DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological and Water Quality Study of the Lower Scioto River and Selected Tributaries, 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Biological and Water Quality Study of the Lower Scioto River and Selected Tributaries, 2011. Pickaway, Ross, Pike and Scioto Counties, Ohio Scioto River at Higby Road, RM 56.17 Division of Surface Water Draft - July 12, 2018 i EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Lower Scioto River and Selected Tributaries Pickaway, Ross, Pike and Scioto Counties, Ohio Draft - July 12, 2018 OEPA Report DSW/EAS/2017-02-02 Prepared by State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Southeast District office 2195 Front Street Logan, Ohio 43138 Central District Office 50 West Town Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 Ecological Assessment Section 4675 Homer Ohio Lane Groveport, Ohio 43125 John R. Kasich, Governor Craig W. Butler, Director State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ii EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018 Table of Contents List of Figures .....................................................................................................................................ii List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................ii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2 Results ...............................................................................................................................................4 Aquatic Life Use ............................................................................................................................4 Aquatic Life Use Trend Assessment ..................................................................................................... 15 Recreation Use ............................................................................................................................ 16 Water Chemistry ......................................................................................................................... 19 Stream Physical Habitat .............................................................................................................. 27 Biological Communities ............................................................................................................... 35 Scioto River mainstem ......................................................................................................................... 35 Scioto River Tributaries ........................................................................................................................ 36 Fish Tissue (Human Health) ......................................................................................................... 52 Lakes Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 53 Sediment Quality ........................................................................................................................ 53 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................56 Appendices A-1: Notice to users, biosurvey background information, mechanisms for water quality impairment, and methods. A-2 Metals/Nutrients A-3 NPDES A-4 Datasonde A-5 Bacteria A-6 Sediment A-7 Fish species and abundance for each sampling location A-8 Fish scores for the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and the Modified Index of well-being (MIwb) A-9 Macroinvertebrate taxa list for each sampling location A-10 Macroinvertebrate ICI scores and metrics A-11 Lakes Report i EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018 List of Figures Figure 1. Cumulative aquatic life use attainment for all assessed waters contained within the lower Scioto River basin, 2011-12 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Lower Scioto study area (pink) shown within the entire Scioto River basin. ............................................ 2 Figure 3. Lower Scioto River study area, showing principal streams and tributaries, population centers, selected pollution sources, and distribution of water resource monitoring stations, 2011-12. .................................... 3 Figure 4. Lower Scioto River study area color-coded to attainment status of existing or recommended aquatic life use designation, showing principal streams and tributaries, population centers, and selected pollution sources, 2011-12. .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5. Sand bedload discharging to an unnamed tributary to Carrs Run from Ohio Basic Minerals mining operation. ................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 6. Aquatic life use attainment for the lower 100 miles of the Scioto River mainstem, 1979-2011. ............ 16 Figure 7. Flow hydrograph for the Scioto River at Chillicothe, Ohio, May through October 2011 (USGS 2011). Daily median flow for the period 1920-2017 is indicated with a dashed line. Various markers indicate Scioto River discharge on the dates when monitoring data were collected............................................................ 20 Figure 8. Station average, minimum, and maximum dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH data collected from continuous monitoring units (Datasonde©) in the lower Scioto River, August 16-18, 2011. Note: DO spread and maximum values increased longitudinally and pH values approached and exceeded the maximum criterion; both were indicative of highly stimulated primary productivity. .................................................. 21 Figure 9. Longitudinal station average of ammonia-N (NH3-N), nitrate and nitrite-N (NO3+NO2-N) and total phosphorus (TP), from the lower Scioto River, 1979-2011. Dashed line (NH3-N) represents analytical detection limit. Shaded areas a and b represent a range of values for context, bounded by WWH nutrient targets and 95th percentile from reference sites, for the ECBP and WAP ecoregions (Ohio EPA 1999). ........ 22 Figure 10. Longitudinal performance of the IBI, MIwb, and QHEI, for the lower Scioto River, 1979-2011. Shaded areas indicate applicable WWH biocriteria and area of nonsignificant departure for the ECBP and WAP ecoregions. Dashed lines mark the QHEI EWH and WWH benchmark. Solid arrows identify points of discharge of major public and private NPDES permitees. ............................................................................ 51 List of Tables Table 1. Aquatic life use attainment status for sampling locations in the lower Scioto River watershed, 2011. ..... 6 Table 2. Summary of E.coli bacteria data collected June-October 2011. Recreation use attainment is based on comparing the geometric mean to the Primary Contact Recreation (PCR) criteria for Class A and B streams (per OAC 3745-1-07 at the time of this survey). All values are expressed in colony forming units (cfu) per 100 ml of water. .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 3. Exceedances of Ohio Water Quality Standards criteria (OAC Chapter 3745-1) for chemical/physical parameters measured in the lower Scioto River study area, 2011. .............................................................. 23 Table 4. Summary statistics for select nutrient water quality parameters sampled in the lower Scioto River watershed study area, 2011. The 90th percentile value from reference sites from the Western Allegheny Plateau ecoregion is shown for comparison (Ohio EPA 1999). Values above the 90th percentile reference condition are shaded in yellow. ................................................................................................................... 25 Table 5. QHEI matrix of macrohabitat features by station for the lower Scioto River survey area, 2011. ............. 28 Table 6. Gross measures of biological community performance for the lower 100 miles of the Scioto River mainstem, 1979-2011. ................................................................................................................................. 35 Table 7. Summary of macroinvertebrate descriptive statistics, field observations, and narrative evaluations for the lower Scioto River mainstem, June to October 2011. ICI scores and narrative assessments are color- coded to the following quality categories: Exceptional - Very Good (blue) and Good - Marginally Good (green) Fair (yellow), and Poor-Very Poor (Red). ......................................................................................... 40 ii EAS/2017-02-02 Draft Lower Scioto River 2011 July 12, 2018 Table 8. A summary of macroinvertebrate descriptive, field observations, and narrative evaluations from lower Scioto River basin tributaries, June to October 2011. ICI scores and narrative assessments are color-coded to the following quality categories: Exceptional - Very Good (blue), Good - Marginally Good (green), Fair (yellow), and
Recommended publications
  • Characterization of Miller Run and Conceptual Plan for Watershed Restoration

