DOCSLIB.ORG

Soil Survey of Coshocton County, Ohio

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Soil Survey of Coshocton County, Ohio United States In cooperation with Department of Ohio Department of Agriculture Natural Resources, Soil Survey of Division of Soil and Water Natural Conservation; Ohio Coshocton Resources Agricultural Research and Conservation Development Center; Ohio Service State University Extension; County, Ohio and Coshocton County Commissioners 3 How To Use This Soil Survey General Soil Map The general soil map, which is a color map, shows the survey area divided into groups of associated soils called general soil map units. This map is useful in planning the use and management of large areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the map, identify the name of the map unit in the area on the color-coded map legend, then refer to the section General Soil Map Units for a general description of the soils in your area. Detailed Soil Maps The detailed soil maps can be useful in planning the use and management of small areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the Index to Map Sheets. Note the number of the map sheet and turn to that sheet. Locate your area of interest on the map sheet. Note the map unit symbols that are in that area. Turn to the Contents, which lists the map units by symbol and name and shows the page where each map unit is described. The Contents shows which table has data on a specific land use for each detailed soil map unit. Also see the Contents for sections of this publication that may address your specific needs. 4 This soil survey is a publication of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Major fieldwork for this soil survey was completed in 1991. Soil names and descriptions were approved in 1996. Unless otherwise indicated, statements in this publication refer to conditions in the survey area in 1991. This survey was made cooperatively by the Natural Resources Conservation Service; the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation; the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; the Ohio State University Extension; and the Coshocton County Commissioners. The survey is part of the technical assistance furnished to the Coshocton Soil and Water Conservation District. Financial assistance was provided by the Coshocton County Commissioners. Soil maps in this survey may be copied without permission. Enlargement of these maps, however, could cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping. If enlarged, maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a larger scale. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all of its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice or TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call 202-720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover: Contour stripcropping in an area of Coshocton-Westmoreland complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes. Additional information about the Nation’s natural resources is available on the Natural Resources Conservation Service home page on the World Wide Web. The address is http://www.nrcs.usda.gov. 5 Contents How To Use This Soil Survey ................................. 3 BhB—Bethesda channery loam, 0 to Foreword ................................................................. 9 8 percent slopes .......................................... 30 General Nature of the County ................................. 11 BhD—Bethesda channery loam, 8 to Climate ............................................................... 12 25 percent slopes ........................................ 30 History ................................................................ 12 BhF—Bethesda channery loam, 25 to Physiography, Relief, and Drainage .................... 12 70 percent slopes ........................................ 31 Natural Resources ............................................. 13 BrD—Brownsville channery silt loam, Geology .............................................................. 13 15 to 25 percent slopes................................ 31 Agriculture and Industry ..................................... 14 BrE—Brownsville channery silt loam, Transportation Facilities ...................................... 14 25 to 35 percent slopes................................ 32 How This Survey Was Made ................................... 