin
Periphyton
Supplemental
Core
Benthic
macroinvertebrate
assemblage
Core
Fish assemblage
Core
Physical habitat
assessment
Core
Fecal indicator
(Enterococci)
Supplemental
Fish tissue plug
Supplemental
Whole fish tissue
Supplemental at
select sites
60
Same as wadeable.
Same as wadeable.
Same as wadeable.
Same as wadeable.
Same as wadeable.
Same as wadeable.
Same as wadeable.
Same as wadeable.
Appendix C: 2013/2014 NRSA Sample Site Locations
61
Appendix D: ORSANCO 2013/2014 NRSA Sampling Sites
Site ID
State
SO
Site Name
Latitude
Longitude
Urban
KYR9-0901
KY
9
Ohio River
37.78139704650
-88.03819191790
N
KYR9-0901*
KY
9
Ohio River
37.78139704650
-88.03819191790
N
KYR9-0902
KY
6
N. Fork Kentucky R.
37.62116543660
-83.49986265460
N
KYR9-0903
KY
8
Ohio River
-86.03398898990
N
KYR9-0904
KY
9
Ohio River
37.47039557310
-88.09642160580
N
KYR9-0906
KY
6
Levisa Fork
37.97942836890
-82.67111993840
N
KYRM-1001
KY
7
Green River
37.33668784330
-87.13760562360
Y
KYRM-1002
KY
8
Ohio River
-85.17831430060
Y
KYRM-1003
KY
5
Licking River
-83.55382940260
N
KYRM-1004
KY
6
Cumberland River
KYRM-1005
KY
7
Green River
KYRM-1006
KY
6
Kentucky River
KYRM-1007
KY
6
Licking River
KYR0-1030
KY
6
KYS9-0919
KY
KYS9-0919*
37.98149998560
38.68588138880
38.12341244340
36.68796111100
37.23859443280
-85.49951363790
N
-86.67502367540
N
-85.02908094470
N
38.47847425980
-84.14036934950
N
Tug Fork Creek
37.77319894400
-82.32323573660
N
2
Corn Creek
38.62014249590
-85.41853680140
N
KY
2
Corn Creek
38.62014249590
-85.41853680140
N
KYS9-0924
KY
3
Two Lick Creek
38.60544714200
-83.95592787040
N
KYSS-1079
KY
1
Locust Creek
-84.02124562680
N
KYSS-1080
KY
1
Notch Lick Creek
38.68525210150
-85.24408434190
N
KYSS-1082
OHLS-1068
OHR9-0901
KY
OH
OH
2
3
5
Knob Creek
Hewitt Fork Creek
Paint Creek
36.51106773937
38.33002401938
39.3098238433
-88.67582428449
-82.26817117385
-82.96429692060
Y
N
Y
OHR9-0901*
OH
5
Paint Creek
39.3098238433
-82.96429692060
Y
OHR9-0902
OH
7
Muskingum River
40.26612178720
-81.87411347390
Y
OHR9-0902*
OH
7
Muskingum River
40.26612178720
-81.87411347390
Y
38.51353717410
38.68068734940
62
OHR9-0903
OH
6
Tuscarawas River
40.58128197530
-81.39513961880
N
OHR9-0904
OH
6
Little Miami River
39.13619224310
-84.34205660130
Y
OHR9-0905
OH
7
Muskingum River
39.46602863150
-81.48059020500
Y
OHR9-0906
OH
6
Scioto River
-83.01768619740
N
OHRM-1002
OH
8
Ohio River
40.14886984330
-80.70355604200
Y
OHRM-1003
OH
6
Scioto River
39.41065252720
-82.98479499690
N
OHRM-1004
OH
7
Great Miami River
OHRO-1034
OH
5
Stillwater River
39.90838504040
OHS9-0921
OH
4
Big Darby Creek
40.01635667360
OHSS-1125
OH
2
Big Cave Run
PAR9-0902
PA
6
Allegheny River
PAR9-0902*
PA
6
PAR9-0905
PA
PAR9-0911
38.82668229940
39.68933849730
-84.25809350870
Y
-84.29816475920
Y
-83.25296601430
N
-84.66835178030
N
41.47515844990
-79.51793242310
N
Allegheny River
41.47515844990
-79.51793242310
N
6
Beaver River
40.93107475010
-80.37396330880
Y
PA
6
Shenango River
41.24332511180
-80.50936645700
Y
PARM-1001
PA
6
Allegheny River
40.76001214000
-79.54689086100
Y
PARM-1004
PA
6
Allegheny River
41.83369956630
-79.17311733460
Y
PARM-1005
PA
7
Allegheny River
40.59864164090
-79.75118925580
Y
PARM-1008
PA
6
Allegheny River
41.68358373550
-79.37509848000
N
PARO-1052
PA
7
Beaver River
40.78033625740
39.57122320950
Completed during 2013 field season
*Resample
63
-80.32112813490
Y
Appendix E: 2013/2014 NRSA Fact Sheet for Communities
64
65
Appendix F: 2013/2014 NRSA Nonwadeable Sampling Protocol Outline
66
Appendix G: 2013/2014 NRSA Wadeable Sampling Protocol Outline
67
Appendix H: 2013/2014 NRSA Regions: (a) Climactic regions, (b) Ecoregions
(a)
68
(b)
69
Appendix I: 2008/2009 NRSA Water Quality Indicator Climactic Results
70
71
72
Appendix J: Contact Recreation Bacteria Sampling Locations
73
Appendix K: Most Probable Number (MPN) Table
74
Appendix L: Contact Recreation Bacteria Sampling Results 2013
FECAL
COLIFORM
#/100mL
E.
