Burgess Run - Yellow Creek HUC-12 (050301030806)

Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy Plan for Burgess Run - Yellow Creek HUC-12 (050301030806)

Version: 1.0 Date: 03.24.2021 Approved: 04.14.2021

PRESENTED TO PRESENTED BY

ABC Water and Stormwater District CT Consultants P.O. Box 3554 30 Federal Plaza West Youngstown, Ohio 44512 Suite 303 330.729.2080 Youngstown, OH 44503 330.746.1200

Eastgate Regional Council of Governments 100 East Federal Street, Suite 1000 Youngstown, OH 44503 330.779.3800

i NPS-IS Final Draft

This page intentionally left blank

ii NPS-IS Final Draft

Table of Contents

Abbreviations and acronyms vii Acknowledgements viii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Report Background 2 1.2 Watershed Profile & History 2 1.3 Public Participation and Involvement 3 Chapter 2: Andersons Run – Mill Creek HUC -12 Watershed Characterization and Assessment Summary 7 2.1 Summary of HUC-12 Watershed Characterization 7 2.1.1 Physical and Natural Features ...... 7 2.1.2 Land Use and Protection ...... 11 2.2 Summary of HUC-12 Biological Trends 15 2.2.1 Fish (Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and Modified Index of well-being (MIwb)) ...... 18 2.2.2 Macroinvertebrates (Invertebrate Community Index (ICI)) ...... 18 2.2.3 Habitat (Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)) ...... 19 2.3 Summary of HUC-12 Pollution Causes and Associated Sources 20 2.4 Additional Information for Determining Critical Areas and Developing Implementation Strategies 21 Chapter 3: Critical Area Conditions & Restoration Strategies 22 3.1 Overview of Critical Areas 22 3.2 Critical Area #1 Drakes Run: Conditions, Goals & Objectives 23 3.2.1 Detailed Characterization ...... 23 3.2.2 Detailed Biological Conditions ...... 24 3.2.3 Detailed Causes and Associated Sources ...... 24 3.2.4 Outline Goals and Objectives for the Critical Area #1: Drakes Run ...... 24 3.3 Critical Area #2 Yellow Creek Main Stem: Conditions, Goals & Objectives 26 3.3.1 Detailed Characterization ...... 26 3.3.2 Detailed Biological Conditions ...... 26 3.3.3 Detailed Causes and Associated Sources ...... 26 3.3.4 Outline Goals and Objectives for the Critical Area #2: Yellow Creek Main Stem ...... 27 Chapter 4: Projects and Implementation Strategy 28 4.1 Critical Area #1 Drakes Run: Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table 29 4.1.1 Critical Area #1: Project Summary Sheets ...... 30 4.2 Critical Area #2 Yellow Creek Main Stem: Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table 31 4.2.1 Critical Area #2: Project Summary Sheets ...... 32 References 33

iii NPS-IS Final Draft Tables Table 1: Soils in the Burgess Run – Yellow Creek HUC-12 ...... 8 Table 2: Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species ...... 10 Table 3: Land Cover Acres & Percentage ...... 11 Table 4: Protected Lands ...... 12 Table 5: NPDES Site ...... 13 Table 6: Dams ...... 14 Table 7: Ohio EPA Biological Criteria Sampling for Burgess Run - Yellow Creek HUC 12 ...... 17 Table 8: Ohio EPA Biological Criteria for the Applicable Aquatic Life Use Designations 1 ...... 17 Table 9: QHEI matrix with WWH & MWH attribute summary for the Burgess Run-Yellow Creek HUC 12 ..... 19 Table 10: Ohio EPA Causes and Sources of Impairment for Andersons Run-Mill Creek HUC-12 ...... 20 Table 11: Land Cover in Critical Area #1 ...... 23 Table 12: Land Cover in Critical Area # 2 ...... 26 Table 13: Critical Area #1: Overview Table ...... 30 Table 14: Critical Area #2: Overview Table ...... 32

iv NPS-IS Final Draft Maps

Map 1: Location of Burgess Run - Yellow Creek watershed within the Mahoning River Basin ...... 1 Map 2: Public Mapping of Areas for Preservation and Restoration ...... 4 Map 3: Location of Burgess Run - Yellow Creek watershed within Mahoning County ...... 7 Map 4: Land Cover in Burgess Run - Yellow Creek Watershed ...... 11 Map 5: Parks and Conserved Areas ...... 12 Map 6: Aquatic Life Use Sampling Locations ...... 16 Map 7: Critical Areas ...... 22 Map 8: Projects in Critical Area #1 ...... 29 Map 9: Projects in Critical Area # 2 ...... 31

v NPS-IS Final Draft Figures

Figure 1: Public Meeting Breakout Session ...... 3 Figure 2: Causes of Water Quality Problems ...... 5 Figure 3: Poor Bedform Diversity: Yellow Creek ...... 18 Figure 4: Residential Development Impacting Drakes Run ...... 23 Figure 5: Drakes Run Floodplain ...... 26

vi NPS-IS Final Draft

Abbreviations and acronyms Acronyms and abbreviations below are commonly used by organizations working to restore Ohio’s watersheds; many of which are included in this NPS-IS plan.