14 BrF—Brownsville channery silt loam, Soil Survey Procedures ...................................... 15 35 to 70 percent slopes................................ 33 General Soil Map Units ........................................ 17 BtF—Brownsville-Rock outcrop complex, Nearly level to very steep soils formed in 35 to 70 percent slopes................................ 34 mine spoil and residuum .................................. 17 CdA—Caneadea silt loam, 0 to 2 percent 1. Bethesda-Coshocton-Westmoreland slopes .......................................................... 34 association ............................................ 17 CfA—Chili loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes ............... 35 2. Coshocton-Westmoreland-Rigley CfB—Chili loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes ............... 35 association ............................................ 18 CfC—Chili loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes ............. 36 3. Coshocton-Brownsville-Westmoreland CfD—Chili loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes ........... 36 association ............................................ 19 CfE—Chili loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes ........... 37 Gently sloping and sloping soils formed CgA—Chili-Urban land complex, 0 to mostly in glacial till ........................................... 20 2 percent slopes .......................................... 38 4. Titusville-Homewood-Loudon CgB—Chili-Urban land complex, 2 to association ............................................ 20 6 percent slopes .......................................... 38 Nearly level to very steep soils formed in ChA—Cidermill silt loam, 0 to 2 percent alluvium, lacustrine sediments, and glacial slopes .......................................................... 39 outwash............................................................ 21 ChB—Cidermill silt loam, 2 to 6 percent 5. Tioga-Chili-Watertown association .......... 21 slopes .......................................................... 39 6. Watertown-Glenford-Fitchville CkC—Clarksburg silt loam, 6 to 15 percent association ............................................ 21 slopes .......................................................... 40 7. Glenford-Tioga-Orrville association ......... 22 CkD—Clarksburg silt loam, 15 to 25 percent 8. Melvin-Newark association ...................... 22 slopes .......................................................... 41 Detailed Soil Map Units ........................................ 25 CoB—Coshocton silt loam, 2 to 6 percent AaB—Aaron silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes ...... 26 slopes .......................................................... 41 AaC2—Aaron silt loam, 6 to 15 percent CoC2—Coshocton silt loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, eroded ............................................. 26 slopes, eroded ............................................. 42 AfB—Alford silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes ........ 27 CoD—Coshocton silt loam, 15 to 25 percent AfC2—Alford silt loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes .......................................................... 43 slopes, eroded ............................................. 27 CoE—Coshocton silt loam, 25 to 35 percent BgB—Bethesda loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes ...... 28 slopes .......................................................... 43 BgD—Bethesda loam, 8 to 25 percent CpC—Coshocton silt loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes .......................................................... 28 slopes, very stony ........................................ 44 BgE—Bethesda loam, 25 to 40 percent CpD—Coshocton silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes .......................................................... 29 slopes, very stony ........................................ 45 6 CrD—Coshocton-Rigley complex, 15 to HaE—Hazleton channery sandy loam, 25 percent slopes ........................................ 45 25 to 35 percent slopes................................ 62 CrE—Coshocton-Rigley complex, 25 to HaF—Hazleton channery sandy loam, 35 percent slopes ........................................ 46 35 to 70 percent slopes................................ 63 CsD—Coshocton-Westmoreland complex, HeF—Hazleton channery sandy loam, 25 to 15 to 25 percent slopes................................ 47 70 percent slopes, very bouldery ................. 63 CsE—Coshocton-Westmoreland complex, HoB—Homewood silt loam, 2 to 6 percent 25 to 35 percent slopes................................ 48 slopes .........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Page 1 03089500 Mill Creek Near Berlin Center, Ohio 19.13 40.9638 80.9476 10.86 9.13 0.6880 58.17 0.77 0.41 2.10 03092000 Kale C