COLI.
#/100mL
STATION
DATE
Pittsburgh
02-Apr-13
208
36
Pittsburgh
09-Apr-13
60
32
Pittsburgh
16-Apr-13
370
160
Pittsburgh
23-Apr-13
184
72
Pittsburgh
30-Apr-13
360
120
Pittsburgh
07-May-13
92
12
Pittsburgh
14-May-13
355
131
Pittsburgh
21-May-13
217
60
Pittsburgh
23-May-13
6,100
1,600
Pittsburgh
28-May-13
509
78
Pittsburgh
04-Jun-13
310
53
Pittsburgh
11-Jun-13
3,900
455
Pittsburgh
18-Jun-13
440
54
Pittsburgh
20-Jun-13
236
25
Pittsburgh
25-Jun-13
318
50
365
79
90 Day Geometric Mean
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Pittsburgh
02-Jul-13
5,400
636
EXCEEDS
Pittsburgh
09-Jul-13
9,000
3,500
EXCEEDS
Pittsburgh
16-Jul-13
220
72
Pittsburgh
17-Sep-13
2,500
418
Pittsburgh
19-Sep-13
273
139
Pittsburgh
24-Sep-13
1,100
582
Pittsburgh
01-Oct-13
153
89
75
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Pittsburgh
08-Oct-13
20,000
3,200
Pittsburgh
15-Oct-13
267
60
Pittsburgh
22-Oct-13
250
116
Pittsburgh
02-Apr-13
430
120
Pittsburgh
09-Apr-13
54
24
Pittsburgh
16-Apr-13
290
163
Pittsburgh
23-Apr-13
160
60
Pittsburgh
30-Apr-13
1,100
251
Pittsburgh
07-May-13
108
28
Pittsburgh
14-May-13
275
144
Pittsburgh
21-May-13
225
32
Pittsburgh
23-May-13
7,200
2,700
Pittsburgh
28-May-13
573
74
Pittsburgh
04-Jun-13
270
69
Pittsburgh
11-Jun-13
4,600
609
Pittsburgh
18-Jun-13
490
152
Pittsburgh
20-Jun-13
106
291
Pittsburgh
25-Jun-13
264
37
383
118
90 Day Geometric Mean
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Pittsburgh
02-Jul-13
5,700
1,000
EXCEEDS
Pittsburgh
09-Jul-13
7,900
3,100
EXCEEDS
Pittsburgh
17-Sep-13
418
2,700
EXCEEDS
Pittsburgh
19-Sep-13
182
100
Pittsburgh
24-Sep-13
1,900
455
Pittsburgh
01-Oct-13
227
54
Pittsburgh
08-Oct-13
3,700
1,900
76
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Pittsburgh
15-Oct-13
261
84
Pittsburgh
22-Oct-13
219
88
Wheeling
02-Apr-13
192
24
Wheeling
09-Apr-13
16
4
Wheeling
16-Apr-13
310
224
Wheeling
23-Apr-13
68
12
Wheeling
30-Apr-13
57
64
Wheeling
07-May-13
12
8
Wheeling
14-May-13
4
16
Wheeling
21-May-13
48
56
Wheeling
23-May-13
40
8
Wheeling
28-May-13
96
44
Wheeling
04-Jun-13
16
8
Wheeling
11-Jun-13
208
24
Wheeling
18-Jun-13
192
36
Wheeling
20-Jun-13
36
12
Wheeling
25-Jun-13
52
12
Wheeling
02-Jul-13
790
152
Wheeling
09-Jul-13
208
52
Wheeling
16-Jul-13
912
136
Wheeling
23-Jul-13
250
56
Wheeling
30-Jul-13
69
17
Wheeling
06-Aug-13
8
4
Wheeling
13-Aug-13
28
40
Wheeling
20-Aug-13
176
44
Wheeling
22-Aug-13
20
4
77
Wheeling
27-Aug-13
36
24
Wheeling
03-Sep-13
52
48
Wheeling
10-Sep-13
144
20
Wheeling
17-Sep-13
20
17
Wheeling
19-Sep-13
20
20
Wheeling
24-Sep-13
303
137
83
32
90 Day Geometric Mean
Wheeling
01-Oct-13
4
10
Wheeling
08-Oct-13
20
32
Wheeling
15-Oct-13
32
144
Wheeling
22-Oct-13
104
56
Wheeling
