Indian Run HUC-12 (05030103-08-02)

This Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy (NPS-IS) plan provides an update to the Mill Creek Watershed Action Plan (WAP) completed by Mill Creek MetroParks and endorsed by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) in 2007. The Mill Creek WAP was developed under the Ohio EPA’s former guidelines, Appendix 8: Guide to Developing Local Watershed Action Plans in Ohio. In late 2016, the Ohio EPA redeveloped their Nonpoint Source Pollution Program’s watershed plan program to ensure plans meet the U.S EPA’s 9-essential elements as described in the U.S. EPA’s Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters. Further changes were made to align plans with Ohio EPA’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update (FY2014 to FY2018). This plan is being created to guide the region in addressing nonpoint source pollution issues for the Indian Run HUC-12, rather than a watershed plan for all issues in the Mill Creek watershed. State and Federal nonpoint source funding is now closely tied to strategic implementation-based planning that meets U.S. EPA’s nine minimum elements of a watershed plan for impaired waters.

Mill Creek is a major tributary of the Mahoning River and drains approximately 78 square miles. The Mahoning River watershed drains approximately 1,132 square miles and drops in elevation from its headwaters at 1,204 feet, to an elevation of 761 feet at its confluence with the Shenango River near New Castle in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. The two rivers join and become the Beaver River which flows into the Ohio River. The Ohio River eventually flows into the Gulf of Mexico via its confluence with the Mississippi River.

The Mill Creek watershed begins in Columbiana County, Ohio and extends north through Mahoning County, Ohio. The watershed makes up just under 7% of the entire Mahoning River watershed. It contains a mix of rural, agricultural, urban and industrial areas as it flows through the City of Columbiana, Beaver Township, Boardman Township, and the City of Youngstown before joining the Mahoning River. Portions of Green, Canfield, and Austintown Townships and the southeast portion of the City of Canfield are included in the Mill Creek watershed. The Mill Creek watershed is divided into three HUC-12 watersheds and includes Headwaters-Mill Creek (050301030801), Indian Run (050301030802), and Andersons Run-Mill Creek (050301030803). The Indian Run HUC-12 is located up stream of the Headwaters-Mill Creek HUC-12.

Indian Run is the only named stream within the HUC-12. This watershed contains a mix of undeveloped, urbanized, and agricultural land uses, and per Ohio’s water quality standards is in non-attainment near the confluence of Indian Run and Mill creek and upstream is in full attainment.

History of Mill Creek

The waters of Mill Creek originate from a ground water spring located on a farm in Columbiana County. An excerpt from Charles Burleigh Galbreath’s book , “Mill Creek Park and the Source of Mill Creek”, announced “A spring on the William Cope farm about three miles south of Columbiana, will receive waters from the melting snows of Mount Rainier, the Suwanee River, the Pacific Ocean, Indian River and Crater Lake, next Saturday, in token of the spring being the source of Mill Creek -- which in its course to the Mahoning River runs through one of the most beautiful scenic parks in America” (175). The farmstead spring would later go on to be dedicated on October 7th, 1933 as the place where Mill Creek begins (178).

The Mill Creek watershed is home to the first park district in Ohio, Mill Creek MetroPark (est. 1891). Thanks to aggressive land acquisitions by Mr. Volney Rogers, the “Father of Mill Creek Park” (Galbreath 173), the Mill Creek watershed contains many natural and historical features (i.e. waterfalls, gorges, mills furnace remnants) and structures indicative of the region’s industrial past. The waters of Mill Creek within the park’s boundaries powered grist mills, sawmills, grinding mills, carding and woolen mills, and was home to the first blast furnace in Youngstown. Many of the structures housing the mills and/or furnace operations still exist in the park and are used for educational purposes and special gatherings.

