Chapter 2 Current Conditions and Projected Development

This chapter discusses the current water quality conditions in the NEFCO region. It also addresses population and employment changes that have occurred since 1970, changes which have markedly affected water quality in the region. The last section of the chapter discusses the impacts that may be expected to occur given continuation of existing trends in population and employment over the next two decades.

I. Current Water Quality Conditions in the NEFCO Region

Background

The definitive source of information concerning current water quality conditions in the region is the Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment report prepared by the Ohio EPA on a biennial basis and the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) reports prepared for individual watersheds. This report satisfies the requirements of Section 305(b) and 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act which calls for states to submit to the U.S. EPA a biennial report summarizing the status and trends in water quality of both surface and ground waters. The intent is for the 305(b) report to be a routine check on the progress that states are making toward achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act. The 305(b) report also establishes baseline data and determine changes of water quality data by which to gauge changes introduced by the implementation of best management practices. The TMDL describes how an impaired water body will meet water quality standards. It includes actions to achieve a measurable goal for attainment of water quality standards. Readers are encouraged to consult the full 305(b) report and 303(d) priority list for additional information. A copy of these reports can be found on Ohio EPA’s web page at www.epa.state.oh.us.

The bases for the 305(b) and TMDLs report are the periodic surveys of water quality and aquatic life (biosurveys) that Ohio EPA conducts on each major river system throughout Ohio. State priorities and resource availability to perform the survey work dictate the frequency with which watersheds are assessed. Northeast Ohio ’s major rivers are surveyed on an approximate five -year rotation.

The Ohio EPA’s water quality survey goals are to assess the attainment status of water quality standards, to assess whether assigned use designations are appropriate, to determine if changes in water quality have taken place since previous surveys, and to determine whether or not the changes can be attributed to point and/or nonpoint source controls.

The findings and conclusions of the water quality surveys are published as Water Quality Permit Support Documents (WQPSDs), i.e. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) reports, and Biological and Water Quality Studies (BWQS). These documents may be reflected in regulatory actions taken by the Ohio EPA e.g. NPDES permits, Director’s Orders, the Ohio

______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-1

Water Quality Standards (WQS), and are eventually incorporated into the Ohio Water Quality Management Plan, the Ohio Nonpoint Source Assessment, and the Ohio Water Resource Inventory (305(b) Report).

Historical surveys conducted by the Ohio EPA in the Cuyahoga River basin include basin- wide chemical and biological surveys in 1984, 1991, 1996 and 2000. The 1991 and 1996 surveys are documented in the reports titled “Biological and Water Quality Study of the Cuyahoga River and Selected Tributaries Geauga, Portage, Summit, and Cuyahoga Counties (Ohio) dated August 19, 1994 and August 15, 1999” respectively. Mainstem biological surveys between Akron and Lake Erie were conducted in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988, and intensive chemical and biological surveys of the Little Cuyahoga River subbasin in 1986 and 1996. The 1996 Little Cuyahoga River survey is reported in the April 14 1998 “Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Cuyahoga River and Tributaries (Portage and Summit Counties)”. In addition, water quality data has been collected monthly from the Cuyahoga River National Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network (NAWQMN) stations at Independence (RM 13.18), Lower Harvard Ave (RM 7.10) and West Third Ave (RM 3.26) over the past 20 to 26 years. A new monthly station was added in 1994 at Shalersville (RM 64.3) in Portage County to monitor expected changes in water quality due to anticipated land development as a result of changes in the transportation network in the upper section of the watershed. Biological sampling has also been routinely conducted at the NAWQMN stations over the same period.

Recent Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) reports have been completed for the Lower Cuyahoga River (2003), Upper Cuyahoga River (2004), Middle Cuyahoga River (2000), Chagrin River (2007, Upper Grand River (2009), and Black River (2008) (Table 2-1). Headwaters to the Grand River and Chagrin River are found in Portage County. Headwaters to the Black River are in Summit County (Table 2-1).

The Ohio EPA has conducted a number of historic analyses on streams within the Ohio River Basin for the NEFCO region. The Tuscarawas River underwent a biological and sediment survey in 1995. The Sugar Creek had a biological community and toxic impact assessment in 1992 and a biological and water quality study in 1998. A fish tissue study was undertaken for the Tuscarawas River and Sugar Creek in 1995. The Ohio EPA conducted a biological and water quality study of the East Branch of the Nimishillen Creek in 1994 and the Lower Middle Branch of the Nimishillen Creek in 2001. The Upper Killbuck Creek had a biological and water quality study in 1996. The Sandy Creek had biological and water quality studies done between 1995 and 1997. In 1994 the Ohio EPA conducted biological, sediment, and water quality studies for the Tuscarawas River and Wolf Creek.

Recent TMDLs has been completed for Upper Mahoning River (2011), Tuscarawas River (2009), Nimishillen Creek (2009), Sandy Creek (1998), and Sugar Creek (2002). The Killbuck Creek (2009) and Mohican River (2005) are still in preparation.

______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-2

All but two basins in the NEFCO region have approved TMDLs. Table 2-1 lists these TMDLs and the two that are still in preparation. All these documents are available for review through the Ohio EPA website.

Table 2-1 TMDL Reports and Support Documents 1. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Lower Cuyahoga River, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, September 2003. 2. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Chagrin River Watershed, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, May 15, 2007. 3. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Upper Cuyahoga River Watershed, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, September 2004. 4. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Upper Mahoning River Watershed, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, August 2011. 5. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Upper Grand River Watershed. 2007. Ashtabula, Geauga, Portage, and Trumbull Counties, Ohio. OEPA Technical Report DSW/EAS/2009-6-5. June 2009.* 6. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Cuyahoga River, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, March 2000. 7. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Tuscarawas River Watershed, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, July 2009. 8. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Black River Watershed, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, May 2008. 9. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Nimishillen Creek Watershed, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, October 2009. 10. Biological and Water Quality Study of Sandy Creek, 1996. 1997. Columbiana, Carroll, and Stark Counties, Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, March 1998. 11. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Sugar Creek Basin, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, September 2002. 12. Biological and Water Quality Study of Killbuck Creek Watershed. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, September 2009.* 13. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Mohican River and Selected Tributaries. Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, 2009.* *The TMDL Report is in preparation.

Tuscarawas River Watershed The NEFCO region includes portions of the Tuscarawas River watershed. These eight subbasins are located in Stark, Summit, and Wayne County. Subwatershed s include the Sandy Creek, Sugar Creek, Nimishillen Creek, and Chippewa Creek. Each of these watersheds was included in the 2004 303(d) list of impaired, category 5 watersheds. The category 5 designation inventories watersheds needing a TMDL. In 2002, al l but one of the Tuscarawas River subbasins was included on this list.

Mahoning River Watershed

______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-3

The NEFCO region also includes portions of the Mahoning River watershed. Three subbasins of the Mahoning River are located in eastern Portage County and one s ubbasin is located in eastern Stark County. Subbasins include the Duck Creek, West Branch, and Beech Creek. In 2004 each of the subbasins was listed on the 303(d) list of impaired, category 5 watersheds. In 2002 only one Mahoning River subbasin was incl uded among the category 5 watersheds: Mahoning River, headwaters to downstream Beech Creek.

Killbuck Creek The Killbuck Creek is part of the Kokosing River -Walhonding River -Killbuck Creek watershed assessment unit. Two subbasins of the Killbuck Creek are located in western Wayne County.

Water Quality Standards Applicable to the NEFCO Region

Protecting the safety of the public is accomplished through the Ohio Water Quality Standards. As articulated in the Ohio Water Quality Standards:

It is the purpose of these water quality standards, Chapter 3745-1 of the Administrative Code, to establish minimum water quality requirements for all surface waters of the state, thereby protecting public health and welfare; and to enhance, improve and maintain water quality as provided under the laws of the state of Ohio, section 6111.041 of the Revised Code, the federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. section 1251 et seq., and rules adopted thereunder (Ohio EPA, 1997).

The analysis of biological criteria in a stream recognizes the assimilative ability of a stream and subsequent response by flora and fauna to levels of pollution. In general the more degraded the biological community the greater the threat of a disease-causing condition that could deleteriously affect human health.

______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-4

Water quality standards consist of numerical standards geared to attainment of designated stream uses . Use designations consist of two broad groups, aquatic life and non-aquatic life uses. There are five different aquatic life uses currently defined in the Ohio WQS that apply to the Region’s streams. These include: Warmwater Habitat (WWH), Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH), Coldwater Habitat (CWH), Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH), and Limited Resource Water (LRW). 1

The vast majority of segments in Northeast Ohio are designated Warmwater Habitat. There are some notable exceptions. The Cuyahoga River basin has numerous streams that are classified as Modified Warm Water Habitat or as Limited Resource Waters. Streams that are in the modified category include portions of the Ohio Canal, Fish Creek, Congress Lake Outlet, and Wahoo Ditch. Limited waters include part of Wahoo Ditch, Kingsbury Run, Morgana Run, the Burke Branch, the Ford Branch of Big Creek, Wood Creek, and Pond Brook.

Tables 2-2 through 2-5 present selected data from the TMDLs that was used to prepare the following maps of water quality conditions in the NEFCO region. The reader is encouraged to reference the TMDLs (Table 2-1) for additional information. Figures 2-2 through 2-5 are reference maps to identify subbasins with jurisdictions.

Figures 2-2 through 2-5 illustrate the NEFCO region HUC 12 digits subbasins and the reference numbers used on Tables 2-2 through 2-5.

Figures 2-6 through 2-9 show the designated uses of streams in HUC 12 digit subbasins in the NEFCO region. Note that multiple levels of uses are found in each subbasin. A stream’s designated use reflects conditions in the stream and the immediate drainage area. NEFCO generalized the stream’s designated uses to reflect the subbasin.

