Mahoning River, Ohio Environmental Dredging Draft Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement

Pittsburgh District AUGUST 2005

Trumbull and Mahoning Counties

APPENDIX N U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SECTION 2(b) REPORT

Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report

for the

Mahoning River, Ohio Environmental Dredging Project

Prepared by: Bill Kurey Division of Ecological Services Reynoldsburg, Ohio

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Twin Cities, Minnesota February 2005

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Mahoning River drains 1,133 square miles in northeastern Ohio and northwestern Pennsylvania. The Mahoning varies from 50 feet to about 300 feet in width and is approximately 108 miles long with a slope of approximately 4.4 feet per mile. About 12 miles of the Mahoning River flow through Pennsylvania before joining the Shenango River to form the Beaver River which flows to the Ohio River. Five major reservoirs (Milton, 1917; Meander Creek, 1931; Berlin, 1943; Mosquito Creek, 1944; and Michael J. Kirwan, 1966) have been constructed in the upper watershed. There are also numerous lowhead dams on the river. Nine of these dams are within the study area for the Mahoning River Environmental Dredging Project.

The Mahoning River in Ohio was once dominated by heavy industry, especially steel mills and associated industry, and railroads. Vestiges of these industries remain, especially WCI Steel in Warren, Ohio. Even within this intensely industrial corridor, the river has maintained a well defined woody riparian corridor for much of its length. Over the years, sediments in the river, particularly those upstream of the lowhead dams, have become contaminated with a variety of chemicals.

Since most of the heavy industry has left the Mahoning River corridor, water quality has much improved, but sediments remain heavily polluted. Contaminants include metals, oil and grease, and organic chemicals such as PAHs and PCBs. The banks and some bottom sediments throughout the Mahoning River south of Warren are heavily contaminated with oil, grease and other chemicals. A human health advisory is in effect for the lower 28 miles of the Mahoning River in Ohio for both fish consumption and contact with the sediments. Fish consumption advisories exist for PCBs and mercury in Mahoning River common carp, channel catfish, smallmouth bass, and walleye.

The Mahoning River Reconnaissance Study found that contaminated sediments are the primary limiting factor hindering the biological recovery of the river and must be removed (dredged) if improvement is to be expected; removal of some or all of the dams would enhance the aquatic ecosystem’s recovery; and removal of the sediments by dredging and subsequent restoration of the river is technically feasible, meets the USACE’s requirements for opportunities in its Civil Works Programs, and is in the Federal interest. We agree. We believe that the Mahoning River Environmental Dredging Project is clearly water dependent based on the pollution contained in the river sediments and banks. We also believe that there is a demonstrated public need for the project based on local interest, the impaired aquatic ecosystem, and loss of recreational and environmental services that the river should supply.

The Mahoning River Environmental Dredging Project is currently in the phase where the Alternative Formulation Briefing is being finalized, this being expected by the middle or end of March, 2005. When finalized, the project will probably consist of a combination of dredging the main channel in most of the pools and excavation, or some other remedy such as bioremediation, of contaminated sediment in the banks at various locations.

Outstanding issues include whether to remove dams as part of the project, the process that will be used to determine the type and extent of bank erosion control, the extent of any wetlands along the project reach, and details of any replacement of wetland and fish and wildlife habitat losses.

The success of the Mahoning River Environmental Dredging Project, with regard to sediment quality and fish and wildlife values, will be determined by applying an environmental metric developed by the USACE and agencies cooperating in the Mahoning River project to a model reach (or reference reach) upstream of the project reach and comparing it to the score for the project reach. This environmental quality index (EQI) metric includes evaluation elements routinely used by the Ohio EPA such as IBI, ICI, and QHEI, as well as some other measures of sediment chemistry and predator abundance. The project should meet the EQI goal after implementation.

Surveys of mussels would also be a very good indicator of project success because they are more sensitive than other macroinvertebrates, and the return of rare fish would also be an indicator of success. Nobody has systematically surveyed the Mahoning River for freshwater mussels since 1890. We suggest both pre- and post-project surveys of the Mahoning River study reach. Mussel colonization post-project would be a very good indicator of project success, along with the return of missing fish species. Mussels are more sensitive to environmental perturbations than aquatic insects and might better measure success than the ICI. Mussels are sensitive to both the presence of dams and sediment quality.

Another way to monitor the success of the environmental dredging project would be to determine the incidence of tumors and cancers in the liver and skin of brown bullhead. Dr. Paul Baumann of the USGS, stationed at Ohio State University, has developed accurate guidelines for determining when pollution has caused these tumors and cancers in bullhead. PAHs, a class of pollutants of concern in the Mahoning River, are known to be a common cause of these tumors and cancers. The recent reduction of the health advisory for fish consumption in the Black River of Ohio was in large part possible because Dr. Baumann’s studies documented improvement in fish health after dredging. We might expect that similar studies, before and after dredging in the Mahoning River, would be successful at demonstrating the improvement of sediment quality by showing a reduction of tumors and cancers in bullheads.

Trust species that would use the habitat likely to be affected by the project include migratory birds. A list of bird species observed along the River in May and June of 2004 was created by Shawn Blohm and Courtnay Willis of Youngstown State University (YSU). The FWS Office of Migratory Bird Management lists both the wood thrush and cerulean warbler as species of conservation concern in our region and nationally (both species from the YSU list for the Mahoning River). The cerulean warbler, a bird of forested wetlands, is a candidate species for federal listing, and was included on the YSU list for the Mahoning River. The abundance of large trees along the Mahoning, which canopy parts of the river, is particularly important to some birds as well as to fish and other aquatic life, and the endangered Indiana bat.

The species which might be most affected by disturbance of existing streamside vegetation (forest, used for foraging or nesting), or wetlands, include the great blue heron, wood duck, mallard, belted kingfisher, spotted sandpiper, and killdeer. Some of the warblers such as the northern waterthrush are also particularly dependent on riparian vegetation. The details about the cerulean warbler sighting, i.e. location, were not given but would be important.

The riparian forest habitat for most of the species listed above would be of medium to high value and is relatively abundant on a national basis. The Corps should strive to achieve no net loss of habitat value while also minimizing the loss of in-kind habitat value.

However, the loss of significant amounts of important bird habitat as a result of the project is not a forgone conclusion. At this time, the extent of vegetation clearing associated with the project, and the locations to be cleared, aren’t known. For riparian forest that would be cleared, the type, maturity, and quantity of vegetation (both in terms of feet of riverbank on both sides of the river, and acreage) should be determined. From this the Corps could develop a plan to restore, through planting, a semblance of the original native vegetation and its functions. We suggest that a re-vegetation plan specify large trees be planted. These plantings could be integrated with any bioengineering features that were required for erosion control. Some of the ideas included in the USACE’s Regulatory Guidance Letters No.01-1 and No. 02-2 might be utilized to develop the habitat restoration plan for riverbank vegetation. The acreages of project caused disturbances should be totaled and categorized by type of impact. Restoration for such impacts should be a project feature. We recommend that an ecosystem restoration plan be formulated to address fish and wildlife habitat changes and losses.

Wetland along the Mahoning River has not yet been summarized for the project. We suggest that the Corps consult the National Wetland Inventory maps for the project reach of the Mahoning River as a first step. For wetlands that would be affected by the project, we suggest the use of Ohio EPA’s wetland replacement system.

The Mahoning River aquatic ecosystem is highly fragmented. From Table 1 it can be seen that fish of some of the dam pools would not have much access to perennial tributaries, and the quality of some of those tributaries is highly questionable. Fish movements are restricted by both Mahoning River dams and tributary dams. Today the Mahoning River, for the most part, does not contain many areas of rapidly flowing water due to the influence of dam pools.

If dams were removed from the river subsequent to sediment cleanup, we would expect only positive results for aquatic life in the Mahoning River. The results, in terms of fish, wildlife, and invertebrate habitat quality would be much greater if both dam removal and dredging occurred than if dredging was performed without dam removal.

We have major concerns about the adequacy of caps in the river channel to meet project goals, and these are: 1) Caps leave contaminated material in the river and a potential for failure remains - if normal river bedload moves, we would suspect that the cap will too. In low velocity pools caps might be an alternative, but if we remove dams and return free flow, or if dams fail, it would seem just a matter of time before the cap failed; 2) The suitability of various cap materials as substrates for invertebrate colonization is an issue, as well as their value as a substrate for aquatic plants, and as fish habitat. 3) Capping technology appears to be in the experimental stages and application to the Mahoning River would require demonstration projects.

There was also some discussion to the effect that the USACE would be doing a considerable amount of “bank capping” in areas where there was erosion potential as a result of removing oiled bank soil. These caps would consist of impermeable geo-textile fabric overlain with riprap in the 12-18 inch size range. Depending on the extent of these caps, the impacts on riparian vegetation as well as aquatic organisms, could be profound and long lasting. If done on long reaches of the river, such treatment would minimize fish and wildlife habitat quality. It would be unsightly and probably not be conducive to recreational uses such as fishing and boating. Some issues we see arising from this bank work are: 1) We would prefer the use of plants to stabilize banks where there is no problem with further pollution. Materials like coir (palm tree fiber) fabric and coir logs could also be used in these situations. Coir has engineering specifications associated with the various products that will allow the assessment of their ability to perform required tasks. 2) Design caps so that they maximize their value as fish and aquatic invertebrate habitat. Of concern would be the affect of the cap on channel morphology and the resulting reaction of the river in terms of things like its competence to move bed load. Would the river be significantly widened? Will the functioning of the post-project channel be reviewed by the USACE in terms of natural channel design? Overall, we recommend that the Corps separate the issue of capping to prevent mobilization of pollutants, and the issue of bank stabilization of excavated banks, to facilitate the discussion.