Public participation and involvement is a critical component of any planning process and should include not only the general public but diverse stakeholders such as local officials, businesses, academia, non-profit groups, and other agencies and organizations. Eastgate is well-positioned to continuously engage these diverse stakeholders through their Citizens Advisory Board (CAB), a public forum for participation in regional planning and decision-making processes as well as their Mahoning River Corridor Initiative (MRCI) a committee composed of eleven members that represent the communities along the Mahoning River, including the mayors of those communities. In addition, Eastgate engaged the Friends of the Mahoning River (FOMR), a local non-profit watershed group who has advocated for the stewardship and restoration of the Mahoning River since 2012, for their input on the nine-element planning process.

On November 12, 2019, CT met with ABC and Eastgate to gather information. Input was requested on impaired stream reaches (hard-armored banks that are failing, excessive stream erosion, and other erosion); areas for improved management of stormwater/flooding, areas to protect for public greenspace and recreation, and areas to protect and restore wildlife habitat.

Communities within the watershed, agencies, and partners such as the Mahoning County Soil and Water Conservation District were invited by email, letter, and phone calls to a kickoff meeting on December 18, 2019 at Boardman Township Administration Building. Participants were asked to participate in reaching consensus on the critical areas as well as the goals and objectives, projects, and implementation strategies for each critical area. A press release was also issued inviting the public. Eastgate posted notices on their webpage and made enouncements at their public meetings.

Prominent soils in the Indian Run- HUC-12 are Wooster-Ravenna-Frenchtown-Chili-Canfield, Urban Land, and Chili.  The HUC’s soils are characterized as nearly level to gently sloping and well drained to poorly draining with rapid (Chili associations) to slow permeability. The soils include high winter and spring water tables, making the soils poorly suited for agricultural use unless tile, ditches or other surface/subsurface drainage systems are installed. These soils pose a hazard for disposing of septic tank effluent on fields. Urban land is a second abundant soil type 32% of the soil unit is Urban land, which indicates the extremely built-out nature of this HUC-12. See Table 1 below for a breakdown of soil types within the Indian Run HUC-12 watershed.

A fairly deep Pre-Pleistocene or Early Pleistocene-age buried valley is present within the HUC-12. This valley is part of a drainage system that flowed south from Lake Erie, reaching depths greater than 75 feet. The buried valley system is complex because Mill Creek down cut deep enough to intersect the valley at and ravines in the Mill Creek watershed, such as those along Indian Run in Canfield Township are a result of this deep cutting action.

The major geologic types in the HUC-12 are Pennsylvanian-age Allegheny and Pottsville Groups. The Aquifers in the HUC-12 include Alliance Outwash/Kame, Alliance Thin Upland, and Mahoning Buried Valley. These aquifers are predominantly tills, silty clay, sand, and gravel with some outwash materials from the Sharon through Massillon Formations, Connoquenessing sandstone, and Homewood and Sharpsville sandstone. The location of the highest yield (25-100 gpm) in the HUC-12 is in the Mahoning Buried Valley along Indian Run and its tributaries. Indian Run is located in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Areas of Minimal Flood Hazard.

 The Köppen-Geiger climate classification in the Mahoning River watershed is known as warm summer continental, typified by average temperatures in the warmest months below 70 degrees Fahrenheit, with summer high temperatures between 70-82 degrees Fahrenheit during the day (Kottek et. al, 2006). Average temperatures during the coldest months are typically below 27 degrees Fahrenheit. Average temperatures for the year in the Mahoning River watershed are approximately 49.5 degrees Fahrenheit, with July being the warmest month (average 71.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and January being the coldest month (average 26.6 degrees Fahrenheit). On average, there are approximately 143.5 days of precipitation in the watershed, with the most precipitation occurring in December with 13.9 days and the least in August with 9.3 days. The month with the most snowfall is January, with an average of 11.8 inches of snow.

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

ODNR’s Division of Wildlife catalogs known rare, threatened, and endangered species in its Natural Heritage Database Program. The Natural Heritage Database relies on information supplied by many individuals and organizations, and a lack of records for any area is not a statement that rare species or unique features are absent. The table on the following page lists known species identified in Mahoning County that have the potential to be present in the Andersons Run-Mill Creek HUC-12. The following table lists those species found within Mahoning County. The 2007 Mill Creek Watershed Action Plan provided a comprehensive list of bird species specific to the Mill Creek Watershed courtesy of Audubon Society member, Nancy Brundage. This list can be found starting on page 34 of The 2007 Mill Creek Watershed Action Plan using the following link,  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6TnfDGn8ludQWpweVFvY0k3dG8/edit .