09-Apr-13
83
36
Wheeling
02-Apr-13
20
16
Wheeling
16-Apr-13
130
280
EXCEEDS
Wheeling
23-Apr-13
972
430
EXCEEDS
Wheeling
30-Apr-13
4,200
300
EXCEEDS
Wheeling
07-May-13
1,400
2,800
EXCEEDS
Wheeling
14-May-13
56
48
Wheeling
21-May-13
217
16
Wheeling
23-May-13
580
174
Wheeling
28-May-13
80
136
Wheeling
04-Jun-13
991
460
Wheeling
11-Jun-13
490
140
Wheeling
18-Jun-13
700
320
Wheeling
20-Jun-13
100
234
Wheeling
25-Jun-13
380
680
78
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Wheeling
02-Jul-13
2,400
960
EXCEEDS
Wheeling
09-Jul-13
13,500
8,000
EXCEEDS
Wheeling
19-Jul-13
1,560
420
EXCEEDS
Wheeling
23-Jul-13
1,600
920
EXCEEDS
Wheeling
30-Jul-13
730
240
Wheeling
06-Aug-13
1,500
320
Wheeling
13-Aug-13
116
64
Wheeling
20-Aug-13
18,000
7,900
EXCEEDS
Wheeling
22-Aug-13
1,340
670
EXCEEDS
Wheeling
27-Aug-13
142
96
Wheeling
03-Sep-13
214
96
Wheeling
10-Sep-13
450
60
Wheeling
17-Sep-13
20
24
Wheeling
19-Sep-13
19
17
Wheeling
24-Sep-13
20,000
206
784
274
90 Day Geometric Mean
Wheeling
01-Oct-13
20
4
Wheeling
08-Oct-13
66
40
Wheeling
15-Oct-13
124
510
Wheeling
22-Oct-13
63
52
Huntington
02-Apr-13
4
4
Huntington
09-Apr-13
4
4
Huntington
16-Apr-13
24
4
Huntington
23-Apr-13
12
8
Huntington
30-Apr-13
24
12
Huntington
07-May-13
8
4
Huntington
14-May-13
44
4
79
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Huntington
21-May-13
66
4
Huntington
23-May-13
40
40
Huntington
28-May-13
44
40
Huntington
04-Jun-13
20
32
Huntington
11-Jun-13
96
36
Huntington
18-Jun-13
154
80
Huntington
20-Jun-13
80
40
Huntington
25-Jun-13
24
32
Huntington
02-Jul-13
66
49
Huntington
09-Jul-13
86
83
Huntington
16-Jul-13
66
20
Huntington
23-Jul-13
736
270
Huntington
30-Jul-13
51
28
Huntington
06-Aug-13
12
4
Huntington
13-Aug-13
100
60
Huntington
20-Aug-13
32
8
Huntington
22-Aug-13
1,600
349
Huntington
27-Aug-13
32
16
Huntington
03-Sep-13
254
160
Huntington
10-Sep-13
24
12
Huntington
17-Sep-13
60
57
Huntington
19-Sep-13
20
12
Huntington
24-Sep-13
52
32
74
37
90 Day Geometric Mean
Huntington
01-Oct-13
12
4
Huntington
08-Oct-13
12
20
Huntington
15-Oct-13
20
16
80
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Huntington
22-Oct-13
52
20
Huntington
02-Apr-13
84
8
Huntington
09-Apr-13
32
4
Huntington
16-Apr-13
57
28
Huntington
23-Apr-13
80
16
Huntington
30-Apr-13
36
16
Huntington
07-May-13
134
57
Huntington
14-May-13
86
32
Huntington
21-May-13
80
24
Huntington
23-May-13
136
60
Huntington
28-May-13
96
69
Huntington
04-Jun-13
243
164
Huntington
11-Jun-13
570
197
Huntington
18-Jun-13
1,282
646
Huntington
20-Jun-13
136
84
Huntington
25-Jun-13
51
51
Huntington
02-Jul-13
860
630
EXCEEDS
Huntington
09-Jul-13
346
249
EXCEEDS
Huntington
16-Jul-13
100
24
Huntington
23-Jul-13
1,091
364