It has been mentioned that erosion control in the form of riprap could extend all the way up to the ordinary high water level. We believe that there should be a justification for all erosion control actions in the project, and that bioengineering should be used wherever possible. Plus, we recommend the use of alternative methods rather than capping for the stream bank and stream bottom. We also recommend the use of alternative methods rather than riprap, and the use of native vegetation and natural channel design to restore the river.

We have made the USACE aware of the Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Sedimentation Laboratory. We believe that this model, or something like it, should be used to evaluate bank stability of the Mahoning River under various project scenarios.

The Impacts of dredging in the main channel should be positive, in the main, because contaminated sediment will be removed. This should allow native fish, mussels and other aquatic invertebrates to return to these sections of river. A remaining issue would be the physical quality of the remaining sediments and the channel conformation that remains after dredging. Deep excavations could result in channel erosion and deposition as the river compensates for changes. In the pooled reaches where most of the dredging will probably be done, removal of soft contaminated sediments could reveal original gravel substrate. How much of that gravel substrate remains after dredging may depend on the type of dredge (which is yet to be determined) and the skill of the operator. The USACE should provide project participants and the public with a prediction of the bottom quality that could be expected after dredging.

Access to the river by road has been suggested, along with the proposal that gravel placed in the river to provide road material for heavy equipment might be left in place or scattered to provide a better quality river substrate. This issue needs to be addressed further. The quality, size, and placement of this road material should be evaluated for its suitability to enhance fish and aquatic invertebrate habitat. At this point, we have many questions about the concept.

We have seen demonstrated a suction dredge made by Streamside Systems, without a cutterhead, which removes sediments down to the size of sand, but allows gravel sized particles to remain in the stream bottom. This small hand operated system removes up to 15 cubic yards an hour. The USACE may wish to investigate the use of such a dredge, or multiple dredges, for use in the Mahoning River. Perhaps fabrication of an upsized version of the dredge would be feasible. We understand that this system has been used successfully in Wisconsin and Idaho by the U.S. Forest Service.

PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND AUTHORITY

The Pittsburgh District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has conducted a reconnaissance study on approximately 30 miles of the Mahoning River. That study has identified contaminated sediment areas and oil soaked banks, characterized the contaminants, and identified potential excavation, treatment and disposal options. The study reach extends from the confluence of Duck Creek and the Mahoning River downstream to the Ohio-Pennsylvania state line.

The project has been authorized under Section 312(b) of the Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) of 1990 as amended by section 205 of the WRDA of 1996. This draft report has been written under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). This report is a draft only. The Services final comments await more detailed project description. The amount of dredging, amount of bank excavation, and the oiled bank treatment decisions will be made in the future by the USACE, therefore the Service can’t fully explore any necessary habitat replacement or enhancement scenarios at this time. The project reach extends from the Ohio-Pennsylvania state line to Mahoning River mile 46.9 at Levittsburg, Ohio.

The project would consist of removal of contaminated bottom sediments in the main channel, addressing the issue of contaminated sediment in the banks, and dam removal. Details of the various alternatives and selected plan are not yet available.

DISCUSSION OF PRIOR STUDIES/REPORTS

We have reviewed documents from the USACE in the process of preparing this report including: (1) the 1976 “Feasibility Study on the Removal of Bank and River Bottom Sediments in the Mahoning River, and (2) the

1999 “Mahoning River Environmental Dredging Reconnaissance Study.” Our report will deal primarily with issues raised in the draft Alternative Formulation Briefing Document, November 2004. We have also used the detailed drawings of the study area, including Mahoning River cross sections, that were kindly provided to us by the USACE. Elements of our 1998 planning aid letter have been included in this report, and we have utilized numerous scientific journal articles, abstracts, and internet sites.

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

The Mahoning River was once dominated by heavy industry, especially steel mills and associated industry, and railroads. Vestiges of these industries remain, especially WCI Steel in Warren, Ohio. Even within this intensely industrial corridor, the river has maintained a well defined woody riparian corridor for much of its length. Over the years, sediments in the river, particularly those upstream of the lowhead dams, have become contaminated with a variety of chemicals.

By 1970 profitability of the Mahoning Valley steel mills had declined to the point they laid off many employees and eventually many of the mills went out of business (Testa, 1997). The decline of the steel industry and enforcement of the Clean Water Act of 1977 have since resulted in greatly improved water quality in the Mahoning River (Testa, 1997). Although pollution in the Mahoning River is now much reduced, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals are still adsorbed to bottom sediments and prevent further ecosystem recovery (Testa, 1997).

Our review was aided by 1905 and 1908 vintage U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps that showed: (1) a meander in the Mahoning River between the Struthers and Haselton dams that had been cut off and filled for industrial use sometime since 1908; (2) an island just upstream of the Haselton dam no longer exists; (3) a meander above Girard, Ohio has been replaced with a slag dump; (4) the reach from just downstream of the Warren Main Street Sub-Station Dam upstream through the WCI Steel Company property has been channelized; (4) at least 4 Islands have formed in the reach between the Warren Summit Street Dam and WCI Steel that did not appear on the 1908 map; and (5) the broad pool now evident near Packard Park does not appear on the 1908 map. No other major rerouting of the Mahoning River is evident. However, by 1908 the railroads had already confined the river to its present course in many areas, and there are many areas where industries have subsequently filled in the floodplain.

Tributaries serve as refuges in time of catastrophic events on the main stem (e.g. spills and flood flows) and often lead to wetlands and other high quality spawning areas. We counted about 15 named tributaries within the study reach of the Mahoning River, and of these 8 had dams that would prevent fish from getting to headwater areas, and in some cases these streams were blocked within a mile of the Mahoning. In the industrialized areas of the Mahoning River, especially in the Youngstown vicinity and downstream, the mouths of these tributaries have been channelized and culverted upstream of their mouths for a considerable distance. The exact point of confluence of some of these streams with the Mahoning is not discernable on maps.

Today the Mahoning River, for the most part, does not appear to contain many areas of rapidly flowing water. This may in part be due to the influence of dam pools. However, the area immediately below Hazelton-Center Street dam at RM 18.2 appears from aerial photographs to be an area of rough water and may be located in the area known historically as “Loveland’s Ripple.” This reach was mentioned by Kirtland and said to be located between Youngstown and Poland. We do not know the exact location, historical extent of these rapids, or how much of the rapids may have been covered by dam pools or filled during channelization.

This apparent rough water area of the Struthers-Bridge Street pool was not sampled by the Ohio EPA in their 1996 study, although an area closer to the Struthers dam was sampled (about 1 km upstream of the dam). The Struthers pool had the lowest IBI of all sample locations on the Mahoning River in 1996.

Trautman (1981, page 26) mentions the effect that pollution has had on this reach of the Mahoning River, “Loveland’s Ripple,” since about 1950. This portion of the river is located between Youngstown and Poland, but as stated above, we don’t know the exact location of this reach. Before 1850, J.P. Kirtland collected many species of fish from this riffle including clear-water species such as the spotted and variegate darters. Since 1925 this section of the river has been bordered by steel mills that had heated and polluted the water to the point it was no longer habitable by fish.

Kirtland first described both the variegate darter and the spotted darter from specimens collected from the Mahoning River “… presumably at Loveland’s Ripple near Youngstown” (Trautamn, 1981, page 666). The variegate darter was historically more widespread in Ohio than the more rare spotted darter. Ohio EPA’s survey of the Mahoning River Basin in 1996 did not find any spotted darters, but the variegate darter was found at RM 0.7 in the Shenango River and RM 20.1 in the Beaver River.

FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE CONCERNS AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES

Fish

A list of fish species present in the study area was included in our previous planning aid letter to the USACE. The list of species is here repeated in Table 3. Given that long reaches of the Mahoning River were apparently devoid of fish for over 50 years, the list of species that occur in the study area (47 species) is impressive. However, of the 73 species of fish that may once have inhabited the river, 18 species, or 25%, are missing. Five of these missing species are darters and 4 are chubs, the most heavily affected taxonomic groups.

Trautman (1981, page 20) relates a letter written by Prof. Spencer F. Baird on October 10, 1853, in which he mentions collecting 41 species of fish from the Mahoning River in Poland, Ohio. Many of these species were extirpated long ago.

At least nine species of fish have the Mahoning River system as the type locality for the species, i.e. they were first discovered in the Mahoning River system. Seven of these species denoted by (M) are currently missing from the Mahoning River. These nine species are the: central mud minnow Ohio muskellunge horneyhead chub (M)

Ohio streamline chub (M) redside dace brook stickleback (M) variegate darter (M) spotted darter (M) bluebreast darter (M) rainbow darter (M).

The return of these missing species, as well as other fish species missing from the study reach, and mussels, might be one way to judge the ecological success of the environmental dredging project.

Fish and Mussels

Freshwater mussels are also referred to as clams, naiads, or unionids. They are most diverse in North America where there are over 300 species. Freshwater mussels spend their whole life buried, or partially buried, in the substrate of permanent water bodies. “The vast majority of species are found in streams, but a few are present in ponds or lakes. Although they can be found in almost any type of stream bottom, mussels are usually absent from, or rare in, areas of shifting sand or deep silt” (Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer, 1992). We might also add that they would be rare in toxic sediments.