Land Use

Land use in the Indian Run HUC-12 consists of single, two or three family residential lots, multi-family residential lots, business, heavy industrial, light industrial, institutional, agriculture, recreation/open space, and unclassified “other” category. The northern half of the watershed is characterized by densely populated urban and suburban areas, mostly devoted to residential use, with much smaller areas of commercial land use. The southern portion of the watershed is more rural, with a mixture of agriculture, low-density residential use, and forest.

  A Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis using the NLCD’s Impervious Cover Dataset estimates that 2,958 acres or 32% of the Indian Run HUC-12 is impervious cover. The effects of impervious cover on water quality will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 of this NPS-IS.

HSTS and NPDES Discharges

Data provided to Eastgate by the Mahoning County health department shows approximately 709 home sewage treatment systems (HSTS) in the Indian Run HUC-12, with the majority clustered in Green Township and southern portion of Canfield Township. Although not identified as a water quality impairment in the HUC-12, failing septic discharge and STS maintenance and repair should be prioritized in locations where connection to a sewer line is not planned or feasible or nuisance complaints are issued. 

One individual NPDES permit holder discharges into the Indian Run HUC-12 and is not considered a major discharger (greater than 1 MGD flow). The minor permit holder is listed below, along with the receiving stream.

IBI sampling at Indian Run’s RM 0.3 returned a score of 24, indicative of waters not meeting their WWH attainment for aquatic life. The 1994 report states “ The IBI increased from 19 in 1982 to 24 in 1994” (228) and “Fish sampling results from the four headwater tributaries of Mill Creek were indicative of severely impacted fish assemblages” (195). It further notes poor quality fish assemblages were found in three of the headwater streams, which included Indian Run, but that Indian Run contained the most diverse fish community (195).

 The Ohio EPA’s 2013 survey sampled Indian Run at RM 0.33 and RM 4.66. The IBI score at RM 0.33 improved slightly to 28 (+4 from 1994), moving into the fair range for fish community assemblages. Fish assemblages at RM 0.33 included creek chubs, bluntnose minnows, and white suckers. Meanwhile, upstream Indian Run (RM 4.66) contained marginally good fish assemblages with an IBI score of 36. Fish populations included central stonerollers, Johnny darters, and creek chubs.

Macroinvertebrate communities were sampled and counted at RM 0.3 in 1994 or 2013, but an overall narrative was provided due to the stream site’s drainage area being less than 20mi2. According to the 1994 report macroinvertebrates were evaluated as good at RM 1.8 in 1982 and marginally good at RM 0.3 in 1994 (Ohio EPA, 228). The 1994 data collected only six Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa, a decrease of three from nine in 1982. Qualitative sampling in 1994 yielded numbers indicating Indian Run was performing at ecological expectations (181).

An ICI narrative in Ohio EPA’s 2018 report indicated minimal improvement at Indian Run RM 0.3. This reach graduated to a fair evaluation with midges and hydropsychid caddisflies predominating the reach. Low organism densities were noted and only five EPT taxa were collected. Upstream at RM 4.66 macroinvertebrate community received a good narrative description. Moderate organism densities along with 14 EPT taxa were noted; heptageniid mayflies and Nyctiophylax sp. caddisflies were predominate.

The Habitat score from 1994 for Indian Run at RM 0.3 was 65. Although it contained good WWH attributes (i.e. good/excellent substrates, sinuosity, extensive/moderate cover) it had more moderate influential MWH attributes (i.e. overall and riffle embeddedness, silt cover, no fast current). Indian Run’s low gradient made it difficult to assimilate finer substrates and therefore the reach was predominated by fine gravel, sand, or silt (1994 Ohio EPA, 166)

 Indian Run’s habitat improved as additional WWH attributes were accounted for in the 2013 survey. Indian Run at RM 0.33 was assessed and scored 71.5 (excellent). The moderate influential MWH attributes remained (heavy/moderate silt cover, no fast current, and high/moderate riffle and overall embeddedness).