1Warmwater Habitat (WWH) - this use designation defines the “typical” warmwater assemblage of aquatic organisms for Ohio rivers and streams; this use represents the principal restoration target for the majority of water resource management efforts in Ohio. Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH) - this use designation is reserved for waters which support “unusual and exceptional” assemblages of aquatic organisms which are characterized by a high diversity of species, particularly those which are highly intolerant and/or rare, threatened, endangered, or special status (i.e., declining species); this designation represents a protection goal for water resource management efforts dealing with Ohio’s best water resources. Coldwater Habitat (CWH) - this use is intended for waters which support assemblages of cold water organisms and/or those which are stocked with salmonids with the intent of providing a put-and-take fishery on a year round basis which is further sanctioned by the Ohio DNR, Division of Wildlife; this use should not be confused with the Seasonal Salmonid Habitat (SSH) use which applies to the Lake Erie tributaries that support periodic “runs” of salmonids during the spring, summer, and/or fall. Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH) - this use applies to streams and rivers which have been subjected to extensive, maintained, and essentially permanent hydro modifications such that the biocriteria for the WWH use are not attainable and where the activities have been sanctioned and permitted by state and federal law; the representative aquatic assemblages are generally composed of species which are tolerant to low dissolved oxygen, silt, nutrient, enrichment, and poor quality habitat. Limited Resource Water (LRW) - this use applies to small streams (usually less than a three square mile drainage area) and other water courses which have been irretrievably altered to the extent that no appreciable assemblage of aquatic life can be supported; such waterways generally include small ______streams in extensively urbanized areas, those which lie in watersheds with extensive______drainage modifications, those DRAFTwhich completely lack water on a recurring annual basis (i.e. true ephemeral streams), or other irretrievably 6/30/12 altered waterways. 2-5

Table 2-2 Portage County Subbasins

Attainment Sources of Designated Recreation Map Watershed Unit Name TMDL Status Impairment Uses in the Assessment Reference # Hydrologic Unit Id Year Basin Score

Full Partial Non U R/A I/C SM/N

Pond Brook ① 10 2003 MWH None listed N/C 041100020501

Chagrin River - WWH ② 9 Aurora Branch 2007 ll l ll lllll 50 CWH 041100030302

LaDue Reservoir - ③ 1 Bridge Creek 2004 WWH l l ll N/C 041100020104

Black Brook ③ 8 2004 WWH ll ll N/C 041100020105

Lake Rockwell - WWH ③ 12 Cuyahoga River 2004 EWH l ll llll 88 41100020203 CWH

Eagle Creek Headwater ④ CWH 7 2011 l 50 050301030401 WWH

Camp Creek - Eagle Creek ④ CWH 6 2011 l l 56 050301030403 WWH

Tinkers Creek ④ 5 2011 WWH l l 50 050301030404

Grand River - Headwaters ⑤ EWH 2 2009 l l 52 041100040102 WWH

Eagle Creek Mouth ④ 4 2011 WWH 50 050301030405

Tinkers Creek - Headwaters ① 11 2003 WWH lll l l N/C 04100020502

Mahoning River - ④ 13 West Branch Headwaters 2011 WWH l ll 44 050301030302

Kirwin Reservoir - ④ 18 West Branch Mahoning River 2011 WWH l 17 050301030304 2-6 Table 2-2 (Continued) Portage County Subbasins

Attainment Sources of Designated Recreation Map Watershed Unit Name TMDL Status Impairment Uses in the Assessment Reference # Hydrologic Unit Id Year Basin Score

Full Partial Non U R/A I/C SM/N

Eagle Creek - South Fork ④ 14 2011 WWH 50 050301030402

Mahoning River - W. Branch ④ 15 Newton Falls 2011 WWH l llll 46 050301030305

Kale Creek ④ 17 2011 WWH l lll 40 050301030301

Barrel Run ④ 19 2011 WWH l 38 050301030303

Breakneck Creek - WWH ③ 20 Feeder Canal 2004 LRW l ll llll N/C 041100020202 MWH

Fish Creek - ⑥ WWH 21 Cuyahoga River 2000 lll ll lll 75 041100020305 MWH

Plum Creek ⑥ 22 2000 WWH ll lll lll N/C 041100020301

Little Cuyahoga - ⑥ 25 Mogadore Reservoir 2000 ll ll llll N/C 041100020302

Little Cuyahoga - ⑥ 23 Wingfoot Lake outlet 2000 WWH ll lll lll N/C 041100020303

Tuscarawas River - ⑦ 24 Headwaters 2009 WWH ll ll 55 050400010101

Potter Creek - WWH ③ 26 Breakneck Creek 2004 l ll llll N/C MWH 041100020201

Deer Creek ④ 27 2011 WWH l 67 050301030201

Mahoning River - Island Creek ④ 29 2011 WWH l 50 050301030204 2-7 Table 2-2 (Continued) Portage County Subbasins

Attainment Sources of Designated Recreation Map Watershed Unit Name TMDL Status Impairment Uses in the Assessment Reference # Hydrologic Unit Id Year Basin Score

Full Partial Non U R/A I/C SM/N

Willow Creek ④ 28 2011 WWH l l 50 050301030202

Mahoning River - ④ 16 Charley Run 2011 WWH ll 75 050301030306

Mill Creek Watershed ④ 30 2011 WWH l lll 15 050301030203

Dead Branch ⑤ 3 2009 WWH None listed 75 041100040101

① Number refers to TMDL report shown in Table 2-1. CWH - Cold Water Habitat U - Urban EWH - Exceptional Warmwater Habitat R/A - Rural/Agriculture LRW - Limited Resource Water I/C - Industrial/Commercial MWH - Modified Warmwater Habitat SM/N - Stream Modifications/Natural WWH - Warmwater Habitat

2-8 Table 2-3 Stark County Subbasins

Attainment Sources of Map Designated Recreation Watershed Unit Name TMDL Status Impairment Reference Uses in the Assessment Hydrologic Unit Id Year # Basin Score

Full Partial Non U R/A I/C SM/N Tucarawas River - ⑦ 33 Wolf Creek 2009 WWH l l l 35 050400011203

Sugar Creek - ⑪ 38 Brandywine Creek 2002 WWH l l ll N/C 050400011105

Sugar Creek - ⑪ 34 Beach City Reservoir 2002 WWH lll l llll N/C 050400011103

Sugar Creek - WWH ⑪ 37 Lower South Fork 2002 lll l llll N/C MWH 050400011005

Sugar Creek - ⑪ 36 Middle Fork Misers Run 2002 WWH lll l llll N/C 050400011102

Sugar Creek - Brewster ⑪ 20 2002 WWH l ll lll N/C 050400010904

Pigeon Run ⑦ 21 2009 WWH l ll 75 050400011201

Tuscarawas River - Mass ⑦ 22 2009 WWH l N/C 050400011202

Newmen Creek Headwater ⑦ 19 2009 WWH ll ll lll l 42 050400010306

Black Run ⑩ 25 1998 WWH l l l N/C 050400010603

Hugle Run ⑩ 26 1998 WWH l l l N/C 050400010601

Sandy Creek - ⑩ 27 Middle Branch 1998 WWH N/C 050400010402 2-9 Table 2-3 (Continued) Stark County Subbasins

Attainment Sources of Map Designated Recreation Watershed Unit Name TMDL Status Impairment Reference Uses in the Assessment Hydrologic Unit Id Year # Basin Score

Full Partial Non U R/A I/C SM/N

Sandy Creek Headwaters ⑩ 28 1998 WWH N/C 050400010406

Sandy Creek - ⑩ 29 Armstrong Run 1998 WWH l l ll N/C 050400010605

Little Sandy Creek ⑩ 24 1998 WWH no data l l ll N/C 050400010604

Sandy Creek ⑩ 30 Indian Run 1998 WWH no datal l ll N/C 050400010606

Nimishillen Creek WWH ⑨ 23 Sherrick Run 2009 ll l lll l 100 LRW 050400010505

Nimishillen Creek ⑨ 31 East Sparta 2009 WWH ll l lll l 38 050400010506

Sandy Creek - ⑨ 32 Beal Run 2009 WWH no data ll l ll N/C 050400010607

Mahoning River - ④ 8 Island Creek 2011 WWH l 50 050301030204

Mahoning River - ④ 9 Fish Creek 2011 WWH l l ll llll 39 050301030103

Beech Creek ④ 10 2011 WWH ll l 44 050301030102

Deer Creek ④ 7 2011 WWH l 67 050301030201

Nimishillen Creek WWH ⑨ 11 Middle Branch Swartz Ditch 2009 ll l llll l 63 MWH 050400010501 2-10 Table 2-3 (Continued) Stark County Subbasins

Attainment Sources of Map Designated Recreation Watershed Unit Name TMDL Status Impairment Reference Uses in the Assessment Hydrologic Unit Id Year # Basin Score

Full Partial Non U R/A I/C SM/N

Potter Creek - Breakneck ③ WWH 6 2004 l ll llll N/C 041100020201 MWH

Tuscarawas River ⑦ 5 Headwaters 2009 WWH ll ll 55 050400010101

Nimishillen Creek WWH ⑨ 14 West Branch 2009 lll l ll l 50 MWH 050400010503

Nimishillen Creek ⑨ 13 Middle Branch City of Canton 2009 WWH lll l ll l 56 050400010504

Nimishillen Creek ⑨ 12 East Branch 2009 WWH ll l l l 33 050400010502

Newman Creek ⑦ 17 North Lawrence 2009 WWH ll l llll ll 50 050400010307

Fox Run ⑦ 18 2009 WWH ll l lll ll 63 050400010304

Tuscarawas River ⑦ 2 Canal Fulton 2009 WWH ll ll lll ll N/C 050400010305

Nimisila Creek ⑦ 3 Lake Lucern 2009 WWH ll ll lll ll 100 050400010303

Tuscarawas River ⑦ 16 West Sippo Creek 2009 WWH ll ll lll ll 25 05040010309

Sippo Creek ⑦ 15 2009 WWH ll ll lll ll 0 050400010308

Nimisila Creek ⑦ 4 Nimisila Reservoir 2009 WWH l l lll ll 75 050400010302 2-11 Table 2-3 (Continued) Stark County Subbasins

Attainment Sources of Map Designated Recreation Watershed Unit Name TMDL Status Impairment Reference Uses in the Assessment Hydrologic Unit Id Year # Basin Score

Full Partial Non U R/A I/C SM/N Silver Creek - ⑦ 1 Chippewa Creek 2009 WWH l ll lll l 30 050400010207

North Fork - Sugar Creek ⑪ 35 2002 WWH llllll llll N/C 050400010903

2-12 Table 2-4 Summit County Subbasins

Attainment Sources of Map Designated Recreation Watershed Unit Name TMDL Status Impairment Reference Uses in the Assessment Hydrologic Unit Id Year # Basin Score