    Characterization of Miller Run and Conceptual Plan for Watershed Restoration

    Characterization of Miller Run and Conceptual Plan for Watershed Restoration Final Report for a Class Research Project UNIV 298/GEOL 298/BIOL 298/ENST 298 Stream Restoration -- Spring 2009 (sponsored by the Henry Luce Foundation Grant to the Bucknell University Environmental Center) Project Managers: Melissa Burke and Carmen Lamancusa Hydrology: Jameson Clarke, and Owen Gjerdingen Storm Runoff: Zachariah Elmanakhly and Josh Gornto Channel Design: Kathryn Jurenovich, Eva Lipiec, and Benjamin Ramseyer Water Quality: Brian Cooper, Katie Koch, and John Tomtishen Professors: R. Craig Kochel and Matthew McTammany 1 Table of Contents: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 Geomorphic and Ecological Characteristics of Miller Run: A Degraded Watershed…………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 The Hydrology of Miller Run………………………………………………………………………………….6 Storm Runoff……………………………….…………………………………………………………..12 Channel Characterization ……………………………………………………………………………………15 Water Quality………………………………………………………………………………………………………21 Campus Aesthetic ………………………………………………………………………………………………52 Conceptual Plan for Miller Run: Watershed Restoration………………………………………………………………………………………………….58 Off-Channel Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………60 In-Channel Recommendations..……………………………………………………………………………65 The Economics of Restoration..……………………………………………………………………………74 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..80 2 3 Chapter 1. Introduction Miller Run is located at a latitude of 40o 57’ 36’’ North and longitude of 76o 53’ West in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
  • Biological and Water Quality Study of the Sunfish Creek November 2010 Watershed and Selected Ohio River Tributaries