    Table 2-1. Basin characteristics determined for selected streamgages in Ohio and adjacent States. [Characteristics listed in this table are described in detail in the text portion of appendix 2; column headings used in this table are shown in parentheses adjacent to the bolded long variable names] Station number Station name DASS Latc Longc SL10-85 LFPath SVI Agric Imperv OpenWater W 03089500 Mill Creek near Berlin Center, Ohio 19.13 40.9638 80.9476 10.86 9.13 0.6880 58.17 0.77 0.41 2.10 03092000 Kale Creek near Pricetown, Ohio 21.68 41.0908 81.0409 14.09 12.88 0.8076 40.46 1.08 0.48 2.31 03092090 West Branch Mahoning River near Ravenna, Ohio 21.81 41.2084 81.1983 20.23 11.19 0.5068 38.65 2.35 1.01 2.51 03102950 Pymatuning Creek at Kinsman, Ohio 96.62 41.4985 80.6401 5.46 21.10 0.6267 52.26 0.82 1.18 5.60 03109500 Little Beaver Creek near East Liverpool, Ohio 495.57 40.8103 80.6732 7.89 55.27 0.4812 38.05 1.98 0.79 1.41 03110000 Yellow Creek near Hammondsville, Ohio 147.22 40.5091 80.8855 9.37 33.62 0.5439 19.84 0.34 0.33 0.36 03111500 Short Creek near Dillonvale, Ohio 122.95 40.2454 80.8859 15.25 27.26 0.3795 30.19 1.08 0.93 1.16 03111548 Wheeling Creek below Blaine, Ohio 97.60 40.1274 80.9477 13.43 27.46 0.3280 40.92 0.97 0.56 0.64 03114000 Captina Creek at Armstrongs Mills, Ohio 133.69 39.9307 81.0696 13.56 26.99 0.6797 32.76 0.54 0.64 0.66 03115400 Little Muskingum River at Bloomfield, Ohio 209.94 39.6699 81.1370 5.50 44.84 0.7516 10.00 0.25 0.12 0.12 03115500 Little Muskingum River at Fay, Ohio 258.25 39.6406 81.1531 4.32 60.10 0.7834
    [Show full text]
  • 3745-1-22 AMENDMENT Rule Number TYPE of Rule Filing
    ACTION: Original DATE: 11/06/2007 8:08 AM Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis (Part A) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Agency Name Division of Surface Water (DSW) Bob Heitzman Division Contact 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 PO Box 1049 614-644-2001 614-644-2745 Columbus OH 43216-1049 Agency Mailing Address (Plus Zip) Phone Fax 3745-1-22 AMENDMENT Rule Number TYPE of rule filing Rule Title/Tag Line Chagrin river drainage basin. RULE SUMMARY 1. Is the rule being filed consistent with the requirements of the RC 119.032 review? Yes 2. Are you proposing this rule as a result of recent legislation? No 3. Statute prescribing the procedure in 4. Statute(s) authorizing agency to accordance with the agency is required adopt the rule: 6111.041 to adopt the rule: 119.03 5. Statute(s) the rule, as filed, amplifies or implements: 6111.041 6. State the reason(s) for proposing (i.e., why are you filing,) this rule: To fulfill a federal requirement to review and amend water body use designations when new information is available. 7. If the rule is an AMENDMENT, then summarize the changes and the content of the proposed rule; If the rule type is RESCISSION, NEW or NO CHANGE, then summarize the content of the rule: The rule amendments update beneficial use designations for water bodies in the Chagrin River drainage basin based on the latest scientific information the Agency [ stylesheet: rsfa.xsl 2.06, authoring tool: EZ1, p: 31078, pa: 39896, ra: 138590, d: 160526)] print date: 11/06/2007 09:14 PM Page 2 Rule Number: 3745-1-22 has gathered through water quality, biological, habitat, and other surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • FLOOD of AUGUST 1935 Dtf MUSKINGUM RIVER Z < 5