Full Partial Non U R/A I/C SM/N

Pond Brook ① 4 2003 MWH N/C 041100020501

Tinkers Creek - WWH ① 1 Twinsburg 2003 ll l l l 75 LRW 041100020504

Brandywine Creek ① 3 2003 WWH lll ll N/C 041100020404

Willlow Lake - WWH ① 2 Cuyahoga River 2003 ll l l l N/C LRW 041100020505

Rocky River - ⑧ 10 East Branch Headwaters 2008 WWH ll ll lll N/C 041100010201

Yellow Creek ① 11 2003 WWH ll lll N/C 041100020402

Furnace Run ① 9 2003 WWH l l N/C 041100020403

Cuyahoga River CWH ① 8 Boston Run 2003 l ll 31 WWH 041100020405

Mud Brook ① 7 2003 WWH ll lll N/C 041100020401

① Fish Creek - 2003 6 Cuyahoga River ⑥ WWH ll lll lll 75 2000 041100020305

Plum Creek ⑥ 15 2000 WWH ll lll lll N/C 041100020301

Little Cuyahoga - ⑥ 16 Wingfoot Lake 2000 WWH ll lll lll N/C 041100020303 2-13 Table 2-4 (Continued) Summit County Subbasins

Attainment Sources of Map Designated Recreation Watershed Unit Name TMDL Status Impairment Reference Uses in the Assessment Hydrologic Unit Id Year # Basin Score

Full Partial Non U R/A I/C SM/N Little Cuyahoga - ① 14 City of Akron 2003 WWH ll lll lll N/C 041100020304

Pigeon Creek WWH ⑦ 13 050400010102 2009 LRW ll ll lll 33 MWH

Tuscarawas River WWH ⑦ 18 Portage Lakes 2009 ll ll lll 75 MWH 050400010105

Tuscarawas River ⑦ 17 Headwaters 2009 MWH ll ll 55 050400010101

Tuscarawas River WWH ⑦ 21 Pancake Creek 2009 ll l llll ll 50 LRW 050400010301

Wolf Creek Watershed ⑦ WWH 12 2009 ll ll lll 46 050400010104 MWH

Hudson Run ⑦ WWH 19 2009 ll ll lll 50 050400010103 MWH

Silver Creek - WWH ⑦ 20 Chippewa Creek 2009 l lll ll l 30 MWH 050400010207

Headwaters - ① 5 Tinkers Creek 2003 WWH ll l l l N/C 041100020502

West Branch - ⑨ 25 Nimishillen Creek 2009 WWH ll ll ll l 50 050400010503

Nimisila Reservoir - ⑨ 24 Nimisilia Creek 2009 WWH l lll lll ll 75 050400010302

Lake Lucern - ⑨ 23 Nimisila Creek 2009 WWH l lll lll ll 100 050400010303 2-14 Table 2-4 (Continued) Summit County Subbasins

Attainment Sources of Map Designated Recreation Watershed Unit Name TMDL Status Impairment Reference Uses in the Assessment Hydrologic Unit Id Year # Basin Score

Full Partial Non U R/A I/C SM/N Town of Canal Fulton ⑨ 22 Tuscarawas River 2009 WWH l lll lll ll N/C 050400010305

① Number refers to TMDL report shown in Table 2-1. U - Urban CWH - Cold Water Habitat R/A - Rural/Agriculture EWH - Exceptional Warmwater Habitat I/C - Industrial/Commercial LRW - Limited Resource Water SM/N - Stream Modifications/Natural MWH - Modified Warmwater Habitat WWH - Warmwater Habitat

2-15 Table 2-5 Wayne County Subbasins

Attainment Sources of Map Designated Recreation Watershed Unit Name TMDL Status Impairment Reference Uses in the Assessment Hydrologic Unit Id Year # Basin Score

Full Partial Non U R/A I/C SM/N Tuscarawas River WWH ⑦ 7 Pancake Creek 2009 l lll lll l 50 MWH 050400010301

Chippewa Creek - WWH ⑦ 6 Silver Creek 2009 l lll ll l 30 MWH 050400010207

Red Run ⑦ 12 2009 WWH l l lll l 25 050400010206

Fox Run ⑦ 9 2009 WWH ll l lll ll 63 050400010304

Newman Creek - ⑦ 10 North Lawrence 2009 WWH lll llll ll 50 050400010307

Newman Creek - ⑦ 11 Headwaters 2009 WWH ll ll lll l 42 050400010306

Little Chippewa Creek ⑦ 13 2009 WWH l ll lll l 63 050400010203

Chippewa Creek - WWH ⑦ 4 Tommy Run 2009 l ll lll 13 MWH 050400010205

River Styx ⑦ WWH 5 2009 l ll lll l 25 050400010204 MWH

Killbuck Creek - WWH ⑫ 3 Headwaters 2009 lll ll N/C LRW 050400030501

Little Killbuck Creek - ⑫ 2 Killbuck Creek 2009 WWH l l N/C 050400030502

Cedar Run - ⑫ 17 Killbuck Creek 2009 WWH l l N/C 050400030504

Mohican River - ⑬ 1 Upper Muddy Fork 2009 WWH l 50 050400020501 2-16 Table 2-5 (Continued) Wayne County Subbasins

Attainment Sources of Map Designated Recreation Watershed Unit Name TMDL Status Impairment Reference Uses in the Assessment Hydrologic Unit Id Year # Basin Score

Full Partial Non U R/A I/C SM/N Mohican River - ⑬ 19 Middle Muddy Fork 2009 WWH 25 050400020502

Mohican River - ⑬ 20 Lower Muddy Fork 2009 WWH ll 44 050400020503

Rathburn Run - ⑫ 18 Little Killbuck Creek 2009 WWH lll N/C 050400030503

Clear Creek - ⑫ 16 Killbuck Creek 2009 WWH ll ll N/C 050400030505

Little Apple Creek ⑫ 15 2009 WWH l l N/C 050400030601

Apple Creek ⑫ 23 2009 WWH l l N/C 050400030602

⑪ 24 Little Sugar Creek 2002 WWH l llll ll N/C 050400010901

Sugar Creek - ⑪ 25 Town of Brewster 2002 WWH l lll llll N/C 050400010904

Sugar Creek - ⑪ 26 North Fork 2002 WWH l llllll lll N/C 050400010903

Sugar Creek/Middle Fork ⑪ 27 Misers Run 2002 WWH lll l llll N/C 050400011102

Sugar Creek - Middle Fork ⑪ 28 Headwaters 2002 WWH llll ll lll N/C 050400011101

Salt Creek ⑫ 29 2009 WWH l l N/C 050400030606

Salt Creek - ⑫ 30 North Branch 2009 WWH l l N/C 050400030605 2-17 Table 2-5 (Continued) Wayne County Subbasins

Attainment Sources of Map Designated Recreation Watershed Unit Name TMDL Status Impairment Reference Uses in the Assessment Hydrologic Unit Id Year # Basin Score

Full Partial Non U R/A I/C SM/N Shreve Creek ⑫ 32 2009 WWH l l N/C 050400030603

Grab Run ⑫ 33 2009 WWH 17 050400020701

Mohican River - ⑬ 34 Mohican Dam Lake Fork 2009 WWH l ll 050400020702

Tuscarawas River - ⑦ 8 Canal Fulton 2009 WWH l lll lll ll N/C 050400010305

Sugar Creek - ⑪ 14 Smithville 2002 WWH lllll llll N/C 050400010902

Killbuck Creek - ⑫ 22 Jennings Ditch 2009 WWH l l l N/C 050400030604

Killbuck Creek - ⑫ 31 Tea Run 2009 WWH ll N/C 050400030607

Mohican River Jerome Fork ⑬ 21 Glenn Run 2009 WWH none listed 05040002606

2-18 DRAFT Figure 2.1 Principle Watersheds

in the NEFCO Region Grand Clean Water Plan, 2012 Chagrin River River

Rocky River Cuyahoga River Portage County Summit County Mahoning

River

- 1 9 Tuscarawas Chippewa River Creek . Nimishillen Creek Wayne County Stark County Killbuck Mohican Creek Sandy River Creek Sugar Creek NEFCO Four County Region Subwatersheds Stream

Miles 0 12.5 25 Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.2 DRAFT Portage County Jurisdictions and Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 1 2

9 Hiram 3 10 8 AURORA Mantua HIRAM Nelson 7 5 MANTUA GARRETTSVILLE . 6 4 12 11 STREETSBORO Shalersville Freedom WINDHAM

Windham SUGAR BUSH 14

2 KNOLLS -

2 Ravenna 0 Franklin 13 BRADY Charlestown Paris LAKE RAVENNA 15 21 KENT 18 20 22 Rootstown Edinburg Palmyra Brimfield 16 19 17 1 Subbasins 25 Portage County Jurisdictions 23 Suffield Randolph Atwater 28 Deerfield

26 29 27 30 24

Miles 0 5 10

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.3 DRAFT Stark County Jurisdictions and Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 6 7 8 5 LIMAVILLE 1 HARTVILLE Lexington Marlboro Lake 10 3 4 11 14 ALLIANCE 9 2 CANAL 13 FULTON NORTH 18 Jackson CANTON Plain Nimishillen Washington Lawrence 12 17 16 HILLS AND Plain LOUISVILLE 19 DALES 25 MEYERS LAKE 2

- 27

2 CANTON EAST 1 MASSILLON 15 26 21 CANTON 22 23 Osnaburg Paris Tuscarawas Perry 20 Canton Perry 28 24 MINERVA NAVARRE 35 BREWSTER 31 30 29 Pike Sugarcreek Bethlehem Sandy 36 34 EAST WAYNESBURG 33 SPARTA WILMOT BEACH MAGNOLIA CITY 32 .