In order to understand the effects that dams, and other habitat modification and stressors, may have on mussels, it is necessary to understand something of unionid reproduction. The sexes are usually separate and the male releases sperm into the water, some of which may enter the female through the incurrent siphon, and the eggs are fertilized internally. The fertilized eggs develop into a parasitic larval stage called glochidia. In the spring or summer glochidia are released into the water, by various mechanisms, and must attach to a suitable host fish (usually a fish) to survive. They may attach internally to the fishes gills or externally. In a period that may vary from 1 to 25 weeks, the encysted glochidia on the host fish metamorphose into a form more like adult mussels. After several weeks, during which the host fish may have traveled a considerable distance, the juvenile mussel drops from the host and begins an independent life. “These fish hosts are largely responsible for the distribution and zoogeography of unionids (Watters, 1992).” “Unionids are thus influenced by distributional barriers to their hosts, as well as by barriers to their own movements” (Watters, 1996, page 79).

Each species of freshwater mussel only attaches to certain species of fish. The absence of these species in sufficient numbers can be an impediment to the establishment or viability of that mussel species in an area. For example, in the middle Platte River system, the common host fish for 11 species of freshwater mussels accounted for less than 5% of the more than 81,000 fish collected in a study of fish abundance and diversity. Not all mussel and fish host relationships have been documented.

In fact, the host fish for most unionid species are unknown. The transformation of glochidia can usually only be completed on one or a few species of host fish which are immunologically compatible. Iindividuals of a host fish species can also acquire immunity to the mussel glochidia after one or more exposures. These fish are then incapable of hosting mussel glochidia.

“Potential hosts may possess one of two types of immunity to attached glochidia. Natural immunity occurs in unsuitable hosts, which have immunological defenses against the glochidia (Howard 1914a, Bauer and Vogel 1987). Acquired immunity occurs when a suitable host has been previously parasitized, and has built up a temporary immunity. The number of exposures needed to achieve acquired immunity depends on the degree of prior infestations and duration between them (Lefevre and Curtis 1910, Surber 1913, Reuling 1919, Arey 1924a, Bauer 1987a). Therefore, juvenile hosts may be the most susceptible to parasitization (Bauer 1987a, Jansen and Hanson 1991, but see Young 1911 and Young et at. 1987). Acquired immunity to one unionid species may give the host immunity to others (Reuling 1919). In both natural and acquired immunity, encysted glochidia are killed. The tissue may be sloughed off (Arey 1932c, Fustish and Millemann 1978, Zale and Neves 1982, WaIler and Mitchell 1989) or persist. Acquired immunity may be lost if no subsequent reinfestation occurs within a certain time period, and the fish may become susceptible to parasitization again.

However, the amount of time needed to lose acquired immunity is not precisely known” (Watters, 1994, page 21).

The peculiarity of the mussel’s reproductive cycle is a major reason for their decline in historic times. Habitat degradation, water pollution, dams, and the introduction of non-indigenous species have contributed to the alteration of fish species composition and abundance. It is likely that the decrease in fish host abundance contributes to the decline of some species of mussels, including endangered species.

A prerequisite to thriving mussel populations are the right species of fish hosts in sufficient numbers, and these should be breeding populations to insure that enough young previously un-parasitized fish.

Mahoning River Mussels

About 1890 a naturalist living in Kent, Ohio, George W. Dean, wrote a scientific paper titled “Distribution of Unionidae in the Three Rivers, Mahoning, Cuyahoga, and Tuscarawas.” We are indebted to Mr. Dean for a list of unionid mussel species that occurred in the Mahoning River in 1890 (Table 2). We have presented Dean’s 1890 species list in the same order he presented it, and have added a column to the table that presents the current scientific and common names. Dr. Tom Watters of the Ohio State University Museum of Biodiversity has graciously updated the scientific and common names for the species in Table 2.

Some of the mussels identified by Dean as separate species are actually other species on his list. These species have been noted in Table 2 by a number, and those species with the same number are the same species. Dean also made some annotations in his list about how common some species were, and we have included these in Table 2 (very rare, rare, and common). Dean didn’t define the meaning of the question marks and dotted lines in his list, but we presume that the dotted line meant an absence of that species in that river, and that the question mark indicated some problem with identification or uncertainty about the occurrence of that species in that river.

In Table 2 we see that about 27 freshwater mussel species inhabited the Mahoning River in 1890. Notable in this list is the long solid mussel, which was first described from the Mahoning River, and the clubshell mussel and the northern riffleshell mussel, currently federally listed endangered species. Another species in Table 2 that occurred in the Mahoning River in 1890, the rayed bean mussel, is currently a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. There are currently no federally listed aquatic endangered or threatened species that are known to occur in the Mahoning River or its tributaries (in Ohio).

Preferred habitat of the clubshell mussel (Pleurobema clava), noted as common in the Mahoning River in 1890, includes medium to large rivers with gravel, or mixed sand and gravel, substrate and it also prefers areas with riffles and runs. “The clubshell typically burrows completely beneath the substrate, apparently relying on water to percolate between the sediment particles (Watters 1990). Consequently, the species is very susceptible to siltation, which clogs the substrate interstices and suffocates the animal. The clubshell generally is found in clean, coarse sand and gravel in runs, often just downstream of a riffle. It cannot tolerate mud or slackwater conditions” (Watters, 1994. page 18). According to the clubshell recovery plan (Watters, 1994. page 14), “The Mahoning River (Pennsylvania, Ohio) has historical records and may still harbor populations. These areas need immediate survey work. In 1993, ten live clubshells were found in four sites in Pymatuning Creek in Ashtabula County, Ohio (Huehner and Corr 1994).”

The rayed bean mussel, currently a candidate for listing, could one day become a federally listed endangered or threatened species. Habitat of the rayed bean includes lakes and small to large streams in sand or gravel substrate.

Nobody has systematically surveyed the Mahoning River for mussels since Dean’s work in 1890 (Dr. Michael Hoggarth, personal communication). Dr. Hoggarth had surveyed around some bridges in the study reach of the Mahoning River several years ago, but didn’t find any mussels. This work was done for the Ohio Department of Transportation, but Dr. Hoggarth no longer has the survey data. There have been no recent mussel surveys in the study reach of the Mahoning River, at least in areas between bridges.

The Mahoning River drainage covers 1,132.8 square miles (2934 sq. km.) in northeastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania. Watters (1992) described the species area curve concept in which the drainage area of the watershed is related to the number of fish species and the number of unionid species that inhabit its waters.

We were interested in how the number of fish species (recorded by Trautman), and the number of unionid species in Dean’s list of Mahoning River mussels, compared to the number of fish and mussel species reported from similarly sized watersheds elsewhere. Using data from the Mahoning River and Watters (1992), we constructed Figure 1 which compares the Mahoning River and 5 other similarly sized streams for which there was data. The 73 species of fish that Trautman found to have occurred in the Mahoning River, and the 27 species of unionid species that Dean found in the Mahoning River in 1890, comport well with the numbers found in similarly sized streams by Watters. The number of dams in these similarly sized watersheds was not described. This would indicate that the Mahoning was in no way deficient in aquatic life, and would appear to have great potential for restoration.

It should be noted, however, that the 1996 Ohio EPA survey of the Mahoning River found only about 55 species of fish in the entire river and only about 47 in the study reach. These numbers do not compare favorably to similarly sized watersheds mentioned by Watters (1992). Also, there has been no modern survey of the unionids that may inhabit the Mahoning River, but the impacts of past pollution, dams, other habitat alterations, and the reduced number of fish species must have drastically reduced the number of unionid species inhabiting the Mahoning River system.

Fish, Mussels, and Dams

Milton Trautman, Ohio’s great ichthyologist and naturalist, had a good deal to say about the impacts of dams on Ohio’s fish in his monumental and authoritative treatise “The Fishes of Ohio.” Dams became common on Ohio streams in the period from 1801 to 1850: “With few exceptions the finest of Ohio’s food fishes were migratory to some degree, these going upstream to near the headwaters where they found suitable spawning habitats, and conditions were favorable for the development of their young. The many dams of the white man were extremely effective in preventing these migrating fishes from reaching their spawning grounds, especially those dams which were near the mouths of the Ohio River and Lake Erie tributaries such as the one which in 1817 dammed the Grand River within a half mile (0.8 km) of Lake Erie (Brown, 1817: 274). A decrease in abundance of the muskellunges, pikes and lake sturgeons first became apparent during this period, a decrease apparently caused in part by dams preventing their upstream migrations. … When the dams were first constructed, observers saw that these dams prevented the fishes from migrating upstream, and that shortly after construction there was a sharp decline in the abundance of desired food fishes. These observers therefore condemned the dams as harmful to the fish population. But later observers, not having seen the former great abundance of fishes and the subsequent decrease in their abundance after dam construction, praised the dams because they concentrated fishes in sufficient numbers to make their capture profitable.” (Trautman, 1981, page 18).

Trautman’s work also quotes from Kirtland (1850) who mentions the affects that dams have had on the Mahoning River: “While the tributaries of Lake Erie and the Ohio River were unobstructed by dams and were not swept by seines, they abounded with large and valuable species of fish, which, in their vernal migrations,

crowded in immense shoals on the ripples. Sturgeon and Muskallonge often run up the Cuyahoga several miles, and large numbers of Pike, Pickerel [walleye and sauger] and white Perch [white bass] visited the upper waters of the Mahoning during Spring and Summer.” “... All the migratory species have been excluded from the Mahoning River by the construction of dams on the Big Beaver. Many smaller species have increased in all our waters since the larger and more voracious have been reduced in numbers. The slaughter houses about the rivers, afford them large supplies of food and contribute to their increase. Artificial slack waters, canals and basins have also in many localities effected similar results” (Trautman, 1981, page 19). In Kirtland’s day, the term pike was often used to refer to both muskellunge and northern pike.

