Fish from Electroshocking in Mill Creek since 2003.

‡ Electroshocking with Smith Root GP5, pulsed DC by boat or shore. Fish were identified, weight and length taken and fish returned, little damaged. ‡ Four sites: West Hills Viaduct, Hopple St., Salway Park, and East Fork Mill Creek.

Viaduct striped bass (4.49%) gizzard shad (32. Upriver Cement Road Mill Creek.48%) sauger (2.48%) Carp (32.84%) RiverRver carpsucker (4.00%) Green Sunfish (2.00%) Quillback Emerald shiner (10.49%) Flathead catfish (1.27%) carp (4.00%) emerald shiner (46.00%) Quillback Carpsucker (6. striped bass and carp > 2 kg 15 July 2003 . West Hills Viaduct Small mouth Bass (2.00%) Gizzard shad (32.00%) longnose gar (1.00%) Channel catfish (12.49%) channel catfish (1.00%) Small mouth bass.99%) % Abundance Downstream Cement Mill Creek. below W.99%) small mouth bass (1.H.Cement Bridge in lower Mill Creek % Abundance.49%) river carpsucker (2.

16%) Flathead Catfish (0.54%) Quillback Carpsucker (2.89%) .94%) Small mouth Buffalo (18.04%) longnose gar (9.36%) GS (36.73%) River Carpsucker (3.91%) Flathead Catfish (0.36%) Avg Wt.88%) Channel Cat (4.55%) Carp (17.82%) Quillback Carpsucker (2.73%) Striped Bass (2.91%) Sauger (1.Ohio River species dominate lower river in high water.98%) Emerald Shiner (0.15%) Emerald Shiner (24.00%) Sauger (4.91%) longnose gar (0.97%) GS (0. of Fish Mill Ck Fish 15 July 2003 Green Sunfish (0. Numerical Abundance Mill Ck Fish 15 July 2003 Green Sunfish (0.82%) Small mouth Buffalo (1.64%) Channel Cat (6.30% Striped Bass (23.17%) Carp (22.27%) River Carpsucker (12.

At low flow fish could not jump or swim over this 4¶ drop where a sewer line crosses from on Interceptor line to the other on the opposite side of the stream.Hopple Street Supplemental Environmental Plan removes fish barrier with rock ramp. .

May 23= 39 ft stage .

81%) .31%) emerald shiner (7.13%) Downstream-Grouted blue gill (3.13%) Quillback (0.13%) large mouth bass (3.00%) carp (3.29%) carp (4.13%) small mouth buffalo (0.29%) Quillback (8.00%) Rip Rap blue gill large mouth bass (0.00%) Upstream-Vegetated (0.00%) sauger (0. I I = 25 poor Spp = 10 white bass (10. good excep good good excep routed rip rap N =64.86%) river carpsucker (4.94 .71%) egetated rip rap N =70. no barrier.29%) drum (1.00%) river carpsucker (0.81%) 23 May 2003 at high water. I I = 23 poor Spp = 11 gizzard shad (70.00%) emerald shiner (24.Percent Composition of Mill Creek Fish Hopple Street Dam at high water (38') drum (0.56%) sauger (3.00%) small mouth buffalo (2.00%) white bass (7. Rip Rap I I Iwb egetated routed ip ap 25 23 2 poor poor poor 9.56 8.57%) gizzard shad (45.

ill r f 0% 00% 0% Fi tr t tr 23 2003 tr l % r q 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 r t i t t i Fi L t ( ) .

open.Salway Park along Spring Grove Ave. Channel Biorestoration . After Jhook Weirs (3 pair) with deep plunge pools. Before shallow. was biorestored in 2004.

2M includes 3 V-noth weirs to provide fish habitat. bank biostabilization.Salway Park Restoration USACE $2. .

species = 8 .53%) ill r 2005 Fi 26 Y ll t l r l unit 2005 iit n .25%) t r ll r (0.26%) i (0.21%) r ( 0.53%) t r ll r (1.26%) l r i r (0.06%) fi (2.53%) i r ( .63%) (1.Salway Park post USACE Restoration Fi it 26 Y ll t l i l r ll (1.52%) tfi (5.01%) l ill fi (51. 1%) r (12.52%) Bl ill fi (1. Bi ill r /fi Bull (0.11%) N = 131.

.East Fork Mill Creek has 20 Newberry Riffles to improve habitat and pool depth.

42%) toneroller (26.28%) toneroller (8.49%) ill .27%) Orangethroat darter (0.14%) Orangethroat darter (2.07%) edear unfish (0.37%) mallmouth Bass (0.39%) edear unfish (0.42%) reek hub (7.06%) reek hub (8.95%) Largemouth Bass (0.14%) Yellow Bullhead (3.12%) reen unfish (29.14%) erald hiner (0.38%) Bluntnose innow (0.25%) reen unfi h (48.03%) merald hiner (0.28%) Bluegill (0.Fork %N ainbow arter (0.30%) 19 Sept 2003 .14%) ainbow arter (0.27%) i er hiner (0.04%) Bluntnose innow (1.42%) ite ucker ( .ercent omposition .08%) ar (0.96%) ar (0.83%) Yellow Bullhead (0.25%) all outh Bass (0.87%) %k olden edhorse (11.16%) Largemouth Bass (0.21%) Bluegill (1.39%) % of Biomass (12 k ) hite ucker (36.85%) i er shiner (0. % of Numbers (707 fish) l en edhor e (0.

East Fork Mill Creek IBI cores for ast Fork ill reek oo 19 ept. 2003 6 mi^2 headwater sites oo 6 species I I fair site Above Cresentville R site Confluence Project Area site Above Confluence EFMC .

degraded all >10% urban OEPA data .By 1992 no site achieved WWH > 30% urban.

IBI IBI-Inde Biotic Integrity (Fish) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 20 30 40 50 60 QHEI-Habitat Quality 70 80 QHEI for Mill Creek & Tribs 1988-1992 .Fish may respond to habitat more than To nutrients or algae in Mill Creek.

Habitat quality is fairly good for much of Mill Creek even today. QHEI vs River Miler from hio R. Mill Creek Mainstem 80 hio River QHEI-Habitat Quality 70 60 50 40 30 20 0 5 10 15 River Mile from 20 hio River 25 30 .

4. 3.Summary of Fish Data Mill Creek 1. More than 30 dams prevent fish movement. 5. but fish migrated from hio River into the estuary. Mill Creek Average TP per Site Summer 2000( n=5 dates) 1000 T P (u g P /l) 800 600 400 200 0 21 19 19 19 18 16 13 9 4 3 2 River Mile . Water uality in upper river and habitat were best in Mill Creek. not better biodiversity. Biggest unmeasured stress on urban fish is ma imum pulsed rainfall runoff. Habitat channelization reduces fish IBIs 2. Improved habitat allowed more fish biomass. Water uality in lower river was worst based on CS overflows.