Huntington
30-Jul-13
116
57
Huntington
06-Aug-13
43
4
Huntington
13-Aug-13
277
120
Huntington
20-Aug-13
106
16
Huntington
22-Aug-13
2,300
800
Huntington
27-Aug-13
80
16
81
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Huntington
03-Sep-13
48
36
Huntington
10-Sep-13
12
12
Huntington
17-Sep-13
28
16
Huntington
19-Sep-13
49
24
Huntington
24-Sep-13
60
36
128
51
90 Day Geometric Mean
Huntington
01-Oct-13
46
20
Huntington
08-Oct-13
97
74
Huntington
15-Oct-13
12
12
Huntington
22-Oct-13
16
4
Cincinnati
02-Apr-13
28
8
Cincinnati
09-Apr-13
4
8
Cincinnati
16-Apr-13
28
8
Cincinnati
23-Apr-13
104
36
Cincinnati
30-Apr-13
84
132
Cincinnati
07-May-13
891
700
Cincinnati
14-May-13
54
68
Cincinnati
21-May-13
104
54
Cincinnati
23-May-13
216
66
Cincinnati
28-May-13
8
12
Cincinnati
04-Jun-13
24
16
Cincinnati
11-Jun-13
48
48
Cincinnati
18-Jun-13
196
156
Cincinnati
20-Jun-13
36
48
Cincinnati
25-Jun-13
40
40
Cincinnati
02-Jul-13
144
116
82
EXCEEDS
Cincinnati
09-Jul-13
148
124
Cincinnati
16-Jul-13
196
104
Cincinnati
23-Jul-13
180
136
Cincinnati
30-Jul-13
40
20
Cincinnati
06-Aug-13
24
12
Cincinnati
13-Aug-13
36
40
Cincinnati
20-Aug-13
20
12
Cincinnati
22-Aug-13
74
57
Cincinnati
27-Aug-13
24
16
Cincinnati
03-Sep-13
80
63
Cincinnati
10-Sep-13
34
20
Cincinnati
17-Sep-13
4
4
Cincinnati
19-Sep-13
8
4
Cincinnati
24-Sep-13
183
12
48
28
90 Day Geometric Mean
Cincinnati
01-Oct-13
44
4
Cincinnati
10-Oct-13
80
84
Cincinnati
15-Oct-13
28
40
Cincinnati
02-Apr-13
32
16
Cincinnati
09-Apr-13
16
4
Cincinnati
16-Apr-13
34
12
Cincinnati
23-Apr-13
84
48
Cincinnati
30-Apr-13
56
60
Cincinnati
07-May-13
1,040
1,010
Cincinnati
14-May-13
48
60
Cincinnati
21-May-13
92
71
Cincinnati
23-May-13
1,800
2,100
83
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Cincinnati
28-May-13
20
28
Cincinnati
04-Jun-13
28
37
Cincinnati
11-Jun-13
166
128
Cincinnati
18-Jun-13
120
77
Cincinnati
20-Jun-13
116
57
Cincinnati
25-Jun-13
177
186
Cincinnati
02-Jul-13
480
469
Cincinnati
09-Jul-13
148
96
Cincinnati
16-Jul-13
164
164
Cincinnati
23-Jul-13
200
144
Cincinnati
30-Jul-13
36
20
Cincinnati
06-Aug-13
16
12
Cincinnati
13-Aug-13
120
120
Cincinnati
20-Aug-13
12
4
Cincinnati
22-Aug-13
4
4
Cincinnati
27-Aug-13
4
8
Cincinnati
03-Sep-13
52
57
Cincinnati
10-Sep-13
8
12
Cincinnati
17-Sep-13
8
4
Cincinnati
19-Sep-13
20
8
Cincinnati
24-Sep-13
66
64
35
28
90 Day Geometric Mean
Cincinnati
01-Oct-13
12
8
Cincinnati
10-Oct-13
640
240
Cincinnati
15-Oct-13
68
40
Cincinnati
02-Apr-13
51
12
84
EXCEEDS
Cincinnati
09-Apr-13
24
28
Cincinnati
16-Apr-13
12
16
Cincinnati
23-Apr-13
72
40
Cincinnati
30-Apr-13
88
74
Cincinnati
07-May-13
2,400
3,600
Cincinnati
14-May-13
68
76
Cincinnati
21-May-13
40
40
Cincinnati
23-May-13
12,200