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Water-Supply Paper 869 FLOOD OF AUGUST 1935 dtf MUSKINGUM RIVER o O z < 5 BY i ;> ^, C. V. YOUNGQUIST AND W. B. WITH SECTIONS ON THE ASSOCIATES METEOROLOGY AND HYDROLOOT ^ ;j . » BY * V WALDO E. SMITH AND A. K. SHOWALTEK 2. Prepared in cooperation with the * ^* FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRAflCg^ OF PUBLIC WORKS ' -o j; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1941 jFor sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. G. - * * « Price 40 cents (paper) CONTENTS Pag« Abstract---.--_-_-__-__-___--______.-__-_---_---_-__-_--_-__-.-_._ I Introduction.______________________________________________________ 1 Administration and personnel---_______--_-_____-__--____________-__ 3 Acknowledgments ________-________-----_--__--__-_________________ 3 Geography _ ____________________________________________________ 6 Topography, drainage, and transportation________________________ 6 Rainfall...--_---.-__-------.-_--------__..---_-----------_---- 7 Population, industry, and mineral resources_---_-__--_________--__ 8 Flood control-___-_-___-__-_-__-____-_--_-_-__--_--__.____--_- S General features of the flood-_______________________________________ 9 Damage.-__-_______--____-__--__--__-_-____--_______-____--__ IT Meteorologic and hydrologic conditions, by Waldo E. Smith____________ 19 General features of the storm.___-____-__________---_____--__--_ 19 Records of precipitation._______________________________________ 21 Antecedent
    [Show full text]
  • Frontier History of Coshocton
    Frontier History of Coshocton By Scott E. Butler, Ph. D. Frontier History of Coshocton First printing 2020 Library of Congress Control Number: 2020915741 Copyright 2020 Scott E. Butler Copyright of photographs, maps and illustrations remains with persons or institutions credited. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-0-578-75019-4 Printed by Carlisle Printing Sugarcreek, Ohio Cover art is a digital photo of an oil-on-canvas painting by the author’s father, Dr. John G. Butler, a veterinarian in Coshocton for many years. He enjoyed painting animals. Manufactured in the United States of America on acid-free paper. Open Your Eyes and Ears and Clear Your Mind and Listen to What I Have to Say – Adapted from customary opening words of northeast Native American conferences among tribes and nations and with white people in the 18th Century. Dedicated to the people of Coshocton, that present and future generations may know the truth about the grand history of their place in the world. Contents Page # Preface i Acknowledgements ii Illustrations iii Maps iv Terminology v Sources vi Chapter Page # 1. Introduction & the Pre-European Era 1 2. Mary Harris 21 3. Early Habitation of Ohio after 1701 40 4. The Conflict Begins 56 5. The War Years in Ohio 66 6. Recovery in Coshoctonia 78 7. Delaware Survival in Coshoctonia 107 8. Delaware Revival in Coshoctonia 118 9. Conversions and Conflicts 133 10. Coshoctonia on January 1, 1775 168 11. Resolution and Revolution 178 12. Lichtenau & New Leaders 197 13. Peace and War 209 14. Alliance and Breakdown 234 15. Fort Laurens 253 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices to the Year 2000 Ohio Water Resource Inventory Sept 11
    Appendices to the Year 2000 Ohio Water Resource Inventory Bob Taft Governor, State of Ohio Christopher Jones Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049 Lazarus Government Center, 122 S. Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Sept 11, 2000 Appendix A. OHIOSPORTFISH CONSUMPTIONADVISORY OHIODEPARTMENTOFHEALTHYEAR2000 FISHINGSEASON What Health Benefits do I get From Eating Sport Fish? Fish are nutritious and good to eat. Many doctors suggest that eating one half-pound of fish each week helps to prevent heart disease. Almost any kind of fish may have real health benefits when it replaces a high-fat source of protein in the diet. Fish eaten often provide valuable vitamins and minerals, high-quality protein, and beneficial oils that are low in saturated fat. Why is a Fish Consumption Advisory Needed? While most Ohio sport fish are of high quality, low levels of chemicals like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and lead have been found in some fish from certain waters. To ensure the continued good health of Ohioans, the Ohio Department of Health offers an advisory for how often these fish can be safely eaten. An advisory is advice, and should not be viewed as law or regulation. It is intended to help anglers and their families make educated choices about: Where you fish, what types of fish you eat, how to limit the amount and frequency of fish you consume, and how you prepare fish for cooking. By following these advisories, you can get the health benefits of fish and reduce unwanted contaminants. What Groups are Most Sensitive to Contaminatants? Contaminants in fish can be harmful to people of all ages, but the fetus and young children are especially sensitive to contaminants because their organs and systems are not yet fully developed.