Indian Run at RM 4.66 had a QHEI score of 63.5 (good), which indicates the stream should be able to support WWH communities. The presence of significant WWH attributes (i.e. boulder/cobble/gravel substrates, high/moderate sinuosity, extensive/moderate cover, low embeddedness) and a decrease in MWH attributes, helps further the reach’s support of aquatic life. The table below details the QHEI scores and subcomponent attributes for each 2013 sampling location.

The 2013 survey indicated overall water quality in the Indian Run at RM 0.33 (US 224) has not recovered much from 1994 to lift sampling sites out of the non-attainment WWH aquatic life use. Causes and sources of pollution at this sampling site were identified as sedimentation/siltation from urban runoff and storm sewers. 

Flow regime alterations and/or siltation from urban runoff is identified as the source of impairment in Indian Run. The natural flow regime of a stream influences its physical habit as well as aquatic life sustainability by the transporting and scouring of fine and coarse substrate materials (sediment, gravel, cobble), moving organic resources (i.e. detritus,) and woody debris, establishing backwaters under low flow conditions, promote instream stabilization, and maintains floodplain connectivity. Though not directly called out as a cause of impairment, Ohio EPA identified in their 2018 report altered hydrology and sedimentation at RM 0.33, aided in the reach’s fair macroinvertebrate score (120). Altered hydrology and sedimentation are results of urbanization and human interference with the natural flow regime. Impervious surfaces direct water away from natural absorption methods into storm drains. As a result, flooding frequency and intensity increases, stream banks erode, channels widen, and base flows decline during dry spells

Eastgate Regional Council of Government and Mill Creek MetroParks Certified Credible Data Collectors performed a Level 3 Habitat study of streams in the Mill Creek Watershed. One location from the assessment was in Indian Run HUC-12. QHEI scores were within range of those from the Ohio EPA’s 2013 survey. The final report can be viewed at the following link,  https://www.eastgatecog.org/environmental-planning/watershed-planning . 

Collegiate Studies

Mill Creek and its watershed have been the center of studies and written about by many professors and graduate students from Youngstown State University (YSU). The following documents cover topics including stream restoration, wetland mitigation, and water quality:

· Preliminary Stream Restoration Plan for Mill Creek, Yellow Creek, and Meander Creek Watersheds, November 2003. Prepared by Scott C. Martin, Ph. D., P.E.;

· Wetland Mitigation Plan for Mill Creek. Yellow Creek, and Meander Creek Watersheds. Prepared by Dr. Scott C. Martin, Ph.D., P.E., Scott Airato, and Susheel Kolwalkar;

· Application Techniques to Identify Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Opportunities. August 2003. Prepared by Susheel R. Kolwalkar.

All three documents should be consulted to help areas in need of stream and/or wetland restoration for the Indian Run HUC 12. All three plans identify specific areas where restoration and/or mitigation should take place based on their studies.

Effective application of nonpoint source best management practices requires that these measures are properly planned, sited, and sized for implementation. An important aspect of the planning process is the identification of critical areas. Implementation of best management practices in critical areas is a key part of meeting targets set by NPS-IS plans or TMDLs, which ultimately lead to achieving water quality goals and objectives including the restoration and protection of degraded beneficial uses of waters of the US. Effective determination of critical areas supports targeted, cost-efficient implementation of practices and measures to meet water quality goals in the most efficient manner possible.

The Indian Run HUC-12, has two sampling sites along Indian Run main stem; Station ID NO3S11 in non-attainment and 302299 in attainment. Three critical areas have been identified to address the primary nonpoint sources pollution issues believed to be causing the impaired states of these reaches.

• Critical Area 1: Little Indian Run
• Critical Area 2: Little Indian Run Main Stem

The goals for Little Indian Run are to improve IBI and QHEI scores for Station ID: NO3S11 on Indian Run so that the site will improve from non-attainment to full attainment of the designated ALU. These goals are specifically to:

To achieve the overall nonpoint source restoration goal of full attainment, the following objectives need to be achieved within Critical Area #1:

Objective 1: Restore channelized, armored, and culverted stream by removing impairments and restoring streams and riparian areas using bioengineering design.