Stark County Jurisdictions 37 38 1 Subbasins Miles 0 5 10

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.4 DRAFT Summit County Jurisdictions and Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 1

NORTHFIELD REMINDERVILLE

Sagamore HillsMACEDONIATWINSBURG 4

2 Northfield Center Twinsburg

Boston 3 Richfield BOSTON HEIGHTS 10 5 RICHFIELD PENINSULA HUDSON 9 8 7

CUYAHOGA FALLS Bath STOW SILVER LAKE 6 11 MUNROE FALLS FAIRLAWN 15 13 TALLMADGE 12 14 Copley AKRON

. MOGADORE 19 NORTON 18 16 LAKEMORE BARBERTON Coventry Springfield

21 17 20 NEW FRANKLIN GREEN

CLINTON 23 24

1 Subbasins 22 25 Summit County Jurisdictions

Miles 0 5 10

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. 2-22 Figure 2.5 DRAFT Wayne County Jurisdictions and Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 2 5 6 1 BURBANK CRESTON 4 WEST SALEM RITTMAN DOYLESTOWN 7

Congress 3 Milton Chippewa Canaan CONGRESS 13 12 19 MARSHALLVILLE 15 8 17 14 Green . Wayne Baughman 9 Chester 16 SMITHVILLE ORRVILLE 10

2 18 11

- 2

3 WOOSTER 23 DALTON 20 24 Wooster 21 Plain East Union Sugar Creek

APPLE CREEK 25 22 26

34 Franklin 30 Paint Clinton Salt Creek MT EATON

SHREVE FREDERICKSBURG 27 Wayne County Jurisdictions 32 31 29 1 Subbasins 33 28

Miles 0 5 10 Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.6 DRAFT Designated Uses for Portage County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 1 2

9 3 10 8 . 7 5 6 4 11 12

2 -

2 Designated Uses 13 4 WWH,CWH,EWH 15 WWH,EWH 21 WWH,CWH 18

WWH 22 20 17 16 WWH,MWH 19 MWH 25 WWH,MWH,LRW 23 No Data 28 26 1 Subbasins 29 27 30 Portage County 24

Miles 0 5 10 Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.7 DRAFT Designated Uses for Stark County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 6 7 8 5 1

11 3 4 10 9 2 14 18 13 16 19 17 12 25 2 - 2 15 27 5 26 21 22 23 20 24 28

35 31 33 29 34 32 30 Designated Uses 36 WWH WWH,MWH . WWH,LRW 38 1 Subbasins 37

Stark County Miles 0 5 10

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 1998 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.8 DRAFT Designated Uses for Summit County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 1

2 4

10 9 5 . 8 7 11 6

15 13 12 14

16 19 18

17 Designated Uses 20 21 WWH,CWH 24 WWH 23 WWH,MWH 22 MWH 25 WWH,MWH,LRW WWH,LRW 1 Subbasins

Summit County Miles 0 5 10

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2009; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. 2-26 Figure 2.9 DRAFT Designated Uses for Wayne County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 5

2 1 4 6 7 3

17 12 19 . 13 8 9 15 14

2 10 - 11

2 20 18 16 7

21 23 24 25 Designated Uses 22 WWH 26 34 30 WWH,MWH WWH,LRW 32 31 29 27 1 Subbasins 33 28 Wayne County

Miles 0 5 10 Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2002 - 2009; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. The Ohio EPA employs biological criteria that have been codified in the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS) to ascertain the attainment status of aquatic life uses in streams. 2 It uses three different indices to measure fish and macroinvertebrate community characteristics and to determine if aquatic life uses are shown to be in FULL, PARTIAL or NON-ATTAINMENT status. Aquatic life uses are in FULL ATTAINMENT if all three indices meet the applicable criteria, PARTIAL ATTAINMENT if at least one of the indices does not attain and biological community performance is at least fair, and NON- ATTAINMENT if all indices fail to attain, or any index indicates poor or very poor performance. PARTIAL ATTAINMENT or NON-ATTAINMENT indicates that the receiving water is impaired and does not meet the designated use criteria specified by the Ohio WQS. Figures 2-10 through 2-13 illustrate the attainment status as generalized across the HUC 12 digit subbasins. It is interesting to note that the increasingly urbanized subbasins are generally unable to attain their designated uses.

Figure 2 -1 compares the biological integrity of the Region’s streams to 106 Ohio Rivers statewide. It is based on a tool developed by Ohio EPA, Biological Integrity Equivale nts (BIE), that integrates the three Ohio EPA biological indices into a single value on a scale of 0-100. The BIE includes measures of the fish and macroinvertebrate community structure and health of rivers and stream segment. The ranking reflects the de gree to which biological integrity is achieved or the degree of impairment. The system is older and no longer used. It does serve a purpose to gage the relative health of the stream in the region in 1991. For additional details the reader is referred to the Ohio EPA 2000 305(b) report.

The aquatic life use designations, the attainment status evaluation, and the BIE all serve to document existing conditions and trends within the rivers and streams of Ohio. The following discussion summarizes conditions in the streams of Northeast Ohio based on these tools.

Impairments to improving water quality can include nutrients, toxics, stormwater runoff, and changes in the stream corridor. Sources of a single impairment can vary. Nutrients can originate from failed septic tank discharge, point source discharge, and agricultural runoff. Accurate monitoring and assessment are necessary to avoid misguided and expensive best management practices.

Tables 2-2 through 2-5 include the attainment status of streams in the HUC 12 digit subbasins units in Portage, Stark, Summit, and Wayne Counties. The tables also include groups of impairments, urban (U), rural/agriculture (R/A), industrial/commercial (I/C), and stream modification/natural (SM/N). The table presents the frequency the sources of impairments were observed on the subbasins TMDL assessment sheets. This is not meant to be a quantification of the impairment’s impact but rather that the impairment was noted

2Ohio Administrative Code {OAC} 3745-1-07, Table 8-14. ______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-28

Figure 2.10 DRAFT Attainment Status for Portage County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 1 2

9 3 10 8 . 7 5 6 4 11 12

2 -

2 13 9 Attainment Status Full 15 Full/Partial 21 18 Full/Partial/Non 20 Full/Non 22 17 16 19 Partial Partial/Non 25 23 Non 28 No Information Available 26 1 Subbasins 29 27 30 Portage County 24

Miles Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. 0 5 10 Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.11 DRAFT Attainment Status for Stark County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 6 7 8 5 1

11 3 4 10 9 2 14 18 13 16 19 17 12 2 25 - 3

0 15 27 26 21 22 23 Attainment Status 20 24 28 Full 35 Full/Partial 31 33 29 Full/Partial/Non 34 32 30 36 Full/Non Partial Partial/Non . Non 38 No Information Available 37 Subbasins 1 Miles Stark County 0 5 10

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 1998 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.12 DRAFT Attainment Status for Summit County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 1

2 4

10 9 5

8 7

11 6

15 13 . 12 14 16 19 18

Attainment Status 17 Full 20 21 Full/Partial 24 Full/Partial/Non 23 Full/Non 22 Partial/Non 25 Non No Information Available 1 Subbasins

Summit County Miles 0 5 10

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2009; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. 2-31 Figure 2.13 DRAFT Attainment Status for Wayne County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 5

2 4 1 6 7 3

17 12 19 . 13 8 9 15 14

2 10 - 3 18 16 11 2 20 Attainment Status Full 21 23 24 Full/Partial 25 Full/Partial/Non 22 Full/Non 26 34 30 Partial Partial/Non 32 31 29 27 Non 33 28 1 Subbasins Wayne County

9 3 10 8 7 5

6 . 4

11 12 2

- 14 3 3 13

15 21 Number of References to 18 Urban Impairments 22 20 in the TMDLs 17 16 19 None

1 25 2 23 28 3 26 1 Subbasins 29 27 30 Portage County 24

Miles Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. 0 5 10 Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.15 DRAFT Reported Frequency of Urban Impairments In Stark County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 6 7 8 5 1

11 3 4 10 9 2 14 18 13 16 19 17 12 25 2 - 3 15 4 27 26 21 22 23 20 24 28

35 31 33 29 34 32 30 36 Number of References to Urban Impairments in the TMDLs None . 1 38 2 37 3 Subbasins Miles 1 0 5 10 Stark County

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 1998 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.16 DRAFT Reported Frequency of Urban Impairments in Summit County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 1

2 4

10 9 5

8 7

. 11 6

15 13 12 14

16 19 18

17 20 21 Number of References to 24 Urban Impairments in the TMDLs 23 None 22 1 25 2 3 1 Subbasins Summit County Miles 0 5 10

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2009; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. 2-35 Figure 2.17 DRAFT Reported Frequency of Urban Impairments in Wayne County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 5

2 1 4 6 7 3

17 12 19 13 8 . 9 15 14

2 10 - 11

3 20 18 16 6

21 23 Number of References 24 25 to Urban Impairments in the TMDLs 22 None 26 34 30 1 2 32 31 29 27 1 Subbasins 33 28 Wayne County

9 3 10 8 7 5

6 4

. 11 12

2 -

3 14 7 13

15 Number of References to 21 Industrial/Commercial 18 Impairments in the TMDLs 22 20 None 17 16 19 1 2 25 23 3 28 1 Subbasins 26 29 Portage County 27 30 24

Miles Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. 0 5 10 Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.19 DRAFT Reported Frequency of Industrial/Commercial Impairments In Stark County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 6 7 8 5 1

11 3 4 10 9 2 14 18 13 17 16 12 2 19 25 - 3 8 15 27 26 21 22 23 20 24 28

35 Number of References to 31 33 29 Industrial/Commercial 34 32 30 Impairments in the TMDLs 36 None 1 2 . 3 38 4 37 1 Subbasins Miles Stark County 0 5 10

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 1998 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.20 DRAFT Reported Frequency of Industrial/Commercial Impairments in Summit County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 1

2 4

10 9 5

8 7

11 6

. 15 13 12 14

16 19 18

17 Number of References to 20 21 Industrial/Commercial Impairments in the TMDLs 24 None 23 1 22 2 25 3 4 1 Subbasins Summit County Miles 0 5 10

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2009; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. 2-39 Figure 2.21 DRAFT Reported Frequency of Industrial/Commercial Impairments in Wayne County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 5

2 1 4 6 7 3

. 17 12 19 13 8 9 15 14

2 10

- 11 4 18 16

0 20

Number of References to Industrial/Commercial 21 23 24 25 Impairments in the TMDLs None 22 1 26 34 30 2 3 32 31 29 27 4 33 28 1 Subbasins Wayne County

9 3 10 8 7 5

. 6 4 11 12

- 4

1 13

15 21 18 Number of References to Rural/Agricultural 22 20 17 16 Impairments in the TMDLs 19 None 25 1 23 28 2 26 1 Subbasins 29 27 30 Portage County 24