    Biological and Water Quality Study of the Sunfish Creek November 2010 Watershed and Selected Ohio River Tributaries

    Biological and Water Quality Study of the Sunfish Creek November 2010 Watershed and Selected Ohio River Tributaries Ted Strickland, Governor Lee Fisher, Lt. Governor Chris Korleski, Director DSW/EAS 2010-4-3 Sunfish Creek Watershed 2009 November 30, 2010 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Sunfish Creek Watershed and Selected Ohio River Tributaries 2009 Monroe and Washington Counties, Ohio November 30, 2010 OEPA Report DSW/EAS 2010-4-3 prepared by State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Southeast District Office 2195 Front Street Logan, Ohio 43138 Ecological Assessment Section 4675 Homer Ohio Lane Groveport, Ohio 43125 Ted Strickland, Governor Chris Korleski, Director State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 1 DSW/EAS 2010-4-3 Sunfish Creek Watershed 2009 November 30, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 10 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 12 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................
  • Stormwater Management Plan Phase 1

    Stormwater Management Plan Phase 1

    Westmoreland County Department of Planning and Development Greensburg, Pennsylvania Act 167 Scope of Study for Westmoreland County Stormwater Management Plan June 2010 © PHASE 1 – SCOPE OF STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 Purpose6 ................................................................................................................... 3 Stormwater7 Runoff Problems and Solutions ........................................................ 3 Pennsylvania8 Storm Water Management Act (Act 167) ................................... 4 9 Act 167 Planning for Westmoreland County ...................................................... 5 Plan1 Benefits ........................................................................................................... 6 Stormwater1 Management Planning Approach ................................................. 7 Previous1 County Stormwater Management Planning and Related Planning Efforts ................................................................................................................................. 8 II. GENERAL COUNTY DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 9 Political1 Jurisdictions .............................................................................................. 9 NPDES1 Phase 2 Involvement ................................................................................. 9 General1 Development Patterns ........................................................................
  • The Emergence and Decline of the Delaware Indian Nation in Western Pennsylvania and the Ohio Country, 1730--1795

    The Emergence and Decline of the Delaware Indian Nation in Western Pennsylvania and the Ohio Country, 1730--1795

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University) Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2005 The emergence and decline of the Delaware Indian nation in western Pennsylvania and the Ohio country, 1730--1795 Richard S. Grimes West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Grimes, Richard S., "The emergence and decline of the Delaware Indian nation in western Pennsylvania and the Ohio country, 1730--1795" (2005). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 4150. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/4150 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Emergence and Decline of the Delaware Indian Nation in Western Pennsylvania and the Ohio Country, 1730-1795 Richard S. Grimes Dissertation submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Mary Lou Lustig, Ph.D., Chair Kenneth A.
  • Biological and Water Quality Study of the Middle Scioto River and Select Tributaries, 2010 Delaware, Franklin, Pickaway, and Union Counties

    Biological and Water Quality Study of the Middle Scioto River and Select Tributaries, 2010 Delaware, Franklin, Pickaway, and Union Counties

    Biological and Water Quality Study of the Middle Scioto River and Select Tributaries, 2010 Delaware, Franklin, Pickaway, and Union Counties Ohio EPA Technical Report EAS/2012-12-12 Division of Surface Water Ecological Assessment Section November 21, 2012 DSW/EAS 2012-12-12 Middle Scioto River and Select Tributaries TSD November 21, 2012 Biological and Water Quality Survey of the Middle Scioto River and Select Tributaries 2010 Delaware, Franklin, Pickaway, and Union Counties November 21, 2012 Ohio EPA Technical Report/EAS 2012-12-12 Prepared by: State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Central District Office Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Ecological Assessment Section 4675 Homer Ohio Lane Groveport, OH 43125 Mail to: P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 i DSW/EAS 2012-12-12 Middle Scioto River and Select Tributaries TSD November 21, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 12 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 13 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 14 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................
  • 2014 ANNUAL REPORT the Susquehanna River, and Its Collaboration, and the Issues Faced in Watershed, Define the Quality of Life for Their Research