• Restore 14,000 or more linear feet of stream habitat along Little Indian Run and its tributaries
• Restore 24,000 or more linear feet of stream bank habitat
• Restore 40 or more acres of riparian floodplain with native plantings

Objective 2: Reduce urban runoff from impervious and compacted surfaces through green infrastructure

• Mitigate 50 acres or more of impervious surface runoff on residential and park properties

As these objectives are implemented, water quality monitoring (both project-related and regularly scheduled monitoring) should be conducted to determine progress toward meeting the identified goals (i.e., water quality standards). These objectives will be reevaluated and modified, as necessary. When reevaluating, the Ohio’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update (Ohio EPA 2013), which has a complete listing of all eligible NPS management strategies, will be used.

The goals for Indian Run are to improve IBI and QHEI scores at Station ID: NO3S11 on Indian Run so that the site will improve from non-attainment to full attainment of the designated ALU. These goals are specifically to:

To achieve the overall nonpoint source restoration goal of full attainment, the following objectives need to be achieved within Critical Area #2:

Objective 1: Restore channelized, armored, and culverted stream by removing impairments and restoring streams and riparian areas using bioengineering design.

• Restore 1,500 or more linear feet of stream habitat along Indian Run and its tributaries
• Restore 3,000 or more linear feet of stream bank habitat
• Restore 4 or more acres of riparian floodplain with native plantings

As these objectives are implemented, water quality monitoring (both project-related and regularly scheduled monitoring) will be conducted to determine progress toward meeting the identified goals (i.e., water quality standards). These objectives will be reevaluated and modified, as necessary. When reevaluating, the Ohio’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update (Ohio EPA 2013), which has a complete listing of all eligible NPS management strategies, will be used. 

Projects and evaluations believed to be necessary to address the causes and sources of impairments to the Indian Run – Mill Creek HUC 12 watershed are presented by critical area in this section. As Ohio assesses attainment using numeric biological criteria, periodic reevaluation of biological condition will be necessary to determine if the implemented projects restore the critical areas.

Time is an important factor to consider when measuring project success and overall status. Biological systems in some cases can show response fairly quickly (e.g., one season); other systems may take longer (e.g., several seasons, years) to show recovery. There may also be reasons other than nonpoint source pollution for the impairment. Those issues will need to be addressed under different initiatives, authorities or programs which may or may not be accomplished by the same implementers addressing the nonpoint source pollution issues.

The Indian Run HUC 12 watershed was delineated into three critical areas to address causes and sources of impairment. An overview table is presented for each critical area in the following subsections (4.1.1, 4.2.1, and 4.3.1).

The information included is a condensed overview of all identified projects needed for nonpoint source restoration of the critical area. PSSs are included for short term projects or any project that is considering seeking funding in the near future. Only those projects with complete PSS will be considered for state and federal nonpoint source program funding.

No PSSs have been developed for Critical Area #1 projects. These are medium-term projects and are not presented in PSSs since they are not yet ready for implementation.

No PSSs have been developed for Critical Area #2 projects. These are medium-term projects and are not presented in PSSs since they are not yet ready for implementation.

Abbas, Bassel Abdul-Hakim (1992). Evaluation of Trophic Status for Lake Hamilton (Master’s thesis). Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio.

Airato, S., Kolwalkar, S., & Martin, S. C. (2000). Wetland Mitigation Plan for Mill Creek, Yellow Creek, and Meander Creek Watersheds.

Alliance for Watershed Action and Riparian Easements (2001). Mine Drainage Task Force Report, Youngstown, OH.

Cappiella, K., T. Schueler, and T. Wright. 2005. Urban Watershed Forestry Manual. Part 1 of a 3-Part Manual Series on Using Trees to Protect and Restore Urban Watersheds. Prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Cowardin, L. M. (1979). Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prarie Wildlife Research Center Online. Retrieved from http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm.