Miles Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. 0 5 10 Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.23 DRAFT Reported Frequency of Rural/Agricultural Impairments In Stark County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 6 7 8 5 1

11 3 4 10 9 2 14 18 13 16 19 17 12 2 25 - 4

2 15 27 26 21 22 23 20 24 28

35 Number of References to 31 33 29 Rural/Agricultural 34 32 30 Impairments in the TMDLs 36 None 1 2 . 3 38 6 37 1 Subbasins Miles Stark County 0 5 10

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 1998 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.24 DRAFT Reported Frequency of Rural/Agricultural Impairments In Summit County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 1

2 4

10 9 5

8 7

11 6

15 13 12 14 . 16 19 18

17 21 Number of References to 20 Rural/Agricultural 24 Impairments in the TMDLs 23 None 22 1 25 2 3 1 Subbasins Summit County Miles 0 5 10

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2009; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. 2-43 Figure 2.25 DRAFT Reported Frequency of Rural/Agricultural Impairments in Wayne County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 5

2 4 1 6 7 3

. 17 12 19 13 8 9 2 14

- 15 4 4 Number of References 10 18 16 11 to Rural/Agricultural 20 Impairments in the TMDLs None 21 23 1 24 25 2 22 3 26 34 4 30

5 32 29 27 6 31 33 28 1 Subbasins Wayne County

Miles 0 5 10 Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2002 - 2009; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.26 DRAFT Reported Frequency of Stream Modifications/Natural Area Impairments In Portage County Subbasins 1 Clean Water Plan, 2012 2

9 3 10 8 7 5

6 . 4 11 12

2 -

4 13 5 Number of References to Stream 15 Modification/Natural Area 21 Impairments in the TMDLs 18 None 22 20 1 17 16 19 2 3 25 23 4 28 5 26 29 1 Subbasins 27 30 24 Portage County

Miles Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. 0 5 10 Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.27 DRAFT Reported Frequency of Stream Modifications/Natural Area Impairments In Stark County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 6 7 8 5 1

11 3 4 10 9 2 14 18 13

2 17 16 12 -

4 19 25 6 15 27 26 21 22 23 20 24 28

Number of References to 35 31 Stream Modifications/ 33 29 Natural Area Impairments 34 32 30 in the TMDLs 36 None 1 . 2 3 38 4 37 1 Subbasins Miles 0 5 10 Stark County

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 1998 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.28 DRAFT Reported Frequency of Stream Modifications/Natural Impairment Summit County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 1

2 4

10 9 5

8 7

. 11 6

15 13 12 14

16 19 Number of References 18 to Stream Modifications/ 17 Natural Impairments 21 in the TMDLs 20 None 24 Low 23

Moderately Low 22 25 Moderate 1 Subbasins Summit County

Miles 0 5 10

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2009; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. 2-47 Figure 2.29 DRAFT Reported Frequency of Stream Modification/Natural Area Impairments in

Wayne County Subbasins 5 Clean Water Plan, 2012 2 1 4 6 7 3

. 17 12 19 13 8 9

15 14 2

- 10 4 11 8 Number of References to 20 18 16 Stream Modification/Natural Area Impairments in the TMDLs 21 23 24 25 None

1 22 26 2 34 30 3 4 32 31 29 27 1 Subbasins 33 28 Wayne County

9 3 10 8 7 5 . 6 4 11 12

2 -

4 13 9

15 21 Index Score Score 18 Not Calculated Criterion 22 20 17 16 1 - 24 > 10x E.Coli Standard 19 25 - 49 5x - 10x E.Coli Standard 25 50 - 74 2x - 5x E.Coli Standard 23 75 - 99 < 2x E.Coli Standard 28 >100 Meets E.Coli Standard 26 27 29 1 Subbasins 30 24 Portage County

Miles 0 5 10 Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.31 DRAFT Recreation Use Attainment Score Stark County 6 7 8 Subbasins 5 Clean Water Plan, 2012 1 11 3 4 10 9 2 14 18 13 16 19 17 12 25

2 15 27 - 5 0 26 21 22 23 20 24 28

35 31 33 29 34 32 30 Index Score Score 36 Not Calculated Criterion 0 - 24 10x E.Coli standard 25 - 49 5x - 10x E.Coli standard . 50 - 74 2x - 5x E.Coli standard 38 37 75 - 99 < 2x E.Coli standard > 100 Meets E.Coli standard

1 Subbasins Miles 0 5 10 Stark County

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 1998 - 2011; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. Figure 2.32 DRAFT Recreation Use Attainment Score Summit County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 1

2 4

10 9 5 . 8 7 11 6

15 13 12 14

Miles 16 0 5 10 19 18

17 20 21 Index Score Score Criterion 24 Not Calculated 23 1 - 24 > 10x E.Coli standard 22 25 - 49 5x - 10x E.Coli standard 25 50 - 74 2x - 5x E.Coli standard 75 - 99 < 2x E.Coli standard > 100 Meets E.Coli standard 1 Subbasins Summit County

Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2000 - 2009; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. 2-51 Figure 2.33 DRAFT Recreation Use Attainment Score Wayne County Subbasins Clean Water Plan, 2012 5

2 4 1 6 7 3

17 12 19 . 13 8 9 15 14 10 16 11

2 20 18

5 2

21 23 24 25

22 Index Score Score 26 34 30 Not Calculated Criterion 1 - 24 > 10x E.Coli Standard 32 29 27 25 - 49 5x - 10x E.Coli Standard 31 33 28 50 - 74 2x - 5x E.Coli Standard 75 - 99 < 2x E.Coli Standard > 100 Meets E.Coli Standard 1 Subbasins Miles 0 5 10 Wayne County Northeast Ohio Four County Regional Planning and Development Organization, 2012. Ohio EPA Total Maximum Daily Load, 2002 - 2009; USDA, NRCS Watershed Data, 1999 - present. by the Ohio EPA as being present. Additional research is needed to further characterize the specific impairments source and pollution contribution.

Figures 2-14 through 2-29 illustrate the frequency distribution of groups of sources through the 12 digit HUC watersheds in the NEFCO region. Trends of the sources of impairments become obvious through the region with respect to rural versus urbanization and agricultural versus natural areas.

Figures 2-30 through 2-33 show the Recreation Use Attainment scores for the 12 digit HUC subbasins in the NEFCO region.

The Recreation Assessment provides a way to compare E. coli concentration at sampled sites with a criterion that applies to the site. Sampled sites with E. coli concentration that exceeded the criterion had a low assessment score, while those sites which attained the criteria or only slightly exceeded the criteria had the highest scores. An index score was assigned for each HUC 12 digit basin site having sufficient data to calculate a geometric mean (i.e. two or more samples). Ohio 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Final Report. March 8, 2010.

Ohio EPA adopted new rules on December 15, 2009 that established water quality criteria based on E. coli to replace fecal coliform as E. coli has been shown to be a better prediction of the potential for impacts to human health. The E. coli limits are dependent on the Recreation Use designation (e.g. swimming, boating, and water skiing) of a waterway i.e. bathing waters, primary contract, and secondary contact. For example, streams with primary contact designation for frequent recreational activity have a 30-day average E. coli (county per 100 ml) of 126 and a seven day average of 284.

Water Quality Trends in Northeast Ohio

The Ohio EPA has identified that major changes have occurred, which have contributed to the improvements in current statewide water quality conditions. The Ohio EPA notes that most of these water quality improvements can be attributed to improvements in point source control and that future threats to water quality will come from nonpoint sources of pollution. Their assessment is applicable to Northeast Ohio as well. The Ohio EPA states:

“the impacts from nonpoint sources of pollution, such as combined sewer overflows, urban storm water, siltation of substrates, and habitat degradation, agricultural and storm water run-off, etc., are becoming increasingly evident as historically more pronounced impacts from point sources e.g. municipal WWTPs, some industrial effluents, are reduced. Since 1988, there has been a 48% decline in point sources as a major source of impairment in reassessed streams in Ohio...Nonpoint sources have emerged as a major source of impairment in streams and rivers during this period...River and stream attainments will not be achieved by the restoration of point source related impairments alone. Even if point ______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-53

source associated impairment is virtually eliminated (and assuming no new nonpoint source impacts are revealed) the result would be over 70% of streams and rivers fully attaining aquatic life criteria. Given these facts, “new” successes in controlling, abating, and preventing nonpoint and other sources of impairment will be needed.”

Figure 2 -1* Statewide Rating of the Biological Integrity of N.E. O hio Rivers and Streams Narrative Ranking Cultural/Watershed Rating Influences & Characteristics

Highest quality Ohio stream and riverine resources with exceptional quality biological assemblages, significant populations of imperiled species , high quality instream and riparian habitat (effects of nonpoint sources are mitigated by these characteristics); point source impacts are generally minimal to nonexistent; significant recovery has occurred in Exceptional some due to WWTP upgrades.

High quality Ohio streams and rivers, most with intact instream and riparian habitat; significant recovery has 21. Grand River (1995) Very Good occurred in some due to WWTP upgrades. Typifies characteristics com mon to most Ohio stream and riverine resources; quality of instream and riparian habitat is 27. Upper Cuyahoga R. (1991) generally good at most locations; effects of point and/or nonpoint sources are more evident significant recovery has 36. Chagrin River (1995) Good occurred in some areas due to WWTP upgrades. Increase non -attainment of WWH evident; marginal attainment of WWH at many locations; effects of point and/or nonpoint sources are increasingly evident; riparian and instream habit at degradation, siltation, and nutrient 50. W. Br. Rocky River (1992) Marginally enrichment are increasingly important factors; recovery from 51. E. Br. Rocky River (1992) point source impacts is incomplete and may be inhibited by Good these factors. Few sites attain WWH, non -attainment at most sites due to 61. E. Br. Black River (1992) watershed -wide riparian and instream habitat degradation, 73. W. Br. Black River (1992) agricultural and suburban nonpoint sources, industrial and 80. Black River (199 2) municipal WWTP impacts and/or non -acidic mine dra inage; 84. Rocky River (1992) recovery from point source impacts is incomplete and may Fair be inhibited by other factors. Very few or no sites attain WWH; non -attainment due to extensive riparian and instream ha bitat degradation, agricultural and urban nonpoint source, CSOs, urban/industrial impacters, and/or sediment contamination; 88. Lower Cuyahoga R. (1991) recovery from point source impacts is negligible or masked 96. Lower Cuyahoga R. (1986/91) Fair -Poor by other factors. Extensive WWH non -attainment with poor biologica l assemblages; significant urban/industrial impacts; little or no Poor recovery is evident.