    2014 ANNUAL REPORT the Susquehanna River, and Its Collaboration, and the Issues Faced in Watershed, Define the Quality of Life for Their Research

    Presented by the SusRqueHhanCna ERivS er Heartland Coalition for Environmental Studies Pulse of the Heartland 2014 ANNUAL REPORT The Susquehanna River, and its collaboration, and the issues faced in watershed, define the quality of life for their research. These meetings provide a all who live, work and play within its forum to not only share information, but boundaries. Arguably this region’s most to also discuss partnerships. important asset it provides half of the fresh SRHCES has been meeting for a water that reaches the Chesapeake Bay. Its number of years now. The summer work influence extends beyond Pennsylvania to with interns from the various member the lives of many within the Chesapeake colleges and universities has allowed the Bay area. man-power necessary for the SRHCES In recognition of this tremendous asset, members to take on a variety of research six regional colleges and universities joined projects, as well as provided those other partners, including Geisinger Health SRHCES students with invaluable field experience. System, Northcentral Pennsylvania Conservancy, One thing we did this year was contact some of the the Forum for Pennsylvania’s Heartland and interns from the past to find out what they’re SEDA-COG, to work with state agencies doing now, and how their internship and Chesapeake Bay affiliates to form For more with a SRHCES member helped the Susquehanna River Heartland information about prepare them for their career. Some Coalition for Environmental SRHCES, of these former students are working Studies (SRHCES ). Through the please visit for consulting firms, others have Coalition, the faculty, students and www.SRHCES.org.
  • The Passumpsic Watershed Water Quality Assessment Report 2018

    The Passumpsic Watershed Water Quality Assessment Report 2018

    The Passumpsic Watershed Water Quality Assessment Report 2018 Table of Contents Land Cover of the Passumpsic Watershed 3 Water Quality Protection Priorities 4 Water Quality Remediation Priorities 5 Millers Run (Wheelock, Sheffield, Lyndon) 6 Dishmill Brook & Dishmill Brook #2 (Burke) 7 Unnamed Tributary to Passumpsic River, EPA Superfund (Lyndon) 8 Moose River (St. Johnsbury, Waterford) 9 Passumpsic River & Lower Sleepers River (St. Johnsbury) 10 The Water Andric (Danville, Barnett) 11 Simpsons Brook (Waterford), Sleepers River (Danville, St. Johnsbury) 12 Monitoring Priorities 13 3 Land Cover of the Passumpsic Watershed Forested Developed East Agriculture Wetlands Sub Watershed Boundary West Moose Millers Run Sleepers Upper Lower Joes 0 2.5 5 10 Miles Table 1. NLCD 2011 Land Cover for the Passumpsic River Watershed. Sub Watershed Forested Developed Agriculture Wetlands Sub Watershed Forested Developed Agriculture Wetlands Millers Run 76.3 6.9 9.8 2.0 Upper Tributaries 67.4 11.2 14.3 1.8 Sleepers River 73.6 6.2 14.7 1.8 West Branch 71.2 6.3 12.9 6.3 Joes Brook 75.1 4.6 8.7 5.0 East Branch 84.4 3.5 4.7 3.4 Lower Tributaries 69.9 11 13.4 1.3 Moose River 82.1 3.1 3.3 5.8 4 Water Quality Protection Priorities Potential B(1) Current A(1) Fishing Potential A(1) Aquatic Biota Potential B(1) 1 2 Aquatic Biota 3 Reclass From A(2) 5 4 Remain 6 11 13 A(2) 7 12 8 9 Potential 10 A1 Wetland 28 Sentinel Sites 15 16 17 18 19 14 Victory Bog 29 20 21 22 ID Waterbody Name Potential 11 Nation brook trib B1 Fishing 12 Square brook trib B1 Fishing 23 13 Moose
  • Shoup's Run Watershed Association