Clean Water Act. (1972). 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. Retrieved 2011, from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title33/pdf/USCODE-2011-title33-chap26-subchapI-sec1251.pdf. +

Cuffney, T., R. Brightbill, J. May, and I. Waite. 2010. Responses of Benthic Macroinvertebrates to Environmental Changes Associated with Urbanization in Nine Metropolitan Areas. Pre-Print. Ecological Society of America.

Hansen, M. (1997). The Ice Age in Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Division of Geological Survey.

Jin, S., Yang, L., Danielson, P., Homer, C., Fry, J., and Xian, G. 2013. A comprehensive change detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011. Remote Sensing of Environment, 132: 159 – 175. Downloaded from Geospatial Data Gateway. USDA, NRCS. http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/.

Kottek, M., J. Grieser, C. Beck, B. Rudolf, and F. Rubel, 2006. World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Z., 15, 259-263. DOI: 10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130.

Kowalkar, Susheel R. (2003). Application of Techniques to Identify Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Opportunities (Master's thesis). Youngstown state University, Youngstown, Ohio.

Martin Ph. D, P.E., Scott C., & Kallam, A.R. (2007). Hydrology of Yellow Creek Watershed. Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio.

Martin, Scott C., Ph.D, 2004. Mahoning River Watershed Action Plan. Youngstown State University Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Conditionally Endorsed by OEPA.

Martin Ph. D, P.E., Scott C. (2003). Preliminary Stream Restoration Plan for Mill Creek,Yellow Creek and Meander Creek Watersheds. Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio.

Martin Ph. D, P.E., Scott C., Airato, S., & Kolwalkar, S.(n.d). Wetland Mitigation Plan for Mill Creek, Yellow Creek, and Meander Creek Watersheds. Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio.

Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (2000). Wetlands. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Land Trust Alliance. (2011). 2010 National Land Trust Census Report. Retrieved from http://www.landtrustalliance.org/land-trusts/land-trust-census/2010-final-report

_______(2011). 2010 National Land Trust Census Report. Ohio Factsheet. Retrieved from http://www.landtrustalliance.org/land-trusts/land-trust-census/state-factsheets/ohio-fact-sheet.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. Soil Data Viewer 6.0 User Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. 62 pp.

Newton, Sara E., and Deanna M. Drenten. Modifying the bank erosion hazard index (BEHI) protocol for rapid assessment of streambank erosion in northeastern Ohio. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments) 96 (2015): e52330-e52330.

Ohio Department of Development. (2011). Ohio County Profiles. Policy Research and Strategic Planning Office, Columbus, OH.

Ohio Department of Education. (2010). Interactive Local Report Card Power User Report. ODE Data Warehouse. Retrieved Feb 11, 2010, from  http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us 

Ohio Department of Education. (2012). 2010-2011 Report Card. Retrieved from Ohio School Report Cards: http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us

Ohio EPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update. Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, Nonpoint Source Program.  http://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/nps/NPS_Mgmt_Plan.pdf 

OEPA. 2016. Water Quality Summary - 2016 Integrated Report. Ohio EPA.  http://wwwapp.epa.ohio.gov/gis/mapportal/IR2016.html 

OEPA, 1996. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Mahoning River Basin. Technical Report MAS/1995-12-14. Division of Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Section, Nonpoint Source Program, and Northeast District Office.

OEPA, 2008. Biological and Water Quality Study of the upper Mahoning River and Selected Tributaries 2006. OEPA Technical Report EAS/2008-10-8.

OEPA, 1999. Association between Nutrients, Habitat, and the Aquatic Biota in Ohio Rivers and Streams. Technical Bulletin MAS/1999-1-1.

OEPA, 2011. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Upper Mahoning River Watershed.

OEPA, 2012. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Mahoning River, 2012: Former Warren Gasification Facility, Trumbull County. Technical Report EAS/2012-12-14.

OEPA, 2013. Ohio’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update (FY 2014-2018). Columbus.

OEPA, 2016. Guide to Developing Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategic Plans in Ohio. Division of Surface Water, Surface Water Improvement Program, Version 1.1.