8,500
Cincinnati
28-May-13
8
20
Cincinnati
04-Jun-13
32
8
Cincinnati
11-Jun-13
168
148
Cincinnati
18-Jun-13
192
112
Cincinnati
20-Jun-13
156
156
Cincinnati
25-Jun-13
20
16
Cincinnati
02-Jul-13
460
718
EXCEEDS
Cincinnati
09-Jul-13
380
400
EXCEEDS
Cincinnati
16-Jul-13
223
212
Cincinnati
23-Jul-13
320
340
Cincinnati
30-Jul-13
37
24
Cincinnati
06-Aug-13
30
8
Cincinnati
13-Aug-13
68
51
Cincinnati
20-Aug-13
16
24
Cincinnati
22-Aug-13
152
168
Cincinnati
27-Aug-13
16
12
Cincinnati
03-Sep-13
68
40
Cincinnati
10-Sep-13
16
16
85
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Cincinnati
17-Sep-13
12
4
Cincinnati
19-Sep-13
4
20
Cincinnati
24-Sep-13
280
70
61
50
90 Day Geometric Mean
Cincinnati
01-Oct-13
16
16
Cincinnati
10-Oct-13
208
220
Cincinnati
15-Oct-13
80
63
Louisville
02-Apr-13
8
8
Louisville
09-Apr-13
12
4
Louisville
17-Apr-12
44
16
Louisville
23-Apr-13
410
283
Louisville
30-Apr-13
36
56
Louisville
08-May-13
590
206
Louisville
14-May-13
76
68
Louisville
21-May-13
12
12
Louisville
28-May-13
16
16
Louisville
31-May-13
20
8
Louisville
04-Jun-13
32
32
Louisville
11-Jun-13
4
4
Louisville
18-Jun-13
720
610
Louisville
20-Jun-13
94
77
Louisville
25-Jun-13
52
44
Louisville
02-Jul-13
280
96
Louisville
09-Jul-13
770
580
Louisville
17-Jul-13
92
54
Louisville
23-Jul-13
48
40
Louisville
06-Aug-13
49
60
86
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Louisville
13-Aug-13
116
52
Louisville
20-Aug-13
16
4
Louisville
22-Aug-13
16
24
Louisville
27-Aug-13
12
8
Louisville
05-Sep-13
16
16
Louisville
10-Sep-13
28
20
Louisville
17-Sep-13
16
10
Louisville
24-Sep-13
56
16
Louisville
26-Sep-13
20
20
45
29
90 Day Geometric Mean
Louisville
04-Oct-13
8
4
Louisville
08-Oct-13
650
510
Louisville
16-Oct-13
36
20
Louisville
22-Oct-13
12
10
Louisville
02-Apr-13
16
12
Louisville
09-Apr-13
8
10
Louisville
17-Apr-12
71
48
Louisville
23-Apr-13
200
226
Louisville
30-Apr-13
40
40
Louisville
08-May-13
360
420
Louisville
14-May-13
136
174
Louisville
21-May-13
51
54
Louisville
28-May-13
60
48
Louisville
31-May-13
20
10
Louisville
04-Jun-13
32
16
Louisville
11-Jun-13
120
96
Louisville
18-Jun-13
172
88
Louisville
20-Jun-13
57
40
87
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Louisville
25-Jun-13
60
8
Louisville
02-Jul-13
980
680
EXCEEDS
Louisville
09-Jul-13
480
280
EXCEEDS
Louisville
17-Jul-13
60
46
Louisville
23-Jul-13
490
410
Louisville
06-Aug-13
297
71
Louisville
13-Aug-13
80
60
Louisville
20-Aug-13
32
28
Louisville
22-Aug-13
43
32
Louisville
27-Aug-13
36
96
Louisville
05-Sep-13
12
12
Louisville
10-Sep-13
140
43
Louisville
17-Sep-13
48
300
Louisville
24-Sep-13
28
16
Louisville
26-Sep-13
20
16
83
69
90 Day Geometric Mean
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Louisville