Extreme degradation due to residual problems; very low Very Poor recovery potential. Source: 1996 Ohio Water Resources Inventory 305(b) Report by Ohio EPA ______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-54

*Figure re flects ratings only for Lake Erie Basin streams

“While successes resulting from the abatement of point sources have been documented, there are other indications that impact from nonpoint source runoff, habitat degradation, and watershed disturbances may be worsening. Siltation of substrates i.e. stream bed, stream channel, stream bottom, etc. and habitat degradation are now the second and third leading causes of aquatic life impairment in Ohio streams and rivers, surpassing ammonia and heavy metals. These impairments are principally the result of agricultural land use, intensive urbanization, and suburban development, the latter of which is emerging as one of the most significant threats to watersheds...Increasingly, water pollution problems are associated with nonpoint sources such as, construction sites, farm land, abandoned mines, landfills, pits and lagoons, oil and gas wells, domestic sewage systems, manure and treatment processing residuals.”3

The following discussion summarizes water quality condit ions within the Cuyahoga watershed in Portage and Summit Counties. Each watershed is discussed in terms of its water quality standards attainment status, of gains or losses in overall water quality since the development of the original 208 CWP, and the outlook for the future.

Cuyahoga River Watershed: Figure 2 -2a summarizes current water quality conditions in the Cuyahoga River watershed. In the upper Cuyahoga River (in Geauga and Portage Counties) the river has been identified as being in Full Attainme nt except in a few segments. The East Branch is most heavily impacted stretch with one segment in non - attainment and the balance in Partial Attainment. From the confluence of the East Branch and the West Branch to the Portage County line, the river is in partial attainment of the standard. A twenty -five mile portion of the Cuyahoga River, through this stretch, from the Troy/Burton Township line in Geauga County to River Mile 60.76 (Route 14) in Portage County, has been designated a State Scenic River.

Much of the middle Cuyahoga River which lies in Portage and Summit Counties upstream of the confluence with the Little Cuyahoga River is in full and partial attainment of the standards. The lower 45 miles of the river, from the Ohio Edison Dam upstream of the confluence of the Little Cuyahoga is an Area of Concern subject to Remedial Action Plan requirements of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. 4

The Cuyahoga River has greatly improved since 1984. Most improvements were due to municipal and industria l wastewater treatment plant upgrades, sanitary and combined sewer overflow remediations, and pretreatment programs at industrial facilities. The Cuyahoga ’s habitat status in the navigation channel limits biological recovery. Habitat above the navigatio n channel has improved in many locales but is threatened in rapidly urbanizing areas of the watershed.

The Upper Cuyahoga River is ranked second in Northeast Ohio and 27th statewide by the BIE index. It received a ranking of “good ”. In “good ” streams an d rivers the quality of the

______DRAFT3Ohio Water Resources Inventory: Executive Summary (Ohio EPA, 1996), pp. 11-13. 6/30/12 4Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan Stage One Report2-55 (Cuyahoga River RAP Coordinating Committee, 1992; 1995). in -stream and riparian habitat is good at most locations, while the effects of point and nonpoint source pollution are not evident.

The Lower Cuyahoga River was evaluated twice, once with 1991 data, and once with 1986 and 1991 data combined. Both times the river fell within a “fair to poor ” classification. With 1991 data alone, the lower Cuyahoga ranked 88th in Ohio. The fair to poor classification indicates that very few if any sites attain warmwater standards and there is very extensive riparian and in -stream habitat degradation due to urban development and non -point problems, combined sewers overflow (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), industrial impactors and sediment contamination. Tinkers Creek is ranked right bel ow the lower Cuyahoga and is also in the fair to poor category.

Each of the 14 11 -digit HUC watersheds lying in the NEFCO Ohio River basin was included on the 2004 Ohio EPA 303(d) list of prioritized impaired waters. This list includes category 5 watershe ds. Category 5 designates watersheds that are impaired or threatened and require a TMDL.

The following discussion presents historical data and interpretation of the Watershed Scores and Large River Scores The Ohio EPA measures both watershed units and large river units for aquatic life attainment status. 2000 was the last year the Ohio EPA used stream segments when determining attainment status. The Ohio EPA now analyzes watershed units instead of stream segment units, since TMDLs are watershed-based reports.

Watershed Scores Each of the 331 11-digit watersheds in Ohio is assessed for aquatic life attainment. The watersheds receive scores between 0 and 100 based on the percentage of full aquatic life attainment; the higher the score, the closer to full aquatic life use attainment. In 2000 the state average was 47. Table 2-1 lists and Figure 2-2b maps the scores received in 2002 and 2004 for 12 of the 14 basins in the NEFCO region.

Table 2 -2: Average Watershed Score, 2002 -2004 Watershed 2002 Score 2004 Score Mahoning River (headwaters to downstream Beech Creek) 61 61 Killbuck Creek (upstream Apple Creek to downstream Salt Creek) 59 57 Mahoning River (downstream West Branch to upstream Duck 56 56 Creek) Killbuck Creek (headwaters to upstream Apple Cr eek) 44 74 Sugar Creek (upstream Middle Fork to mouth) 28 28 Sugar Creek (headwaters to upstream Middle Fork) 27 27 Nimishillen Creek 18 18 Tuscarawas River (downstream Wolf Creek to downstream Sippo 15 19 Creek) Sandy Creek (downstream Still Fork to mouth) 13 21 ______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-56

Chippewa Creek 6 6 Tuscarawas River (headwaters to downstream Wolf Creek) 0 0 Mahoning River (downstream Berlin Dam to downstream West 0 0 Branch)

According to these data, only three of the basins scored above the state average in 2002 and only four in 2004. Many of these watersheds had very poor scores, indicating severe water quality problems; two basins had a score of zero, equivalent to 100 percent non -attainment.

Table 2 -2 lists the impairments for the 14 basins in the NEFCO regio n for the Ohio River basin. These data are from Appendix D2 of the Ohio 2004 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. The three columns correspond to the three variables measured for water quality: aquatic life, recreational use, and fi sh consumption.

Table 2 -3: Watershed Impairments Ohio River Basin Watershed (11 -digit) Aquatic Life Recreational Fish Impairment Use Consumption Impairment Advisory Mahoning River (downstream West Branch to Yes No Yes upstream Duck Creek) Mahoning Rive r (downstream Berlin Dam to Yes Unknown Yes downstream West Branch) Mahoning River (downstream Beech Creek to Unknown Unknown Yes downstream Berlin Dam) Mahoning River (headwaters to downstream Yes Yes No Data Beech Creek) Sandy Creek (downstream Still Fork to mouth) Yes No Yes Nimishillen Creek Yes Yes Yes Tuscarawas River (downstream Sippo Creek to Unknown Yes No Data upstream Sugar Creek, excluding mainstem) Tuscarawas River (downstream Wolf Creek to Yes Yes Yes downstream Sippo Creek) Tuscarawas River (headwaters to downstream Yes Yes Yes Wolf Creek) Chippewa Creek Yes Yes No Data Sugar Creek (headwaters to upstream Middle Yes Yes No Data Fork) Sugar Creek (upstream Middle Fork to mouth) Yes Yes No Data Killbuck Creek (headwaters to upstre am Apple Yes Yes No Data Creek) Killbuck Creek (upstream Apple Creek to Yes Yes No Data downstream Salt Creek)

______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-57

Large River Scores The Ohio EPA also assesses the 23 large rivers on aquatic life use attainment status. These large rivers are scored in t he same manner as the watershed units. The NEFCO region includes parts of two large river assessment units within the Ohio River basin: the Tuscarawas River and the Mahoning River (Table 2 -3). In 2000 the state average for large rivers was 62. In 1980 th e state average score was 21, indicating a remarkable improvement in overall water quality. The Tuscarawas River had a score of 0 in 2002 and a score of 10 in 2004. The Mahoning River had a score of 1 in both 2002 and 2004. These poor scores indicate se vere water quality impairments for the region. The scores for the Tuscarawas River indicate improving water quality over the past two years.

Table 2 -4: Mean QHEI by Stream Segment, 2000 Ohio River Basin Stream Segment 2000 Mean QHEI Mahoning River Maho ning River (headwaters to Beech Creek) 61.4 Mahoning River (Beech Creek to Berlin Dam) 61.3 Mahoning River (Milton Dam to West Branch) 49.8 Mahoning River (West Branch to Duck Creek) 51.6 Upper Tuscarawas River Tuscarawas River (Pigeon Run to Sandy Cr eek) 64.7 Tuscarawas River (Newman Creek to Pigeon Run) 49.4 Tuscarawas River (Chippewa Creek to Newman Creek) 65.5 Nimisila Creek 65.4 Chippewa Creek (Steele Ditch to Tuscarawas River) 27.5 Little Chippewa Creek 34.0 Unnamed Tributary to Little Chi ppewa Creek 60.0 River Styx 36.4 Tributary to Nimisila Creek 75.5 Chippewa Creek (headwaters to Steele Ditch) 29.0 Tuscarawas River (Wolf Creek to Chippewa Creek) 44.9 Pigeon Creek 37.3 Wolf Creek 40.2 Hudson Run 51.0 Van Hyning Run 49.5 Metzger’s Ditch 62.3 Tuscarawas River (headwaters to Wolf Creek) 50.5 Nimishillen Creek Sandy Creek (Nimishillen Creek to Tuscarawas River) 64.0 Nimishillen Creek 73.8 Hurford Run 41.6 Domer Ditch 58.1 Sherrick Run 53.2 West Branch Nimishillen Creek 51.8 East Branch Nimishillen Creek 66.8 Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek 54.7 Swartz Ditch 35.2 Guiley Ditch (Hartville) 34.3 Tributary to East Branch Nimishillen Creek 44.0 ______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-58

Stream Segment 2000 Mean QHEI Hoover Ditch 48.0 Zimber Ditch 47.3 McDowell Ditch 34.0 Osnaburg Ditch 40.5 Sand y Creek (headwaters to Still Fork) 71.3

Table 2 -4: Mean QHEI by Stream Segment, 2000 Ohio River Basin (continued) Stream Segment 2000 Mean QHEI Sugar Creek Middle Fork Sugar Creek 59.0 Sugar Creek (headwaters to Middle Fork) 47.0 Sugar Creek (South F ork to Tuscarawas River) 72.0 North Fork Sugar Creek 48.1 Killbuck Creek Killbuck Creek (Apple Creek to Salt Creek) 52.5 Killbuck Creek (Salt Creek to Sapps Run) 75.2 Apple Creek 72.3 Killbuck Creek (Shade Creek to Apple Creek) 66.6 Killbuck Creek ( headwaters to Shade Creek) 56.0 Shade Creek 47.5 Camel Creek 71.2 Little Killbuck Creek 63.7 Shreve Creek 54.0 North Branch Salt Creek 69.0 Martins Creek 63.0 Paint Creek 84.0 Salt Creek 60.5 North Branch Salt Creek 69.0

Field Monitoring/TMDL : O hio River Basin The Ohio EPA has created a comprehensive timeline that lists when particular watersheds will be monitored and when TMDL reports will be filed. Field monitoring is typically done 2 years prior to submittal of the TMDL report for a particula r watershed. The goal for the Ohio EPA is to have the entire TMDL program in place by 2010.