The dams on Ohio’s rivers prevented fish from reaching their spawning grounds, especially when dams were located near the mouth of a stream. Migratory fish would accumulate at the base of these dams and be commercially fished, further reducing their populations.

Kirtland (1850), in another reference to the Mahoning River, noted that: “In early days large numbers [of freshwater drum] ascended the Mahoning and other streams from the Ohio River, … Mill-dams and other causes have long since exterminated them from the tributaries of the Ohio” (from Watters, 1996, page83).

Although the freshwater drum was apparently mentioned by Kirtland as occurring in the Mahoning River, Trautman did not include the Mahoning River in his locality records map for this species. The drum has been absent from the Mahoning River for a long time. This may partly account for the absence of species such as the fragile papershell (Leptodea fragillis) and the pink heelsplitter (Potamilus alatus) from Dean’s 1890 list of Mahoning River mussel species, because both species are known to use the freshwater drum as a host.

In his 1890 paper, Dean noted that the falls on the Cuyahoga River, above where the Ohio Canal entered, only contained five or six species of mussels, but that the river below this point contained many more species. He went on to speculate that the presence of certain species occurring in both the Cuyahoga River and the Tuscarawas River were the result of these two rivers being joined by the Ohio Canal. These species were missing from the Mahoning River and the Cuyahoga River above the falls (Dean, G.W. 1890).

From the Dean paper one might conclude that many species of unionid mussels can not colonize upstream, or maintain viable populations, past disruptions such as a water fall or a dam. Conversely, a clear connection between two streams facilitates the intermingling of their mussel faunas. If we use the total number of species Dean found in the Cuyahoga River (about 19) and the number he found above the falls (about 6), it appears that a falls or other similar ecosystem disruption (dams) could reduce the number of upstream unionid species by about two-thirds. We confirmed this with Dr. Mike Hoggarth of Otterbein University, and he agreed that a two-thirds reduction of the mussel fauna upstream of an impassable dam or waterfalls is about right.

An accurate accounting of mussels that might have been extirpated from the Mahoning River as a result of early dams that prevented their migratory host fish from ascending the river is beyond the scope of this report, and may not be possible. Although this is a highly speculative exercise, if we assume a reduction of two thirds of the mussel species as a result of dams, using the 27 species of the Mahoning River in 1890 as the remaining third, there may have been 81 unionid species in the Mahoning River prior to damming, a potential loss of 54 species.

Watters (1996) proposed 2 scenarios that could occur in a river with dams: (1) the unionid host fish, prevented from moving upstream, no longer occurs above the dam and therefore the unionid no longer exists there, and (2) the host fish exists above the dam, but the unionid does not, implying that the fish was reintroduced upstream after the unionids had been extirpated. Watters (1996) cited ample evidence that most unionid species cannot live in impoundments because of the detrimental effects of sedimentation, prolonged exposure

to suspended solids impaired feeding and lowered metabolism, and cooler bottom temperatures lowering metabolism. “Abnormally low water temperatures may delay reproduction. Constant low water temperatures, such as found below some dams, may prevent reproduction from ever taking place” (Watters, 1994. page 19). Unionids favor shallow water.

Dr. David Stansbury (1999) of Ohio State University was quoted, in reference to metamorphosed glochidia on fish in the Platte River as stating, ”… That’s why dams are so devastating. Without water currents the naiads just sink to the bottom, and that’s the end of them.”

The earliest naturalists in Ohio through modern scientists have denounced the effects that dams have had on fish and mussels. Dams as low as 1 meter will block the movement of some fish species and if these fish are hosts of mussels, those mussels will also be restricted from passing upstream (Watters, 1996).

Attempts to judge the success of the Mahoning River environmental dredging project would benefit from comprehensive pre-construction and post-construction surveys of unionids. It is thought that mussels are probably absent from the project reach of the river, however, dredging contaminated bottoms sediments should allow their colonization and reintroduction. Unionids have been shown to be sensitive to both the presence of dams and the quality of the river bed sediments in which they live. Dredging and dam removal, the two major features of this project, would surely have measurable affects on mussel populations. The ICI will be used in the Mahoning River Environmental Dredging Project to measure the recovery of the macroinvertebrate community. However, we understand that the ICI does not correlate well with changes in bivalve species richness. This is because aquatic insects respond differently than freshwater mussels to environmental perturbations, the mussels being more sensitive.

A survey of the unionids in the various Mahoning River dam pools would help clarify the effects that dams are having on mussels. If the environmental dredging project were to include dam removal, a post project mussel survey would determine if mussel populations were establishing or recovering. Mussel surveys both before and after dam removal would be helpful. Since mussel colonization may occur in as little as 3 to 5 years, and since no surveys of any kind have been conducted in the Mahoning for 12 years, we recommend that a survey for mussels be done within the project area. In any areas of clean sediment, improved water quality in the river may have allowed some mussels to return. Knowledge of the present status of mussel populations would serve to guide any future mussel restoration work. Post project surveys of the Mahoning River would help gauge project success in restoring the mussel community.

Dams

Several authors have mentioned that the physical and ecological effects of dam removal on riverine systems have been little studied. There has been extensive study of the profound negative effects of dams on the aquatic communities of rivers. However, there is little published quantitative research on the ecological effects of dam removal (Doyle, et al, 2003). In addition, “Almost all studies of dam removal to date [2003] provide insufficient description of pre- and post-removal sediment storage and movement” (Doyle, et al, 2003, page 456). With regard to freshwater mussels, Watters (1996, page 79) states “Although large hydroelectric, navigational, and flood control dams have been shown to have an adverse effect on native mussels …, little work had been done on smaller dams.”

Watters (1996) states that, “Dams, even lowhead structures, may contribute to the overall depletion of unionoids by artificially restricting their distributions and isolating populations from each other” (page 79), and that “… dams as small as 1 m high are obstacles to the distribution of some fishes, and therefore to the distribution of unionoids” (page 83).

Andersson, et al (2000) studied the effects of river fragmentation by dams on “hydrochory,” the dispersal of plants by water, in a free flowing and a dammed river in Sweden. “The drift amount deposited on the riverbank, its species richness and its contribution to the species pool were higher in the free-flowing than in the regulated river. The floristic continuity was also higher in the free-flowing than in the regulated river.” Thus dams affect even the plant ecosystem of the shoreline of rivers. Doyle and Stanley, 2003, remarked that while fish and macroinvertebrate communities can recover to pre-dam conditions in months to years, vegetation communities may take decades to centuries.

Dams fragment rivers and they also can create flow conditions that can harm mussel recruitment. Hardison and Layzer (2001) believed that the limited recruitment they observed in 3 Kentucky rivers resulted from operation of flood control dams that altered flow regimes seasonally. Spring and early summer discharges were thought to result in shear forces strong enough to prevent settlement of newly metamorphosed juveniles.

By 2020, 85% of all government owned dams will be at least 50 years old, the typical design lifespan. Costs for removing dams are often much less than to repair them. The 3-meter-high Oak Street dam on the Baraboo River in Wisconsin cost $30,000 to remove several years ago, but repair estimates were in the neighborhood of $300,000. About 500 dam removals have been documented to some extent in the U.S. and most of these were dams under 12 meters high. After dams are removed from rivers, fisheries and habitat conditions quickly improve. For full restoration, other improvements in addition to dam removal may be necessary, including: (1) Protection of native fisheries (2) Pollution abatement (3) Restoration of riparian habitat (4) Stricter watershed management policies to increase the rate and extent of restoration.

Dams have clearly played a role in mussel declines, but often the richest mussel beds are now found immediately downstream from dams. Watters (1996) explains the distribution of mussels below dams as resulting from the tail waters being the only part of a dammed river that resembles its formerly unimpounded state.

Stanley, et al (2002) described the changes in channel form and macroinvertebrate assemblages after removal of a low-head dam on the Baraboo River in Wisconsin. Within 1 year of dam removal, macroinvertebrates in the formerly impounded reach were not significantly different from unimpounded reaches. “Thus, dam removal caused relatively small and transient geomorphic and ecological changes in downstream reaches, and apparently rapid channel development to an equilibrium form within the impoundment, associated with both dam removal and the subsequent June flood. These muted changes and rapid recovery likely result from the relatively large channel size and the small volume of stored sediment available for transport following dam removal” (Stanley, et al, 2002).

“If environmental restoration is the chief motive for removal, then gradual reservoir draining, or staged removal may be used to decrease downstream sedimentation, nutrient loading, and other possible impacts” (Doyle and Stanley, 2003, page 458).

Dams are a hindrance to the normal ingress and egress of fish and other aquatic organisms. They can also be a hindrance to the boating public that may want to use the river for canoeing or rafting. In general, we favor the removal of dams to provide a free flowing stream and the many benefits to aquatic life. If removal is not possible, breaching the dams or providing some type of bypass for aquatic species should be considered.

We urge the removal of as many dams as possible from the Mahoning River and that this is made a high priority feature of the environmental dredging project. For those dams that are currently in use, we recommend that the USACE actively investigate alternate water sources with dam owners. We believe that

the removal of dams on the Mahoning River is important enough to merit making dam removal, and provision of alternate water sources, features of the Mahoning River environmental dredging project.

DESCRIPTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES: EXISTING

Existing fish and wildlife resources of the Mahoning River corridor in the study reach include a total of 47 species of fish and numerous bird and mammal species. A more complete description of the fisheries resources of the Mahoning River was included in our June 1998 planning aid report. The fish species of the Mahoning River are here presented in Table 3.