    Shoup's Run Watershed Association

    11/1/2004 Shoup Run Watershed Restoration Plan Developed by the Huntingdon County Conservation District for The Shoup Run Watershed Association Introduction Watershed History The Shoup Run, locally known as Shoup’s Run, watershed drains approximately 13,746 acres or 21.8 square miles, in the Appalachian Mountain, Broad Top region of the Valley-Ridge Physiographic Province. Within this province, the area lies within the northwestern section of the Broad Top Mountain Plateau. This area is characterized by narrow valleys and moderately steep mountain slopes. Shoup Run is located in Huntingdon County, but includes drainage from portions of Bedford County. Shoup Run flows into the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River near the community of Saxton at river mile 42.4. Shoup Run has five named tributaries (Figure 1). Approximately 10% of the surface area of the Shoup Run basin has been surface mined. Much of the mining activity was done prior to current regulations and few of the mines were reclaimed to current specifications. Surface mining activity ended in the early 1980’s. There is currently no active mining in the watershed. Deep mines underlie approximately 12% of the Shoup Run watershed. Many abandoned deep mine entries and openings still exist in the Shoup Run Basin. Deep mining was done below the water table in many locations. In order to dewater the mines, drifts were driven into the deep mines to allow water to flow down slope and out of many of the mines. The bedrock in this area is folded and faulted. Tunnels were driven through many different lithologies to allow drainage.
  • The Scioto Marshes of Ohio : a Study in the Geography of Onion Culture

    The Scioto Marshes of Ohio : a Study in the Geography of Onion Culture

    THE SCIOTO MARSHES OP OHIO: A STUDY IN THE GEOGRAPHY OF ONION CULTURE.1 CARL DUDLEY VARVEL, Ohio State University. THE AREA AS A UNIT. The Scioto Marsh, a bog soil province in the western part of Hardin County, is the largest of several such areas in the glaciated region of Ohio. The term "Marsh" is no longer used here in the technical sense, but is a "carry over" from the days before the area was drained. It extends over 16,000 acres2 and is believed to be one of the largest continuous onion producing areas in North America. Here the growing onion characterizes the summer landscape. The subject of its culture is foremost in local conversation. Onion cultivation leads successively to a condition of distinct wealth or relative poverty. It motivates an interstate migration of interesting laborers and furnishes the raison d'etre of three settlements within the local region. The greatest agricultural interest of most of the landowners is the onion. On an average about 3,500 acres of onions are harvested. In recent years the acreage has diminished largely as a result of several years of unfavorable climatic conditions which minimized the merchantable yield per acre. In 1915, an exceptional year, over 5,500 acres were harvested. In approaching the region from all directions one sees distinctly the terminal moraines and other glacial deposits. (Fig. 1.) The deposits at the north are part of the watershed between the Ohio River system and the Lake Erie drainage basin. The drumlins and kames at the west and south enclose the marsh and divide the waters of the Scioto Valley from those of the Miami Valley.
  • Biological, Sediment and Water Quality Study of the Little Scioto River, Marion, Ohio

    Biological, Sediment and Water Quality Study of the Little Scioto River, Marion, Ohio