OEPA, 2016. Ohio 2016 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. http://wwwapp.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/2016IR.pdf

OEPA, 2017. A Guide to Developing Local Watershed Action Plans in Northeast Ohio.

OEPA, 2017, 02 06. OAC Chapter 3745-1 Water Quality Standards. Retrieved from OEPA: https://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/rules/3745_1

OEPA, 2018a. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Lower Mahoning River Watershed, 2011 and 2013. Division of Surface Water, Assessment and Modeling Section, Technical Report AMS/2013-LMAHO-2.

OEPA, 2018b. Ohio 2018 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. https://www.epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/tmdl/2018intreport/2018IR_Final.pdf

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1961. Water Inventory of the Mahoning and Grand River Basins. Division of Water. Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1991. Update to Inventory of Ohio’s Lakes. Division of Water, Ohio Water Inventory Report No. 26. 43

Ohio Division of Geologic Survey. (2004). Generalized colum of bedrock units in Ohio. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/stratcol.pdf

Ohio Division of Geological Surey. (2006). Geologic Map and Cross Section of Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Ohio Division of Geological Survey. (1998). Physiographic Regions of Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Ohio History Central. (2005). Ohio's Geologic Periods. Retrieved from  http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1380 

Ohio History Central. (2007). Mississippian Period. Retrieved from http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=2815

Ohio History Central. (2007). Pennsylvanian Period. Retrieved from http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=2816

3745 Ohio Adm. Code, §1-25 (2011). Retrieved from http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/3745-1-25. Ohio Rev. Code, §504(2010). Retrieved from http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/504.

Omernik, J.M. 1988. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc. Amer. Geogr. 77(1): 118-125

Poff et al. (1997). The Natural Flow Regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience, 47(11), 770-784.

Rosgen, David L. A practical method of computing streambank erosion rate. Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference. Vol. 1. 2001.

Schueler, T. 1994. The Importance of Imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(3):100–111.

———. 2004. Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual 1. An Integrated Framework to Restore Small Urban Watersheds. Prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Management, Washington, DC.

Shaver, E., R. Horner, J. Skupien, C. May, and G. Ridley. 2007. Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues. North American Lake Management Society, Madison, WI.

Tiner, R. (1999). Wetland Indicators: A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC.

US. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999. Mahoning River Reconnaissance Study.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. Mahoning River, Ohio Environmental Dredging Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (2014). 2012 Census of Agriculture: Ohio state and County Data. Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series- Part 35.

U.S. EPA. 2010. Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System (CADDIS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.  http://www.epa.gov/caddis 

U.S. EPA, 2004. Mahoning River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Fecal Coliform Bacteria. Region 5, Watersheds and Wetlands Branch, WW-16J.

U.S. EPA, 2018. Critical Source Area Identification and BMP Selection: Supplement to Watershed Planning Handbook. Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Management Branch, EPA 841-K-18-001.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. Coordination Act Report, Mahoning River Environmental Dredging Project. Included as Appendix N of the Corps Mahoning River, Ohio Environmental Dredging Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement, 2006.

U.S Geological Survey. (2010). Boundary Descriptions and Names of Regions, Subregions, Accounting Units. Retrieved Nov 29, 2010, from http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory. (1987). Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corp Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.

Watershed Using the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (Master's thesis). Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio.

Woods, A., J. Omernik, C. Brockman, T. Gerber, W. Hosteter, and S. Azevedo. 2014. Ecoregions of Indiana and Ohio. [shapefile].  http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/ohin_eco.htm .

Youngstown State University. (2012). Annual Unduplicated Preliminary Enrollment and Degrees Conferred. Youngstown, OH. Retrieved from http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu_generated_bin/documents/basic_module/undup12.pdf.

Youngstown State University. (2012). Preliminary 14th Day Enrollment (Fall Terms) by Key Counties, Total University. Office of Institutional Research and Policy Analysis, Youngstown, OH. Retrieved from http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu_generated_bin/documents/basic_module/2012countyTOT.pdf.