Fish consumption advisories exist for PCBs and mercury in Mahoning River common carp, channel catfish, smallmouth bass, and walleye.

Water quality of the Mahoning River has markedly improved since most of the steel mills have been shut down. However, the sediments and oiled banks continue to depress benthic invertebrate and fish populations. The current status of freshwater mussels in the Mahoning River is unknown.

The wooded corridor of the river is more extensive than might be expected given the amount of industrialization. Michael Koryak of the Corps’ Pittsburgh District Office related to us that he had seen what he considered to be unusually large numbers of wood duck all along the Mahoning River in his June 1998 reconnaissance of the river from Levittsburg, Ohio to New Castle, Pennsylvania.

Current ecological conditions of the Mahoning River corridor are given on page 2-29 of the 1999 USACE reconnaissance report as including a large population of great blue herons, belted kingfishers, and a large population of adult and juvenile wood ducks, and adult owls and hawks. We might add that a large number of passerine bird species also utilize the Mahoning River corridor. Mammals included beaver and deer, and adult and juvenile snapping turtles were seen.

Among the bird species found by Shawn Blohm and Courtnay Willis of Youngstown State University (YSU) along the Mahoning River were the cerulean warbler, a candidate species for federal-listing under the Endangered Species Act, and the wood thrush, a bird species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, in “Birds of Conservation Concern 2002” as being of conservation concern on both a regional and national basis.

The proposed project study reach in Trumbull County lies within the range of the bald eagle (T), Indiana bat (E), and clubshell mussel (E), federally listed threatened (T) or endangered (E) species. In Mahoning County the project lays within the range of the bald eagle (T) and the Indiana bat (E). It is unlikely that the bald eagle uses the project reach of the Mahoning River and the clubshell mussel is not known to occur in the Mahoning River system. The rayed bean mussel was recently given candidate status, meaning that it could be listed as endangered or threatened by the Federal government at some time in the future. Although not presently known to occur in the Mahoning River, the rayed bean did occur there in 1890, as did the endangered northern riffleshell mussel. If these species are found in the Mahoning, we request to be notified.

There are currently no federally listed aquatic endangered or threatened species that are known to occur in the Mahoning River or its tributaries.

However, the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) could occur in the wooded shore areas of the project reach of the Mahoning River where bat summer habitat occurs. Indiana bat, a Federally-listed endangered species. Since first listed as endangered in 1967, their population has declined by nearly 60%. Several factors have contributed to the decline of the Indiana bat, including the loss and degradation of suitable hibernacula,

human disturbance during hibernation, pesticides, and the loss and degradation of forested habitat, particularly stands of large, mature trees. Fragmentation of forest habitat may also contribute to declines. Summer habitat requirements for the species are not well defined but the following are considered important: 1. Dead or live trees and snags with peeling or exfoliating bark, split tree trunk and/or branches, or cavities, which may be used as maternity roost areas. 2. Live trees (such as shagbark hickory and oaks) which have exfoliating bark. 3. Stream corridors, riparian areas, and upland woodlots which provide forage sites.

Should the proposed site contain trees or associated habitats exhibiting any of the characteristics listed above, we recommend that the habitat and surrounding trees be saved wherever possible. If the trees must be cut, further coordination with this office is recommended. Additionally, suitable bat roost trees should not be cut between April 15 and September 15.

If desirable trees are present and must be cut, mist net or other surveys may be warranted to determine if bats are present. Any survey should be designed and conducted in coordination with the Endangered Species Coordinator for this office. The survey should be conducted in June or July, since the bats would only be expected in the project area from approximately April 15 to September 15. Indiana bats use the adult stage of aquatic macroinvertebrates as a food source, exclusively. If healthy macroinvertebrate populations are restored to the Mahoning River, the food component of Indiana bat summer habitat will be restored along the river.

We expect that the USACE would want to use the above information on federally-listed species to prepare a determination of effects as required under the Endangered Species Act. This determination would then be forwarded to the Service for concurrence or non-concurrence.

Nearly the entire length of the Mahoning River in the project reach has well developed riparian woodland on both banks, even in the heavily industrialized reaches. These trees are generally large and often form a canopy or partial canopy over the river. The width of the wooded zone, judging from the “EDATA Mahoning River Corridor Study” (March 1993) and our own field observations, appears to be at least equal to the width of the river on each bank, and is relatively uniform in width through the project reach. It is very likely that Indiana bat habitat exists along much of the project reach of the Mahoning River.

We ask that you pay particular attention to wooded areas of the sediment disposal/staging areas: Site 4 in Warren is heavily wooded on about two thirds of the site; Site 5 in Weathersfield Township contains a stand of trees; and Site 6 in Niles is wooded on the eastern half of the site. Each of these areas should be surveyed for Indiana bat summer habitat. Also, areas of river bank where cutting of timber is anticipated, or any other project area where timber cutting will occur, should be surveyed for Indiana bat habitat. Please keep the Reynoldsburg office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service advised of your intention to survey for Indiana bat habitat.

DESCRIPTION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES: FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT

The 1999 reconnaissance report states that the no action alternative would result in improved ecological conditions only if the contaminated sediments were detoxified or removed by natural mechanisms. We agree with that assessment. Sediment conditions would likely not improve under the without project scenario.

Dams would continue to impair fish and mussel populations. Dams would also continue to hold contaminated sediments in place preventing their downstream movement and preventing colonization by many pollution- intolerant macroinvertebrates. At some point in the far future (100 years or more?) abandoned dams on the Mahoning River will begin to fail, allowing sediments to move downstream to the next pool. Eventually the effects of sediment pollution in the areas above breached dams should improve. This might allow some

recovery of the macroinvertebrate community, fish, and possibly even freshwater mussels. However, conditions in the pools behind remaining downstream dams might worsen as contaminated sediments from upstream settled. Under current conditions fish and mussel populations will continue to be impaired or absent.

Fish consumption advisories for PCBs and mercury in Mahoning River common carp, channel catfish, smallmouth bass, and walleye would likely continue to be in effect for the foreseeable future under no- project conditions.

According to Testa (1997, page 39), “The banks of the Mahoning River between RM 16.3 and 13 were oil soaked and this stretch of the river contained heavy deposits of oil in the sediment. A previous 1976 study by the Corps stated that 23. 8 miles of the Mahoning River have extensive oil-soaked banks with an estimated volume of 285,600 cubic yards.

We have seen no credible estimates of the natural attenuation rates of oil in the banks or oil and chemical contamination of sediments of the Mahoning River. The issue of natural attenuation rates might be something that the USACE would wish to pursue as a project feature.

If the contaminated sediments in the river are not removed, the river will continue as an aquatic system that is hazardous to the health of the public. The river will be a burden to society instead of an asset to the communities along its banks. The polluted state of the Mahoning River sediments contributes to the economic depression of the area by preventing a river based recreational industry from developing. The Mahoning River is a potentially significant source of recreational opportunity and ecological function, and that potential won’t be realized until the system has been cleansed of contamination.

It is uncertain what effect an environmental dredging project would have on source control of sewage releases and oil and grease loading. Without the project, the current trajectory of environmental and biological degradation would continue.

DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED PLAN AND EVALUATED ALTERNATIVES

Detailed descriptions of the various plans are not available at this time.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS

Dam Removal

The USACE Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, in “Ice Engineering,” mentioned that dam removal in ice-affected rivers has, in several cases, resulted in increased frequency and severity of downstream ice jams. Their definition of an ice-affected river was not offered in their article, but in the Mahoning River this certainly doesn’t happen every year, and we have no idea what the frequency would be for such events. Also, lowering of water levels in impoundments containing sediment deposits can cause ice-induced scour and erosion of bank and bed material. “If dams are removed and ice events increase in severity, ice jam events will “short circuit” the normal sediment-trapping capability of reservoirs and increase the release of contaminated sediment downstream. The only remedy for this is to completely remove sediment before dam removal or protect sediment from ice erosion under the new hydraulic regimes established after dam removal” (USACE, 2001, page 3).

Thus it would seem appropriate to remove pool sediments before dam removal if ice were to be a consideration in the Mahoning River (and even if it wasn’t). Moreover, the possibility of sediment

mobilization would seem to argue against capping sediments in place, if ice is of concern. Capping of the main channel was briefly considered in the USACE reconnaissance report.

Caps

We understand that a cap remedy on the bottom of the Grass River in New York State was damaged by ice several years ago. However, this river is at about the same latitude as Minneapolis, i.e. generally colder than the Mahoning Valley.

Removal of oiled bank sediments could result in the removal of trees along the river that provide habitat for wildlife as well as bank stabilization. The extent and significance of the oiled soaked banks is unclear and should be further addressed in project area studies. Impacts to the river banks should be quantified as to length of reach as well as acreage. Locations of this work should also be GPS documented and mapped.

There was some discussion to the effect that the USACE would be doing a considerable amount of “bank capping” in areas where there was erosion potential as a result of removing oiled bank soil. These caps would consist of impermeable geo-textile fabric overlain with riprap in the 12-18 inch size range. Depending on the extent of these caps, the impacts on riparian vegetation as well as aquatic biota, could be profound and long lasting. If done on long reaches of the river, such treatment would minimize fish and wildlife habitat quality of the river and banks in these areas. It would be unsightly and probably not be conducive to recreational uses such as fishing and boating. Some issues we see arising from this bank work are: 1) We would prefer the use of plants to stabilize banks where there is no problem with further pollution. Materials like coir (palm tree fiber) fabric and coir logs could also be used in these situations. Coir has engineering specifications associated with the various products that will allow the assessment of their ability to perform required tasks. 2) Design caps so that they maximize their value as fish and aquatic invertebrate habitat. Of concern would be the affect of the cap on channel morphology and the resulting reaction of the river in terms of things like its competence to move bed load. Would the river be significantly widened? Will the functioning of the post-project channel be reviewed by the USACE in terms of natural channel design? Overall, we recommend that the Corps separate the issue of capping to prevent mobilization of pollutants, and the issue of bank stabilization of excavated banks, to facilitate the discussion.