    State of Ohio Ecological Assessment Section Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Biological, Sediment and Water Quality Study of the Little Scioto River, Marion, Ohio Marion County, Ohio CmHn Benzo(a)pyrene April 8, 1994 P.O. Box 1049, 1800 WaterMark Dr., Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149 Disclaimer: This report was scanned into Adobe PDF format and may contain some typographical errors. Biological, Sediment and Water Quality Study of the Little Scioto River, Marion, Ohio Marion County April 8,8,1994 1994 OEPA Technical Report EAS/1994-4-3 prepared for State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Emergency and Remedial Response prepared by State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Ecological Assessment Section 1685 Westbelt Drive Columbus, Ohio 43228 David Altfater Bernie Counts DSW - EAS L. Scioto River TSD/Marion, OH April 8,1994 Table of Contents Page Acknowledgements .......................... 4 Introduction ............................... 5 Summary/ Conclusions ......................... 5 Recommendations Use Designation Status ...................... 9 Other ............................. 9 Methods. ............................ 12 Results and Discussions Sediment Chemistry ....................... 16 Pollutant Loadings ....................... 26 Surface Water Chemical Quality .................. 3 1 Physical Habitat for Aquatic Life .................. 33 Macroinvertebrate Community ................... 34 Fish Community ........................ 37 Trend Assessment ......................
  • Dublin Mobility Plan | Draft Implementation Plan City of Dublin, Ohio

    Dublin Mobility Plan | Draft Implementation Plan City of Dublin, Ohio

    Dublin Mobility Plan | Draft Implementation Plan City of Dublin, Ohio Dublin Mobility Plan Phase II Final Report City of Dublin, Ohio June 2018 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i DUBLIN MOBILITY STUDY | PHASE II REPORT CITY OF DUBLIN, OH Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 2 Complete Streets...................................................................................................... 2 Why Enact a Complete Streets Policy? ..................................................................................................2 MORPC Complete Streets Toolkit............................................................................................................3 Going Above and Beyond MORPC’s Toolkit.........................................................................................5 Implementation & Next Steps ..................................................................................................................8 3 Shuttles and Circulators ............................................................................................ 9 Concept Overview......................................................................................................................................9 Support for a Dublin Circulator ............................................................................................................ 10 Conventional Circulator Case Studies.................................................................................................
  • Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843

    Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843

    Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843 Ohio Historical Society www.ohiohistory.org $4.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS Historical Background 03 Trails and Settlements 03 Shelters and Dwellings 04 Clothing and Dress 07 Arts and Crafts 08 Religions 09 Medicine 10 Agriculture, Hunting, and Fishing 11 The Fur Trade 12 Five Major Tribes of Ohio 13 Adapting Each Other’s Ways 16 Removal of the American Indian 18 Ohio Historical Society Indian Sites 20 Ohio Historical Marker Sites 20 Timeline 32 Glossary 36 The Ohio Historical Society 1982 Velma Avenue Columbus, OH 43211 2 Ohio Historical Society www.ohiohistory.org Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In Ohio, the last of the prehistoric Indians, the Erie and the Fort Ancient people, were destroyed or driven away by the Iroquois about 1655. Some ethnologists believe the Shawnee descended from the Fort Ancient people. The Shawnees were wanderers, who lived in many places in the south. They became associated closely with the Delaware in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Able fighters, the Shawnees stubbornly resisted white pressures until the Treaty of Greene Ville in 1795. At the time of the arrival of the European explorers on the shores of the North American continent, the American Indians were living in a network of highly developed cultures. Each group lived in similar housing, wore similar clothing, ate similar food, and enjoyed similar tribal life. In the geographical northeastern part of North America, the principal American Indian tribes were: Abittibi, Abenaki, Algonquin, Beothuk, Cayuga, Chippewa, Delaware, Eastern Cree, Erie, Forest Potawatomi, Huron, Iroquois, Illinois, Kickapoo, Mohicans, Maliseet, Massachusetts, Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mississauga, Mohawk, Montagnais, Munsee, Muskekowug, Nanticoke, Narragansett, Naskapi, Neutral, Nipissing, Ojibwa, Oneida, Onondaga, Ottawa, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, Peoria, Pequot, Piankashaw, Prairie Potawatomi, Sauk-Fox, Seneca, Susquehanna, Swamp-Cree, Tuscarora, Winnebago, and Wyandot.