In 2002, a TMDL report was completed for Sugar Creek, the fifth approved for Ohio by the USEPA. This TMDL found that most of the watershed was in non -attainment and that the Sugar Creek watershed as a whole was among the most degraded in Ohio. Sedimentation, habitat alteration, and nutrient enrichment were cited as the primary causes of impairment.

The following subbasins were field monitored in 2004 and will be submitting TMDL reports to the USEPA in 2006: 1. Tuscarawas River (headwaters to downstream Wolf Creek) ______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-59

2. Chippewa Creek 3. Tuscarawas River (downstream Wolf Creek to downstream Sippo Creek, excluding Chippewa Creek) 4. Nimishillen Creek 5. Tuscarawas River (downs tream Sippo Creek to upstream Sugar Creek, excluding Tuscarawas River mainstem)

The following subbasins will be monitored in 2007 and will submit a TMDL in 2009: 1. Killbuck Creek (headwaters to upstream Apple Creek) 2. Killbuck Creek (upstream Apple Creek t o downstream Salt Creek)

The following subbasins will be monitored in 2008 and will submit a TMDL in 2010: 1. Mahoning River (headwaters to downstream Beech Creek) 2. Mahoning River (downstream Beech Creek to downstream Berlin Dam) 3. Mahoning River (downstream Berlin Dam to downstream West Branch) 4. Mahoning River (downstream West Branch to upstream Duck Creek)

The following subbasins will be monitored in 2012 and will submit a TMDL in 2014: 1. Sandy Creek (downstream Still Fork to mouth, excluding Nimishillen Cr eek) 2. Sugar Creek (headwaters to upstream Middle Fork) 3. Sugar Creek (upstream Middle Fork to mouth, excluding South Fork)

II. Regional Population & Employment Developments Since 19 81 Regional Population and Employment Developments Since 1980

The abundance of clean water in Northeast Ohio once facilitated the rapid growth experienced by the region throughout most of the industrial age. With the decline in or re- shaping of heavy manufacturing in Northeast Ohio over the last several decades, population and development trends become important factors in the use of water resources.

Population Changes

Since 1980, the NEFCO region’s population has grown by 5 percent. Individually, NEFCO’s counties experienced diverging trends in population change in the past 30 years, ranging from double-digit percentage increases for two of NEFCO’s largely rural counties (Portage and Wayne) to a slight increase in urban Summit County and a minor loss of population in Stark County. Many planners in the region attribute the growing populations in the region’s rural counties as evidence of urban sprawl.

Despite the population growth in most of the NEFCO region depicted in Table 2-6, a comparison with the U.S. population trend indicates Northeast Ohio’s (as well as the State’s) slow rate of growth over the last three decades. Effective water quality planning will require analyses of sub-portions of counties and communities in which rapid population growth may threaten water resources. The region’s characteristically rural

______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-60

counties, Portage and Wayne, are experiencing the largest percentage increases in population. The Ohio Policy Research and Strategic Planning Office projects continued growth in the years 2020 and 2030 while Stark and Summit Counties decline. In the parts of the region experiencing population growth, planners should have measures in place to prevent environmental degradation. Land use planning in these areas will lead to more sustainable decisions for the placement of infrastructure and development.

Table 2-6 Population Change 1980-2010 Annual 1980 1990 2000 2010 % Change Average Projected Projected County Census Census Census Census 1980-2010 rate of 2020 2030 Change* Portage 135,856 142,585 152,061 161,419 18.8% 0.4% 161,660 161,880 Stark 378,823 367,585 378,098 375,586 -0.9% 0.0% 372,490 368,900 Summit 524,472 514,990 542,899 541,781 3.3% 0.0% 564,810 564,210 Wayne 97,408 101,461 111,564 114,520 17.6% 0.3% 128,670 136,690 NEFCO 1,136,559 1,126,621 1,184,622 1,193,306 5.0% N/A 1,227,630 1,231,680 Ohio 10,797,630 10,847,115 11,353,140 11,536,504 6.8% 0.1% 12,005,730 12,317,610 U.S. 226,545,805 248,709,873 281,421,906 308,745,538 36.3% 11%** N/A N/A Source: Ohio County Profile, March 2011 2009 Population Estimates by County, City, Village and Township; July 2010, Revised Ohio Department of Development, Policy Research and Strategic Planning Office

*Between April 1, 2000 and July 1, 2009 **Between 1980-2010

Except for Wayne County, which is primarily a rural county with a large Amish and farming population, the region’s average family size (ranging from 3.0-3.07) is well below the 3.23 reported for the U.S. (Table 2-7). A possible explanation for this pattern could be attributed to a population that is, for the most part, older than that of the nation. A comparison between the percent of various age cohorts in the NEFCO region and the U.S. supports this conclusion. With one exception, younger populations (ages 18-24 and 25-44 years) in the NEFCO region make up a smaller percentage of the population than in the U.S. The presence of Kent State University in rural Portage County explains the significantly higher number of college age (18-24 years) residents. The region has a higher share of older adults (45-64 years) and elderly (65 and over) than found nationally. Despite the healthy distribution of colleges and universities in the region, the numbers seem to indicate that many members of this younger cohort do not remain here. The median age in each county is higher than the national median age of 37.2 years. Environmental planning will need to address the concerns and limitations of an aging population if the current demographic trends continue.

______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-61

Table 2-7 Population Estimates, 2010 Average College Age Young Adult Older Adult Old Population Median County Family (18-24) (25-44) (45-64) (65+) Age (Yrs.) Size Pct. Dist. Pct. Dist. Pct. Dist. Pct. Dist. Portage 3.00 15.6% 23.1% 27.5% 12.9% 37.4 Stark 3.00 8.7% 23.3% 28.8% 16.2% 41.1 Summit 3.07 9.1% 24.7% 28.8% 14.6% 40.0 Wayne 3.24 9.7% 23.0% 27.3% 14.6% 38.3 Ohio 3.06 9.5% 25.0% 27.7% 14.1% 38.8 U.S. 3.23 9.9% 26.6% 26.4% 13.0% 37.2 Sources: 2010 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates StatsAmerica, May 2012

Economic Trends

Employment in the NEFCO region reflects the nation’s recent economic recovery. Local reports that the manufacturing industry has seen some gains may be a result of the growing oil and shale gas industry in which Portage and Stark Counties play a major role. The 2011 annual average unemployment rate in three of the region’s four counties was below the state and U.S. rates (see Table 2-8). However, Stark County and cities in the region continue to report unemployment rates well above the U.S. rate. This trend represents a possible challenge in educating individuals in parts of the region with the highest populations (and therefore with the greatest impact on the environment) but whose own economic struggles will likely take priority over environmental concerns.

______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-62

Table 2-8 Income and Unemployment County Median Median Per Capita Per Capita 2011 Annual Household Household Income Income as % of Average Income Income as % U.S. Unemployment of U.S. Rate Portage 49,244 98.4% 23,515 90.2 8.3% Stark 42,664 85.2% 22,590 86.7 9.2% Summit 45,593 91.1% 25,391 97.4 8.5% Wayne 46,288 92.5% 21,438 82.3 7.7% Ohio 45,090 90.1% 23,975 92.0 8.6% U.S 50,046 26,059 8.9% Source: 2010 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates

American Community Survey 2010 One-Year Estimates for median household income and per capita income (PCI) show that the area lags behind the U.S. Within the region, NEFCO’s rural counties (Portage and Wayne) display the highest median household incomes. Summit and Stark Counties, home to the region’s largest cities, report a lower median household income. However, Summit County’s per capita income and its percentage of the U.S. PCI are significantly higher than that of the other counties. A higher earning potential due to a concentration of headquarters and commerce in the Akron area could explain this result. This interesting pattern has implications for how to proceed with planning efforts in the region.

Planners need to consider Portage County’s important position in the region. While the data do not always place Portage County in the best or worst positions in the region, they depict the economic stability of this county. Coupled with a low unemployment rate, proximity to major urban centers in Northeast Ohio (Akron, Canton, Youngstown and Cleveland), and having the NEFCO region’s highest population growth, Portage County can have a significant influence on economic and water quality planning in the NEFCO region. Portage County’s median household income is 98.4 percent of the U.S. household income – the highest of NEFCO’s four counties despite its large college-age population. A note must be added to consider the effects of the oil and shale gas drilling industry in the region. The discovery of potentially significant energy reserves in the region can have serious implications for water quality. Because drilling operations will likely occur on private properties scattered throughout the region, this development could pose challenges to monitoring water quality and maintaining a clean water supply.

Portage County also stands out as the county with the lowest percentage of residents that reported working in the county in the 2000 Census. As Table 2-9 shows, nearly half of the residents (49.6%) work elsewhere, and 65.5 percent of people working in Portage County live there, making it the last of NEFCO’s four counties with residents employed locally. ______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-63

This pattern is likely the result of Portage County being suitably located near major employment centers: Cleveland, Akron, Canton and Youngstown. However, the large number of residents working out-of-county could pose problems for those wishing to reach a population whose employment focus is in another community.