Dredging

The Impacts of dredging in the main channel should be positive, in the main, because contaminated sediment would be removed. This should allow native fish, mussels and other aquatic invertebrates to return to these sections of river. A major issue would be the physical quality of the remaining sediments and the channel conformation that remains after dredging. Deep excavations could result in channel erosion and deposition as the river compensates for changes. In the pooled reaches where most of the dredging will probably be done, removal of soft contaminated sediments could reveal original gravel substrate. How much of that gravel substrate remains after dredging may depend on the type of dredge (which is yet to be determined) and the skill of the operator. The USACE should provide project participants with an analysis of the bottom quality that could be expected after dredging.

It has been suggested that gravel placed in the river to provide road material for heavy equipment might be left in place or scattered to provide a better quality river substrate. This issue needs to be addressed further. The quality, size, and placement of this road material should be evaluated for its suitability to enhance fish and aquatic invertebrate habitat. At this point, we have many questions about the concept.

The USACE should quantify the dredging in terms of surface area as well as volume. The location of areas to be dredged, surface area disturbed, length of reach disturbed, and expected quality and particle size of the bottom remaining after dredging should be addressed in future USACE studies.

We understand that in 1987 the USACE Waterways Experiment Station (WES) prepared a habitat model for thick-shelled unionid mussels (“Gravel bar mussel communities: a community model”) that could be used with the Service’s habitat evaluation procedures (HEP) (Miller, et al., 1987). If the USACE model was adopted, the Service’s “Habitat Evaluation Procedures” (HEP) could be used to measure a theoretical improvement in habitat for these mussels after dredging. This kind of information would be one way to document the achievement of project macroinvertebrate habitat goals. The actual introduction of some unionid species back into the Mahoning River might also be justified by this model.

One of our concerns with dredging the Mahoning River is destabilization of the riverbank when sediments at the toe of the bank are removed. We suggest that the USACE adopt a method to determine where erosion control will be required, how much erosion control will be required, and what type of erosion control will be required. This process should be described publicly as soon as possible.

It has been suggested that this erosion control in the form of riprap extend all the way up to the ordinary high water level. We believe that there should be a justification for all erosion control actions in the project, and that bioengineering should be used wherever possible. Plus, we recommend the use of alternative methods rather than capping for the stream bank and stream bottom. We also recommend the use of alternative methods rather than riprap, and the use of native vegetation and natural channel design to restore the river.

We suggest further investigation of bioremediation measures in the next phase of the project for the Girard Pool and the Lowellville Pool. This might considerably reduce the amount of destructive bank excavation necessary in these pools.

COMPARISON OF THE SELECTED PLAN AND EVALUATED ALTERNATIVES

Selected plan

Details of a Selected Plan are not yet available.

If the contaminated sediments are removed from the Mahoning River, a viable and healthy ecosystem could be expected in a few years. We can also expect that the fish consumption advisories and “no body contact” warning would be withdrawn. If some or all of the dams can be removed, breached or a fish bypass provided, the upstream and downstream movement of fish and other aquatic species will significantly increase the diversity of the aquatic ecosystem.

After the contaminated sediments are removed from the river and clean substrate is naturally deposited on the river bottom from upstream sources, there will be an immediate increase in the diversity of invertebrates on the river bottom. The diversity of benthic organisms that move downstream will depend on the diversity in upstream areas of the Mahoning River and the tributary streams. Also, it should be noted that upstream areas and areas downstream of tributaries will probably recover sooner. The diversity in benthos should also lead to diversity in fish species, provided that fish have free movement within the river and access to tributary streams. The increase in aquatic insects will also improve, or create, the food component of Indiana bat (endangered) summer habitat. Indiana bats feed exclusively on the adult stage of aquatic macroinvertebrates.

It is anticipated that fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation activities on the river will greatly increase within a few years after the cleanup. An aggressive public outreach program may be needed to “sell” the river to local residents and to encourage others to make the Mahoning River a recreational destination. Other recreational pursuits that should increase are canoeing, boating, wildlife photography, hiking, biking and sightseeing.

The success of the Mahoning River Environmental Dredging Project, with regard to sediment quality and fish and wildlife values, will be determined by applying an environmental metric developed by the USACE and agencies cooperating in the Mahoning River project to a model reach (or reference reach) upstream of the project reach and comparing this to the score for the project reach. This environmental quality index (EQI) metric includes evaluation element routinely used by the Ohio EPA such as IBI, ICI, and QHEI, as well as some other measures of sediment chemistry and predator abundance. The project should meet the EQI goal after implementation.

However, project success might be more precisely defined for PAH removal, important to removing the no contact and fish consumption advisory warnings, if Dr. Paul Baumann’s index of liver tumors in bullhead was applied before and after project features are implemented. This index was important in removing fish consumption advisories on the Black River in Ohio.

DISCUSSION AND JUSTIFICATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MEASURES

Trust species that would use the habitat likely to be affected by the project include migratory birds. A list of bird species observed along the River in May and June of 2004 was created by Shawn Blohm and Courtnay Willis of Youngstown State University (YSU). They found 78 species, 74 of which are species covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, i.e. migratory birds. Of these 74 species, 55 are of the order Passeriformes (songbirds) and the rest are of other taxonomic orders. The abundance of large trees along the Mahoning, which canopy parts of the river, is particularly important to some birds as well as to fish and other aquatic life, and the endangered Indiana bat.

The avian species which might be most affected by disturbance of existing streamside vegetation (forest, used for foraging or nesting), or wetlands, include the great blue heron, wood duck, mallard, belted kingfisher, spotted sandpiper, and killdeer. Some of the warblers such as the northern waterthrush are also particularly dependent on riparian vegetation. The cerulean warbler, a bird of forested wetlands, is a candidate species for federal listing, and was included on the YSU list for the Mahoning River. Trust species that would use the habitat likely to be affected by the project include migratory birds. The YSU bird list found 78 species, 74 of which are species covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, i.e. migratory birds. Of these 74 species, 55 are of the order Passeriformes (songbirds) and the rest are of other taxonomic orders. The FWS Office of Migratory Bird Management lists both the wood thrush and cerulean warbler as species of conservation concern in our region and nationally (both species were found along the Mahoning River according to the YSU bird list). The abundance of large trees along the Mahoning, which canopy parts of the river, is particularly important to some birds as well as to fish and other aquatic life, and the endangered Indiana bat.

The species which might be most affected by disturbance of existing streamside vegetation (forest, used for foraging or nesting), or wetlands, include the great blue heron, wood duck, mallard, belted kingfisher, spotted sandpiper, and killdeer. Some of the warblers such as the northern waterthrush are also particularly dependent on riparian vegetation. The cerulean warbler, a bird of forested wetlands, is a candidate species for federal listing, and was included on the YSU list for the Mahoning River. The details about the location of this sighting were not given, but would be important.

However, the loss of significant amounts of important bird habitat as a result of the project is not a forgone conclusion. At this time, the extent of vegetation clearing associated with the project, and the locations to be cleared, aren’t known. For riparian forest that would be cleared, the type, maturity, and quantity of vegetation (both in terms of feet of riverbank on both sides of the river, and acreage) should be determined. From this the Corps could develop a plan to restore, through planting, a semblance of the original native vegetation and its functions. We suggest that a re-vegetation plan specify larger trees be planted. These plantings could be integrated with any bioengineering features that were required for erosion control. Some of the ideas included in the USACE’s Regulatory Guidance Letters No.01-1 and No. 02-2 might be utilized to develop the habitat restoration plan for riverbank vegetation.

We believe that the Mahoning River Environmental Dredging Project is clearly water dependent based on the pollution contained in the river sediments and banks. We also believe that there is a demonstrated public need for the project based on local interest, the impaired aquatic ecosystem, and loss of recreational and environmental services that the river should supply.

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Determine the condition of the mouths of named tributaries and perennial streams of the Mahoning River within the study reach. It may also be necessary to determine exactly where some of them join with the river. There may be opportunities to restore these areas to enhance fish passage and create fish habitat, especially where a tributary has been piped under old industrial land adjacent to river. It may be feasible at some locations to remove culverts and restore open channel. This may be more important in the shorter dammed pools with few tributaries.

2. Determine the exact location and extent of “Loveland’s Ripple” in the Mahoning River between Youngstown and Poland. This may have been the reach where the variegate darter and spotted darter were first collected by Kirtland. This reach of the Mahoning River was also one of the most polluted by industry, to the point of elimination of most fish in one area. The feasibility of restoring all or part of this reach of the river should be evaluated. The potential for this reach, after restoration, to support indigenous rare fish species and mussels should also be evaluated.

3. We suggest investigating the feasibility of restoring the seven fish species that were first described from the Mahoning River (mentioned in the fish section above) and that have been extirpated over the years. Many of these species would be indicators of high water quality and stream bed quality. If they could be introduced from elsewhere in the Mahoning River system, and were to thrive, or were to return on there own, this would be a measure of project success. Reintroduction of missing fish species could be made a project goal and a measure of success.