04-Oct-13
600
520
EXCEEDS
Louisville
08-Oct-13
790
580
EXCEEDS
Louisville
16-Oct-13
224
132
Louisville
22-Oct-13
864
827
Evansville
02-Apr-13
20
45
Evansville
09-Apr-13
4
4
Evansville
16-Apr-13
100
88
Evansville
23-Apr-13
220
156
Evansville
30-Apr-13
120
68
Evansville
07-May-13
340
390
Evansville
14-May-13
144
190
88
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Evansville
21-May-13
71
130
Evansville
23-May-13
28
566
Evansville
28-May-13
36
24
Evansville
04-Jun-13
46
32
Evansville
11-Jun-13
60
91
Evansville
18-Jun-13
164
130
Evansville
20-Jun-13
90
63
Evansville
25-Jun-13
1,300
2,000
Evansville
02-Jul-13
230
144
Evansville
09-Jul-13
600
500
Evansville
16-Jul-13
310
180
Evansville
23-Jul-13
276
218
Evansville
30-Jul-13
40
100
Evansville
06-Aug-13
12
12
Evansville
13-Aug-13
44
16
Evansville
20-Aug-13
8
24
Evansville
22-Aug-13
40
30
Evansville
27-Aug-13
16
4
Evansville
03-Sep-13
96
68
Evansville
10-Sep-13
12
4
Evansville
17-Sep-13
4
16
Evansville
19-Sep-13
4
8
Evansville
24-Sep-13
40
24
40
35
90 Day Geometric Mean
Evansville
01-Oct-13
24
4
Evansville
08-Oct-13
900
400
Evansville
15-Oct-13
16
20
Evansville
22-Oct-13
4
30
Evansville
02-Apr-13
170
164
89
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
Evansville
09-Apr-13
8
4
Evansville
16-Apr-13
96
112
Evansville
23-Apr-13
152
112
Evansville
30-Apr-13
140
50
Evansville
07-May-13
590
650
Evansville
14-May-13
260
240
Evansville
21-May-13
7,500
8,700
EXCEEDS
Evansville
23-May-13
700
900
EXCEEDS
Evansville
28-May-13
290
217
Evansville
04-Jun-13
136
144
Evansville
11-Jun-13
56
24
Evansville
18-Jun-13
350
310
Evansville
20-Jun-13
230
171
Evansville
25-Jun-13
1,800
4,100
EXCEEDS
Evansville
02-Jul-13
540
480
EXCEEDS
Evansville
09-Jul-13
1,800
230
Evansville
16-Jul-13
360
210
Evansville
23-Jul-13
860
480
Evansville
23-Jul-13
210
140
Evansville
06-Aug-13
96
60
Evansville
13-Aug-13
430
40
Evansville
20-Aug-13
80
24
Evansville
22-Aug-13
92
51
Evansville
27-Aug-13
70
54
Evansville
03-Sep-13
10,000
40
Evansville
10-Sep-13
110
160
Evansville
17-Sep-13
69
71
Evansville
19-Sep-13
400
340
Evansville
24-Sep-13
70
24
90
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
EXCEEDS
90 Day Geometric Mean
269
99
Evansville
01-Oct-13
170
130
Evansville
08-Oct-13
1,000
1,000
Evansville
15-Oct-13
88
71
Evansville
22-Oct-13
116
63
91
EXCEEDS
Appendix M: Contact Recreation E. coli Bacteria Sampling Results 2013
Percent
Exceeded
AprilSeptember
2013
Monthly
Geometric
Mean
Single Sample
Max
Pittsburgh*based Wheeling Huntington Cincinnati
on 3 months
Louisville
Evansville
33%
67%
33%
33%
17%
50%
27%
47%
17%
17%
17%
30%
92
Appendix N: ORSANCO Water Resources Committee Meeting Agenda
93