Table 2-9 Patterns of In-County/Out-of-County Employment Workers Living in County in 2000 (Pct. in county) County Working In County Working Elsewhere Portage 50.4% 49.6% Stark 79.3% 20.7% Summit 75.0% 25.0% Wayne 73.0% 27.0% Source: StatsAmerica; 2000 Census

Social Trends

A great advantage of the NEFCO region has been its percent of the population with a high school degree or further schooling. All four counties report percentages higher than in the nation, and Wayne, Portage and Stark Counties’ percentages are higher than that for the State of Ohio (see Table 2-10). Summit County has the lowest percent of high school graduates, possibly due to it having the largest city in the region (with a higher concentration of the urban poor and immigrants). This trend reverses with the percent of the population with a college degree or graduate studies. Summit County is the only one with a percent higher than the State, while Wayne County (with the highest percent of high school graduates) is among the lowest of the counties. This occurrence could be attributed to Wayne County’s diversified economy, which includes farming, and a large Amish population. The location of headquarters, manufacturing and major businesses which make Summit County a center of commerce could explain the concentration of highly-educated residents. Portage County is second in percent of college graduates. The presence of The University of Akron and Kent State University in these two counties also attracts populations with several years of education.

______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-64

Table 2-10 Educational Attainment County Percent H.S. Percent College Graduate or Higher Graduate or Higher Portage 39.8% 15.6% Stark 39.5% 13.4% Summit 31.9% 19.8% Wayne 43.0% 13.6% Ohio 35.2% 15.7% U.S 28.5% 17.7% Sources: 2010 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates StatsAmerica, May 2012

Some interesting patterns emerge when viewing poverty rates for each county (Table 2-11). Although the four counties report 2010 poverty rates below the national rate of 15.3, analyses of the five-year percentage change in this rate provides a disparate picture of the counties. Portage County saw an 84 percent increase in the general poverty rate between 2005 and 2010. The poverty rate of children under 18 also changed markedly between 2005 and 2010, though not as drastically as the poverty rate for Portage County’s general population. Although these trends are likely a mirror of the national trend for poverty, the disparately large increases in the poverty rates seen in Portage and Wayne Counties may provide guidance on how best to reach residents with information on environmental programs.

Table 2-11 Poverty Estimates Poverty Rate for Poverty Rate 5-Year % 5-Year % County Children Under 18 Change Change 2010 2000 2010 2000 Portage 15.1 8.2 84.1% 18.1 10.7 69.2% Stark 14.6 9.1 60.4% 23.1 13.8 67.4% Summit 15.4 9.6 60.4% 22.4 13.7 63.5% Wayne 12.6 8.0 57.5% 20.4 11.9 71.4% Ohio 15.8 9.8 61.2% 23.1 14.1 63.8% U.S 15.3 12.4 Not Avail. 16.6 Not Avail. Source: StatsAmerica, 2012; Census 2000.

A significant factor influencing water quality in Northeast Ohio is the continuing dispersal of people and jobs. This dispersal is an ongoing phenomenon, affecting people, businesses and communities in complex ways.

______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-65

Population Trends

Following the devastating loss of manufacturing industries in the late 1970s and early 1980s which precipitated widesprea d population declines in many of the region’s communities , the four county region has experienced steady growth . The 2000 Census figures provide evidence that the area has recover ed . All four counties posted favorable increases in populations compared to previous decades. Estimates of county populations (as of July 1, 2004) calculated the 2000 -2004 annual average percentage change for NEFCO’s counties at or double that of the State. Stark and Summit County population trends matched Ohio’s 0.2 percent in crease, while the more rural Portage and Wayne Counties saw populations increasing annually at the rate of 0.4 percent. Table 2. 4 depicts these population trends.

Table 2 -4 Population Change 1980 -2000 and 2004 Estimate 2000 -2004 2000 July 1, 2000 July 1, 2004 County Census Es timate Estimate Annual Average Percentage Change Rank Portage 152,061 152,366 154,764 0.4% 35 Stark 378,098 378,133 381,229 0.2% 48 Summit 542,899 543,574 547,314 0.2% 49 Wayne 111,564 111,699 113,577 0.4% 34 NEFCO 1,184,62 2 1,185,772 1,196,884 N/A Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 2000; Ohio County Profiles , State of Ohio, Office of Strategic Research, 2001; Office of Strategic Research website, 2005

Although the NEFCO region as a whole saw population losses between 1980 an d 1990, the turnaround and resulting population growth of over 5 percent over the previous decade is evidence of a stable region that has made many efforts to preserve economic gains and to provide a good quality of life for its residents. As in many othe r locations, NEFCO’s four counties have communities which exhibit high population growth and the resulting increased need for services. Other communities within these counties face the challenges of failed septic systems or old systems in need of repair. Meeting the current infrastructure needs and planning for future expansion in stable and high -growth areas will be necessary.

Employment Trends

Employment trends also reveal patterns that may have consequences for the area’s water quality. The economic downturn of over two decades ago has been reversed with the rise of key industries such as polymers, liquid crystal and agricultural research, providing economic diversification in the region.

Table 2. 5 describes the annual averages of the civilian lab or force, employment, unemployment and unemployment rates for Portage , Stark, Summit, and Wayne Counties ______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-66

and the state of Ohio in 2004 . The 6.1 percent regional unemployment equaled that of the state. For 2004, all but one county experienced unemployment rates at or below the State of Ohio’s rate. These unemployment rates are higher than in past years, and some of the area’s larger cities exhibit unemployment rates far exceeding the U.S. rate of 5.5 percent.

Table 2 -5 Civilian Labor Force Estimates Annual Average BBB 2004 County Civilian Employment Unemployment Unemployment Labor Force Rate Portage 86,800 81,700 5,000 5.8 Stark 190,200 177,600 12,500 6.6 Summit 284,100 266,800 17,300 6.1 Wayne 60,000 568,000 3,200 5.3 NEFCO Region 621,000 583,000 38,100 6.1 Ohio (seasonally adjusted) 5,884,800 5,523,000 361,800 6.1 Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Labor Market Information website, April 2005

Overall, Ohio ’s economy has been healthy, with officials reporting a large number of business expansions over the past few years. However, in recent years, actual and potential job losses at or closures of some of the region’s large and established manufacturing plants raise con cern for the economy. Table 2 -6 denotes the number of business forma tions between 1998 and 2003 shows some decline in business starts after 2001 but also some gains signifying recovery in 2003.

Table 2 -6 Number of Business Starts 1998 -2003 Area 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Portage 299 292 285 338 288 286 Stark 770 733 690 853 817 899 Summit 1,263 1,148 1,273 1,372 1,237 1,360 Wayne 238 224 216 255 194 258 NEFCO 4,568 4,396 4,464 4,819 4,538 4,806 Ohio 26,908 26,763 26, 522 30,451 27,985 30,665 Source: Ohio County Indicators , Office of Strategic Research, Ohio Department of Development, August 2004.

The manufacturing sector continues to decline in the region, which in recent years has lost significant industries such as Rubbermaid and sustained job losses at Hoover, Goodyear, and possibly Timken. The region continues to evolve from relying on heavy manufacturing to an economically healthier and diverse industrial base. As in many other places, trade and services are a significant part of the local economies in Portage, Stark, Summit and Wayne Counties (Table 2 -7).

______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-67

Table 2 -7 2000 Employment by Industry Portage Stark Summit Wayne Ohio 2000 Total Employment 52,352 173,012 258,093 47,917 5,349,465 Agriculture/Forestr y/Fishing 0 248 240 365 14,707 Manufacturing 13,565 40,004 43,228 15,149 955,485 Construction 2,430 8,085 11,145 2,408 240,036 Transportation 838 2,155 9,006 1,243 158,722 Utilities 0 568 1,987 0 24,418 Trade 24,294 80,031 103,936 25,392 2,151,673 F. I.R.E.** 1,158 69,009 12,544 1,647 297,757 Services*** 14,221 65,679 104,346 11,891 2,074,940 Mining 249 485 193 367 12,321 Government 11,382 18,238 28,262 6,784 666,375 Source: Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research, Ohio County Profiles , 2000.

* Some of the figures do not include the industries that reported a range of employees; other figures show a range of jobs as reported. ** F.I.R.E. - Finance, Insurance, Real Estate *** Services include: Professional, scientific, tec hnical services; Management of companies; educational services; health care; arts/recreation; accommodation and food services; and other services (except public administration).

A key factor in ensuring the health of the area ’s manufacturing base while ma intaining water quality has been the development and use of regulations allowing brownfield redevelopment. Planners in the area ’s larger cities, Akron and Barberton, have made exceptional use of former brownfields. Other cities such as Kent , Canton and C uyahoga Falls are also exploring redevelopment of brownfields to increase their tax base and curb urban sprawl.

Future Changes in Regional Population and Employment

If current housing market trends continue, there will be a need to closely monitor the ef fects of land use on water quality. Despite slight downturns in the economy, sales of new homes remain high and the average square footage of homes continues to increase. Recent population statistics predicting steady growth for the region and the nation al trend of declining numbers of persons per household, will increase the demand for housing.

Northeast Ohio’s more diversified economy has exhibited its ability to weather plant closures and layoffs. The emphasis on relatively new industries and on en couraging the creation and growth of high -tech companies will be factors in both attracting complementary industries and retaining and creating jobs for the region’s labor force. Continued upgrading of the transportation network and revitalization of inne r cities will increase the attractiveness of the region to employers and workers alike.

______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-68

Conclusion

The most recent concern to water quality today is occurring in the rapidly developing areas of the region on the periphery of the existing urban areas. This threat comes from a variety of potential sources, including nonpoint source discharges from residential and commercial developments, but most significantly from the combined effects of land disturbances to construct these new developments. This transformation is threatening regionally important water resources once thought relatively secure from water pollution threats (upland drinking water reservoirs, headwaters areas, and high quality streams once far removed from urbanization). Thus, while the perceived water pollution problems of the 1970s have largely been addressed, there remains a whole new set of water pollution challenges at the turn of the century to be confronted. Land uses will change from a predominantly rural character to urbanizing uses, and this will affect whether water runs off the land surface or seeps into the ground. This trend will have an impact on water quality.

______DRAFT 6/30/12 2-69