4. Nobody has systematically surveyed the Mahoning River for freshwater mussels since 1890. We suggest both pre- and post-project surveys of the Mahoning River study reach. Mussel colonization post-project would be a very good indicator of project success, along with the return of missing fish species. Mussels are more sensitive to environmental perturbations than aquatic insects and might better measure success than the ICI. Mussels are sensitive to both the presence of dams and sediment quality. Should mussel surveys be undertaken, we refer you to Dr. Heidi Dunn’s paper on mussel sampling strategies. Consultation with Dr. Dunn or other knowledgeable mussel experts should then be initiated.

5. Investigate the feasibility of post construction restoration of at least some of the freshwater mussel species that have been extirpated from the Mahoning River. We suggest contacting Dr. Tom Watters of Ohio State University at 614-292-6170 for the latest mussel introduction methodologies that might be applicable.

6. Consider making the restoration of the once common clubshell mussel (federally listed as endangered) to the Mahoning River a project goal. If achieved, this single accomplishment would justify the project.

7. One potential use of any pre-positioned sentinel mussels, freshwater mussels that currently inhabit the river, or that might return to the Mahoning River, would be to use them in monitoring metal contamination. Mussels get rid of metals in the river by depositing them in the shell. According to Dr. David Stansbury (1999) of Ohio State University, mussel shells can be cooked to oxidize the organic glue that holds the shell together. The annual layers can then be separated and any year in the life of the mussel can be analyzed to determine water conditions that year. Specimens from above and below an outfall can be used to pinpoint the source of pollution in a stream.

8. Another way to monitor the success of the environmental dredging project would be to determine the incidence of tumors and cancers in the liver and skin of brown bullhead. Dr. Paul Baumann of the USGS, stationed at Ohio State University (614-469-5701), has developed accurate guidelines for determining when pollution has caused these tumors and cancers in bullhead. PAHs, a class of pollutants of concern in the Mahoning River, are known to be a common cause of these tumors and cancers. The recent reduction of the health advisory for fish consumption in the Black River of Ohio was in large part possible because Dr. Baumann’s studies documented improvement in fish health after dredging. We might expect that similar studies, before and after dredging in the Mahoning River, would be successful at demonstrating the improvement of sediment quality by showing a reduction of tumors and cancers in bullheads.

9. Studies should be designed which would allow the assessment of the effects of dam removal on Mahoning River biota and stream channel morphology. There have been few such studies in the past. Pre- and post- dam removal studies of sediment storage and movement, and studies of the effects of dam removal on fish, mussel, and aquatic invertebrate populations should be considered.

10. Some fish and wildlife habitat may have to be destroyed in the course of cleansing the Mahoning River of its pollution. Such losses might be expected in areas of river bank where oil must be removed or capped, dredged areas of the main channel, and at the sediment handling sites where trees must be removed. We suggest that habitat replacement for these losses be included in the project. The acreages of project caused disturbances should be totaled and categorized by type of impact. Restoration for such impacts should be a project feature. We recommend that an ecosystem restoration plan be formulated.

11. Surveys for Indiana bat habitat should be undertaken in areas where the project will result in the removal of trees. This should include sediment handling areas as well as riparian areas. Please refer to our comments above in “Description of Fish and Wildlife Resources: Existing.”

12. The Mahoning River should be studied for the presence of riparian wetlands in the project reach. This might be most easily accomplished in the first iteration by consulting the National Wetlands Inventory Maps for the project reach. Field surveys to validate these findings, and wetland delineation of areas that would be affected by project activities, would be subsequent steps of such a study. The Ohio EPA’s system of wetland evaluation and replacement should be adopted.

13. Evaluate the portion of the Mahoning River adjacent to Packard Park in Warren (Figure 2) as a possible site for the creation of fish spawning habitat and wetland. This area appears to have been modified by dredging.

14. Project associated environmental documents should address in detail the issue of source control. Many sources of oil and grease have ceased to discharge to the river, but some may still be significant sources.

15. Consider using the USACE Waterways Experiment Station (WES) habitat model for thick-shelled unionid mussels (“Gravel bar mussel communities: a community model) with the Service’s habitat evaluation procedures (HEP) to measure a theoretical improvement in habitat for these mussels after dredging.

16. If problems are identified before, during, or after dam removal, a remediation plan(s) should be developed which adequately addresses these issues. For instance, if newly exposed stream banks are experiencing erosion, then a temporary seeding of non-invasive annual plants may be needed until the native vegetation can stabilize these sites. Similarly, if headcutting occurs in tributaries to the dam pools after the dams have been removed, measures to stabilize these streams may be necessary.

17. Remove as many dams as possible from the study reach of the Mahoning River and provide for fish passage around those dams that must remain. Obstacles to the removal of those remaining dams, and solutions, should be thoroughly investigated. For example, if water supply is the reason for a dam, alternate sources should be explored, and even made part of the project. A Mahoning river that provides unimpeded movement to fish in the study reach is fundamental to the project’s biological success. If possible, take out dams sequentially in a downstream direction with the dredging so that any sediments flowing downstream will be collectible at the next dam. (The dam removal issue should be settled prior to commencing the project.)

18. The extent and significance of the oiled soaked banks is unclear and should be further addressed in project area studies. Impacts to the river banks should be quantified as to length of reach as well as acreage. Locations of this work should also be GPS documented, mapped, and made available to the public.

19. We have made the USACE aware of the Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Sedimentation Laboratory. We believe that this model, or something like it, should be used to evaluate bank stability of the Mahoning River under various project scenarios.

20. We suggest further investigation of bioremediation measures in the next phase of the project for the Girard Pool and the Lowellville Pool. This might considerably reduce the amount of destructive bank excavation necessary in these pools.

21. Stream bank erosion control should be accomplished through bioengineering. This should be the default method of erosion control and used on most reaches of the river where such measures are needed.

22. We recommend the use of alternative methods rather than capping for the stream bank and stream bottom. We also recommend the use of alternative methods rather than riprap, and the use of native vegetation and natural channel design to restore the river.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND FWS POSITION

At this time, we are unable to make site specific recommendations because the details of the area and length of reaches that require bank work, various locations of that work, and the nature of that work have not yet been determined.

We would like to recommend at this time that if the river is to be restored to a healthy ecosystem, the sediments should be removed and contained in an upland disposal site. Any mechanical dredging should be completed in a manner that will reduce spillage from the bucket and contain suspended sediments. Measures such as the use of a sealed bucket and the installation of a silt screen around dredging operation are strongly recommended. Depending on the degree of contamination, existing landfills or industrial disposal areas may be used for sediment disposal.

The dredging should also be accomplished in such a way as to leave the original river bed below the contaminated sediment intact, as much as possible. This will probably depend on the details of the dredging operation, type of dredge used, and skill of the dredge operator. Most of these details are yet to be determined.

We recommend that sediment dewatering areas and their operation be presented in more detail in the next study phase. This should include the determining the acreage of forest that would be removed at dewatering areas, size and species composition of forest trees, and numbers of standing dead trees. This information may be necessary to determine the presence of, and the quality of, any Indiana bat habitat that may be present. A similar accounting will be necessary for trees in the riparian zone that must be removed.

Restoration of the Mahoning River should also involve the removal or breaching of dams on the river to allow free movement of aquatic organisms. If the sediments are removed and all the dams stay in place, additional sediments will accumulate behind them and aquatic organisms will not move freely up and down the river.

We further recommend that the sponsors make a concerted effort to get public involvement in the project. A public outreach program should be instituted to inform the public of the positive impacts of removing the contaminated sediments.

The Service favors the removal of the sediments plus removal of the dams (as many as possible). Dredging of the sediments alone would improve the chemical environment, but the river would remain a fragmented and pooled environment. Fish and mussel species currently absent from the Mahoning River would be less likely to return without dam removal.

A major concern is the type of bank erosion control that will be used. Bioengineering should be used wherever possible. We believe that bioengineering can achieve the stability that the project requires. A model or other precise method should be used to determine if riprap is necessary.

Because much of the information necessary to determine project impacts will be developed in the next phase of the project, the Service would like to continue its involvement in future phases of this project.

TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1. Mahoning River tributaries and their dam pools. These streams were noted from U.S.G.S. 1:240000 quadrangles. River miles are from the USACE numbering system.

MAHONING RIVER DAM NAMED TRIBUTARY TO POOL TRIBUTARY POOL DAMMED Lowellville - 1st Street Dam, R.M. 13.05 Grass Run Hines Run X Godward Run Yellow Creek X Struthers - Bridge Street Dam, R.M. 16.78 None Haselton - Center Street Dam, R.M. 18.2 Pine Hollow Creek Dry Run X Crab Creek Mahoning Avenue Dam, R.M. 22.11 Mill Creek X Crescent Street Dam, R.M. 23.14 Fourmile Run Little Squaw Creek Girard - Liberty Street Dam, R.M. 26.97 Squaw Creek X Meander Creek X Mosquito Creek X Mud Creek X Warren - Main Street Sub- Station Dam, R.M. 36.79 several unnamed perennial streams Warren - Summit Street Dam, R.M. 40.03 2 unnamed perennial streams Warren – North River Road Dam, None R.M. 42.99 Lovers Lane Dam, R.M. 45.13 Duck Creek 2 unnamed perennial streams Levittsburg Dam, (Study Limit) R.M. 46.9 Chocolate Run Eagle Creek West Branch Mahoning River X several unnamed perennial streams

Table 2. Distribution of Unionidae in three northeastern Ohio rivers from G.W. Dean (1890). Species noted with the same number were considered different species by Dean, but the modern classification considers them to be the same species. Key: (E) = Federally listed as endangered; (FC) = Federal candidate status; (VR) = very rare; (R) = rare, (C) = common. Question marks, blanks, and abundance remarks are Dean’s notations.