    [Show full text]
  • River of the Little Owls
    at Kenyon College Field Notes July 2014 Vol. 18 / No.3 July, August, September Before the State Route 229 that we know today, a wagon road followed the river between Mount Vernon and Gambier. This photo appeared in William Bodine’s 1891 “The Kenyon Book.” change the name back to the melodic original, which thankfully stuck.1 Though it makes for an interesting tale, thousands of years prior to the river’s naming a much larger regime of change led to its birth from a immense sheet of ice known as the Wisconsin glacier. Prior to its advance, the Ko- kosing River did not exist, nor the Ohio River. Instead, the great Teays River flowed from east to west through the center of the state. River of the Little Owls The Wisconsin glacier advanced 20,000 years ago over the Teays valley, scrap- ping, grinding and trapping all manner The State Scenic Kokosing River winds through the of earth and stone under its frozen heart of our community and colors our past with mass. As it receded, great volumes of melt water cut new river valleys, in- tales of ice, exploration, and survival. cluding the Kokosing’s. Boulders and The first of a two-part series, by Heather Doherty crushed rock were also released from the ice and deposited on the river’s edges. The Kokosing River runs through the that explores how the river connects us heart of Knox County and Mount to our past and touches us today. Fast-forward to 1890, and that glacial Vernon, and has long been central to debris becomes an important local com- life in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Guide to Mohican Country Geographic References –
    YOUR GUIDE TO MOHICAN COUNTRY GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCES By IRV OSLIN Black Fork of the Mohican River — Originates near Shelby, flowing through Richland and Ashland counties. It is impounded by Charles Mill Dam. Downstream of the dam, Black Fork flows under Ohio 603 and Ohio 39, through Perrysville and Loudonville (including the liveries south of the village Ohio 3). The Native American village of Greentown was located on the stretch between Rocky Fork and Perrysville, downstream of County Road 1075. Rocky Fork of the Mohican River flows into Black Fork downstream from Charles Mill Dam. Rocky Fork flows down from Mansfield. Rocky Fork flows under Ohio 603 between Ohio 95 and Ohio 39. Charles Mill Dam — Impounds Black Fork of the Mohican River south of Mifflin. Charles Mill Lake — Not to be confused with Charles Mill Dam. The lake is the body of water behind the dam. Note, Charles Mill Lake and Charles Mill Lake Park are managed by the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District. The dam is managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is NOT Charles Mill Reservoir, as some call it. Charles Mill Lake Park — A Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District-run park on the shores of Charles Mill Lake. Note, the campground, marina and beach are in Ashland County. The western half of the lake and Eagle Point Campground (on Ohio 430) are in Richland County. Cinnamon Lake — The lake itself is an impoundment of Muddy Fork of the Mohican River. The privately run residential community surrounding it is the third- largest in the county after the City of Ashland and Loudonville.
    [Show full text]
  • The Walhonding Valley Late Prehistoric Sites Project: the Analysis of Flotation Samples from the Crawford and Tri-Mac/Olinger Sites in Coshocton County, Ohio
    Current Research in Ohio Archaeology 2014 Nigel Brush and P. Nick Kardulias www.ohioarchaeology.org The Walhonding Valley Late Prehistoric Sites Project: The Analysis of Flotation Samples from the Crawford and Tri-Mac/Olinger Sites in Coshocton County, Ohio Nigel Brush, Ashland University and P. Nick Kardulias, College of Wooster Introduction The Walhonding River is formed by the junction of the Kokosing River and the Mohican River near the village of Walhonding in west central Coshocton County, Ohio. After flowing some 18 miles to the east, the Walhonding River merges with the Tuscarawas River to form the Muskingum River near the center of the county at the town of Coshocton. Along the hillsides above the Walhonding River are extensive outcrops of Upper Mercer Flint that reach a maximum thickness of 17 feet near the Village of Nellie. These flint outcrops were heavily utilized by native peoples for tool and weapon production throughout the prehistoric period, and the terraces along the valley are littered with the remains of workshops, camp sites, and villages. Walhonding Valley Late Prehistoric Sites Project Fieldwork in the Walhonding Valley was begun in 1990 by Jim Morton and Nigel Brush. By 2006 this work had grown into the Walhonding Valley Late Prehistoric Sites Project. The purpose of this project is to examine how native peoples living in the Walhonding Valley adapted to three periods of short-term climate change that occurred during a one-thousand-year period from A.D. 700 to 1700: the Dark Age Cold Period (A.D. 400 to 900), the Medieval Warm Period (A.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (484.02
    WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 26, NO.5, PAGES 1093-1098, MAY 1990 Evaluating Dam Safety Retrofits With Uncertain Benefits: The Case of Mohawk Dam (Walhonding River, Ohio) DANIEL RESENDIZ-CARRILLO Department ofEngineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania LESTER B. LAVE Graduate School ofIndustrial Administration and Department ofEngineering and Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Mohawk Dam, part of the Muskingum basin flood control system, was built in 1938 and is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Since this high-hazard dam could not survive a probable maximum flood (PMF), the Corps conducted a study to determine the least expensive means ofenabling the dam to survive a PMF. Applying a previously proposed framework to select the social cost minimizing capacity ofa dam, we show that Mohawk Darn had sufficient capacity that any retrofit has a social cost larger than expected benefits. Sensitivity analyses were performed adjusting the peak flow distribution, the costs of modification, and downstream flood damage, as well as the possibility of loss of life. For any reasonable value of these variables the conclusion does not change that the structure already met so high a safety goal regarding extreme floods that no retrofit is needed. Using risk-based methods to perform reservoir safety evaluations, as recommended by a National Research Council committee in 1985, is indeed feasible. Furthermore, their use provides valuable insight and guidance into the selection of strategies to enhance the safety of dams. We have previously proposed a framework to evaluate the 1 (EVTl). The estimated return periods for various peak implications of the current safety goal that high-hazard dams flows (and the corresponding standard errors) for the four must survive a probable maximum flood (PMF) [Resendiz­ fitted distributions are shown in Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis—An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native Aquatic Animal Species
    Gap Analysis Program Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis—An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native Aquatic Animal Species By S. Alex. Covert, Stephanie P. Kula, and Laura A. Simonson Open-File Report 2006–1385 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2007 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested citation: Covert, S.A., Kula, S.P., and Simonson, L.A., 2007, Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis: An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native Aquatic Animal Species: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006–1385, 509 p. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Contents Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Purple Cat's Paw Pearlymussel (Epioblasma Obliquata Obliquata)
    Purple Cat’s Paw Pearlymussel (Epioblasma obliquata obliquata) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Region Ecological Services Field Office Columbus, Ohio April 2015 Table of Contents 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Reviewers ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology used to complete the review: ................................................................................. 1 1.3 Background: ................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Application of the 1996 Distinct Population Segment (DPS) policy ........................................... 2 2.2 Recovery Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Updated Information and Current Species Status ........................................................................ 6 2.4 Synthesis..................................................................................................................................... 10 3.0 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Basin Descriptions and Flow Characteristics of Ohio Streams
    Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Water BASIN DESCRIPTIONS AND FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF OHIO STREAMS By Michael C. Schiefer, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Bulletin 47 Columbus, Ohio 2002 Robert Taft, Governor Samuel Speck, Director CONTENTS Abstract………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 2 Purpose and Scope ……………………………………………………………. 2 Previous Studies……………………………………………………………….. 2 Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………… 3 Factors Determining Regimen of Flow………………………………………………... 4 Weather and Climate…………………………………………………………… 4 Basin Characteristics...………………………………………………………… 6 Physiology…….………………………………………………………… 6 Geology………………………………………………………………... 12 Soils and Natural Vegetation ..………………………………………… 15 Land Use...……………………………………………………………. 23 Water Development……………………………………………………. 26 Estimates and Comparisons of Flow Characteristics………………………………….. 28 Mean Annual Runoff…………………………………………………………... 28 Base Flow……………………………………………………………………… 29 Flow Duration…………………………………………………………………. 30 Frequency of Flow Events…………………………………………………….. 31 Descriptions of Basins and Characteristics of Flow…………………………………… 34 Lake Erie Basin………………………………………………………………………… 35 Maumee River Basin…………………………………………………………… 36 Portage River and Sandusky River Basins…………………………………….. 49 Lake Erie Tributaries between Sandusky River and Cuyahoga River…………. 58 Cuyahoga River Basin………………………………………………………….. 68 Lake Erie Tributaries East of the Cuyahoga River…………………………….. 77 Ohio River Basin………………………………………………………………………. 84
    [Show full text]