Despite funding cuts, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it will do an extensive water quality study of Big and Little Darby Creeks this summer. According to the EPA, the study will lay a basis for "an action plan to maintain and restore the quality of Big Darby Creek and its tributaries."

The study will look at fish, macroinvertebrates (insects and other small stream life), as well as water chemistry and habitat. Sampling began in June, will extend into the fall, and may carry over into next spring. The study will include many tributaries.

Why is the EPA looking at Darby now? A recent fact sheet gives several reasons. First, the agency writes: "We suspect that water quality in the Darby watershed is getting worse at some locations, particularly on the eastern edge of the watershed where development pressure is high."

In addition, the EPA is beginning to address an important requirement of the Clean Water Act, namely the creation of a watershed plan that describes Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for various point and non-point-source pollutants. In this process, the agency will seek to identify areas of the watershed that are failing to meet water quality standards. The agency will continue to regulate point source pollution, as it has in the past; but depending on the results of this study regulations may be strengthened. On the other hand, controlling non-point-source pollutants, which include sediments and chemical contaminants from farms, will depend on the voluntary cooperation of landowners and watershed communities.

The study is clearly being timed to coincide with the five-county effort to draft a watershed protection plan (described last issue). That plan is being pursued by five Soil and Water Conservation Districts in consultation with various stakeholders. Watershed Coordinator Tam Kutzmark has already said the plan will rely heavily on EPA surveys. Results of this year’s survey will be compared with two previous surveys conducted in 1979 and 1992-93 in order to assess long-term trends.

DCA strongly supports this initiative, and recognizes the substantial resources the EPA continues to devote to Darby. However, we also recognize certain limitations in the EPA’s approach. In the spring, DCA wrote a letter to EPA Director Chris Jones expressing concern that endangered species and freshwater mussels are not being systematically monitored by the state. At present the agency’s evaluations do not consider mussel populations at all. Fully half of Darby’s rare and endangered species are freshwater mussels, and evidence suggests that many of these are in decline.

In his response, Director Jones stated that although his agency does not have the resources to monitor mussels or endangered species at this time, data from other sources could be used to supplement the TMDL plan, "especially if outside experts are willing to assist." DCA will be meeting with state officials to explore how this can be achieved.

by John Tetzloff