Unionidae – Current Common Scientific Name 1890 Mahoning Cuyahoga Tuscarawas and Scientific Name River River River

Giant floater Anodonta decora Lea or Pyganodon grandis A. plana Lea X ….. X? Cylindrical papershell Anodontoides ferussacianus A. subcyclindracea Lea X X X Squawfoot (1) Strophitus undulates A. edentula Lea X X X Paper pondshell Utterbackia imbecillis A. imbicilis Say X (VR) ? ? Squawfoot (1) Strophitus undulates A. pavonia Lea X X X

Slipper shell Alasmidonta viridis Margarantana deltoidea Lea ….. ….. X White heelsplitter Lasmigonia complanata M. complanata Lea X X X Cracking pearlymussel Hemistena lata M. dehiscens Lea ….. ….. X (R) Salamander mussel Simpsonaias ambigua M. hildrethiana Lea X (R) ….. X (R) Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata M. marginata Say X X X? Fluted-shell Lasmigona costata M. rugosa Barnes X X X

Pink heelsplitter Potamilus alatus Unio alatus Lea ….. X X? Round hickorynut Obovaria subrotunda U. circulus Lea X X? X Clubshell (E) Pleurobema clava U. clavus Lam. X (C) ….. X Round pigtoe Pleurobema coccineum U. coccineus Lea X X X Rabbitsfoot X ….. Quadrua cylindrical U. cylindricus Say X Rayed bean (FC) Villosa fabalis U. fabalis Lea X ….. ….. Spike Elliptio dilatata U. gibbosus Barnes X X X Rainbow (2) Villosa iris U. iris X (R) ….. ? Fanshell (E) Cyprogenia stegaria U. irroratus Lea ….. ….. X

Unionidae – Common and Scientific Name 1890 Mahoning Cuyahoga Tuscarawas Scientific Name River River River

Rainbow (2) Villosa iris U. novaeboraci Lea ….. X X Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea U. luteolus Lam. X X X Wavy-rayed lampmussel Lampsilis fasciola U. multiradiatus Lea X X ….. Eastern pondshell Ligumia nasuta U. nasutus Say ….. X ….. Plain pocketbook Lampsilis cardium U. occidens Lea X X (R) X (C) Lilliput Toxoplasma parvus U. parvus Barnes X X ? Northern riffleshell (E) (3) Epioblasma torulosa rangiana U. perplexus Lea ….. ….. X (R) Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus fasciolarus U. phaseolus Hild. X ? ? Creek heelsplitter Lasmogona compressa U. pressus Lea X X X Wartyback Quadrula nodulata U. pustulatus Lea ….. ….. X (R) Pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa U. pustulosus Lea ….. ….. X Pyramid pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum U. pyramidatus Lea ….. ….. X Northern riffleshell (E) (3) Epioblasma torulosa rangiana U. rangianus Lea X ….. X Wabash pigtoe Fusconaia flava U. rubiginosus Lea ….. X (C) X (C) Black sandshell Ligumia recta U. rectus Lam. ….. X X Long solid (4) (described from Mahoning River) U. kirtlandia Lea X ….. ? Fusconia subrotunda Long solid (4) Fusconaia subrotunda U. subrotundus Lea ….. ? X Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra U. triangularis Lea X ….. X Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa U. tuberculatus Barnes X ….. X Washboard Megalonaias nervosa U. undulates Barnes X ….. X Purple wartyback Cyclonaias tuberculata U. verrucosus Barnes X (R) ….. X (R) Mucket Actinonais ligamentum U. ligamentinus ….. X X

Table 3. Fish of the Mahoning River System. This list has been compiled from Trautman, 1981, and includes historical records. The “entire river” column are all species mentioned by Ohio EPA in their 1996 report on the Mahoning River. The “Proj. Area” column are those species listed in the Ohio EPA 1996 report that occur in the project area, i.e. the mainstem Mahoning River.

SPECIES ENTIRE PROJ. SPECIES ENTIRE PROJ. RIVER AREA RIVER AREA

LAKE STURGEON CENTRAL STONEROLLER MINNOW X X AMERICAN EEL BLACKSTRIPE TOPMINNOW X X EASTERN GIZZARD SHAD X X GOLDEN REDHORSE X X CENTRAL MUD MINNOW X SILVER REDHORSE X X GRASS PICKERAL X X NORTHERN HOGSUCKER X X NORTHERN PIKE COMMON WHITE SUCKER X X OHIO MUSKELLUNGE X X SPOTTED SUCKER X X COMMON CARP X X WESTERN LAKE CHUBSUCKER GOLDFISH X X CHANNEL CATFISH X X HORNYHEAD CHUB YELLOW BULLHEAD X X RIVER CHUB X X BROWN BULLHEAD X X SILVER CHUB BLACK BULLHEAD X NORTHERN BIGEYE CHUB STONECAT MADTOM OHIO STREAMLINE CHUB BROOK SILVERSIDE X X WESTERN BLACKNOSE DACE X X BROOK STICKLEBACK NORTHERN CREEK CHUB X X WHITE BASS X X SOUTHERN REDBELLY DACE X WHITE CRAPPIE X X REDSIDE DACE X BLACK CRAPPIE X X SILVER SHINER X X NORTHERN ROCKBASS X X ROSYFACE SHINER X NORTHERN SPOTTED BLACKBASS X X NORTHERN REDFIN SHINER NORTHERN SMALLMOUTH X X BLACKBASS CENTRAL STRIPED SHINER X X NORTHERN LARGEMOUTH X X BLACKBASS EMERALD SHINER X X WARMOUTH SUNFISH X X COMMON SHINER GREEN SUNFISH X X SPOTFIN SHINER X X NORTHERN BLUEGILL SUNFISH X X SAND SHINER X X CENTRAL LONGEAR SUNFISH X X

Table 3, continued. SPECIES ENTIRE PROJ. RIVER AREA

GOLDEN SHINER X X SILVERJAW MINNOW X NORTHERN FATHEAD MINNOW X X BLUNTNOSE MINNOW X X OHIO STONEROLLER MINNOW EASTERN GREENSIDE DARTER X X OHIO LOGPERCH DARTER X X EASTERN SAND DARTER X X CENTRAL JOHNNY DARTER X X

EASTERN BANDED DARTER X X VARIEGATE DARTER SPOTTED DARTER

BLUEBREAST DARTER RAINBOW DARTER BARRED FANTAIL DARTER X X

CENTRAL MOTTLED SCULPIN X PUMPKINSEED SUNFISH X X WALLEYE X X YELLOW PERCH X X WHITE PERCH X BLACKSIDE DARTER

Figure 1. Number of species of fish and unionids vs watershed drainage area 100

60 Mahoning River Mahoning River

40 Number of Species Number

Drainage Area vs Fish species Drainage Area vs Unionid species 0 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 Drainage Area (square kilometers)

Figure 2. Aquatic habitat restoration opportunity at Site 2 in Warren (Packard Park). The area is about 3.25 acres.

PACKARD PARK habitat restoration opportunities Site II

REFERENCES

Andersson, E., C. Nilsson, and M.E. Johansson. 2000. Effects of River Fragmentation on Plant Dispersal and Riparian Flora. Regul.Rivers: Res. Manage. Vol.16, No. 1, 83-89.

Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Manual 5. 194 pages.

Dean, G.W. 1890. Distribution of Unionidae in the Three Rivers, Mahoning, Cuyahoga and Tuscarawas. The Nautilus, Vol. IV, No. 1, May 1890, 20-22.

Doyle, M.W. and E.H. Stanley. 2003. Toward Policies and Decision-Making for Dam Removal. Environmental Management Vol. 3, No.4, 453-465.

Hardison, B.S. and J.B. Layzer. 2001. Relations Between Complex Hydraulics and the Localized Distribution of Mussels in Three Regulated Rivers. Regul. Rivers: Res. Manage. Vol 17, No. 1, 77-84.

Miller, A.C., B.S. Payne, T.J. Naimo, and W.D. Russel-Hunter. 1987. Gravel Bar Mussel Communities: A Community Model. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Report EL-87-13, October 1987, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg. 67 pages.

Ohio EPA. 1996. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Mahoning River Basin, Vol. I. OEPA Technical Report MAS/1995-12-14, May 1, 1996. 239 p.

Ohio EPA. 1996. Appendices to Biological and Water Quality Study of the Mahoning River Basin, Vol. II. OEPA Technical Report MAS/1995-12-14, May 1, 1996.

Stanley, E.H., M.A. Luebke, M.W. Doyle, D.W. Marshall. 2002. Short Term Changes in Channel Form and Macroinvertebrate Communities Following Low-head Dam Removal. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. Vol. 21, No.1, 172-187.

Stansbury, D.H. 1999. Clams offer Reflection of Future by Carolyn Noon. Retrieved April 21, 2004, from Millenium Special Edition from The Hawk Eye. Web Site: http://thehawkeye.com/features/1999/millenium/mm04094.html

Testa, R.W. 1997. The partitioning of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Mahoning River Bottom Sediments. Masters Thesis, Engineering, Youngstown State University, June, 1997.

Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press. 782 pages.

Watters, T.G. 1992. Unionids, Fishes, and the Species Area Curve. Journal of Biogeography (19), 481-490.

Watters, T.G. 1994. Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) and Northern Riffleshell (Epoiblasma torulosa rangiana) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, Hadley Massachusetts. 57 pages.

Watters, T.G. 1996. Small Dams as Barriers to Freshwater Mussels (Bivalva, Unioda) and their Hosts. Biological Concervation, (75), 79-85.