ALU Aquatic Life Use ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources AOC Area of Concern ODH Ohio Department of Health BEHI Bank Erosion Hazard Index Ohio EPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency BMP Best Management Practice OSW Outstanding State Waters BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons BTU building, transportation, or utilities PCA Priority Conservation Area infrastructure PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls CWH Coldwater Habitat PCA Priority Conservation Area CSO Combined Sewer Overflow PSS Project summary sheet DELT Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions, and QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Tumors RAP Remedial Action Plan DIN Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow EOLP Erie-Ontario Lake Plain Ecoregion SGMC State Geologic Map Compilation EWH Exceptional Warmwater Habitat SSH Seasonal salmonid habitat GIS Geographical Information System SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District GLRI Great Lakes Restoration Initiative TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load Limits Hg Mercury TSD Technical Support Document HSTS Home Sewage Treatment System TBD to be determined HUC hydrologic unit code TSS total suspended solids IBI Index of Biotic Integrity ug/kg Micrograms per Kilogram ICI Invertebrate Community Index USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers LRW Limited Resource Water USDA United States Department of Agriculture LHW Limited Warmwater habitat U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lb/yr pounds per year USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service Mg/l Milligrams per Liter USGS United States Geological Survey MGD Million Gallons per Day USPC United States Policy Committee MIwb Modified Index of Well Being VAP Voluntary Action Program MWH Modified Warmwater Habitat WAP watershed action plan NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service WAU watershed assessment unit NWI National Wetlands Inventory WBP Watershed Based Plan NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination WQS Water Quality Standards (Ohio System Administrative Code 3745-1) NPS-IS Nonpoint Source Implementation WRAS Watershed Restoration Action Strategy Strategy WWH Warmwater Habitat ODA Ohio Department of Agriculture WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Acronyms/Abbreviations Definition

vii NPS-IS Final Draft

Acknowledgements Funding for this Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy Plan came from the ABC Water and Stormwater District. Formed in January 2010 under ORC Chapter 6119, the District was formed between Austintown, Boardman, and Canfield townships and contains a board on which one member from each township sits. Understanding water and stormwater do not follow political boundaries, the District allows each township the ability to work individually and/or collectively on common water and stormwater issues. To learn more about ABC District and its programs please visit their website at www.abcwaterdistrict.com

Eastgate Regional Council of Governments contributed to the compiling and evaluating data and the writing of this plan. Their work was funded by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency: This product or publication was financed in part or totally through a grant from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency [and if applicable the United States Environmental Protection Agency] with the following funds: TIPBUD18 and TIPBUD19. The contents and views, including any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations, contained in this product or publication are those of the authors and have not been subject to any Ohio Environmental Protection Agency [and if applicable United States Environmental Protection Agency] peer or administrative review and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency [and if applicable the United States Environmental Protection Agency] and no official endorsement should be inferred.

The watershed is located within the Eastgate Regional Council of Governments (Eastgate) planning region. Eastgate is the Metropolitan Planning Organization focused on Transportation, Economic Development, and Water Quality Management for Ashtabula, Mahoning, and Trumbull Counties. Eastgate’s mission is to “provide a regional forum to discuss issues of mutual interest and concern, and to develop recommendations and plans to address those issues.” Eastgate is a voluntary association of local governments, including counties, cities, and townships in Ashtabula, Trumbull, and Mahoning Counties in northeast Ohio. Eastgate is one of six regional planning agencies in the State of Ohio designated as a water quality management agency (WQMA). This designation was given by the Governor of the State of Ohio in order to fulfill duties set forth within Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. As the WQMA, Eastgate updates and keeps current the 208 Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan). To learn more about Eastgate and its programs please visit their website at www.eastgatecog.org .

The ABC District would like to thank all the organizations that contributed to this nonpoint source implementation strategy. The following agencies, organizations, and contractors contributed to this project: Austintown Township Boardman Township Canfield Township City of Youngstown Boardman Township Park Mill Creek MetroParks Mahoning County Engineers Office Mahoning County District Board of Health Mahoning County Planning Commission Mahoning County Soil & Water Conservation District Mahoning County Natural Resource Conservation District Mahoning River Corridor Initiative Western Reserve Land Conservancy Western Reserve Port Authority Ohio Department of Transportation Natural Resource Conservation District Friends of the Mahoning River Green Youngstown Group viii NPS-IS Final Draft Chapter 1: Introduction The Burgess Run–Yellow Creek, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC 050301030806), is part of the Mahoning River Watershed with the Yellow Creek emptying into the Mahoning River. The Yellow Creek begins in northeast Columbiana County, expands north into eastern Mahoning County, and is broken down into two 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC): Headwaters Yellow Creek (050301030805) and Burgess Run-Yellow Creek (050301030806). Boardman, Poland, Beaver, and Springfield Townships, and the Villages of Struthers and New Middletown make up the watershed. The subwatershed has a mix of undeveloped, urbanized, and agricultural land uses, and is impaired, mainly in non- attainment of Ohio’s water quality standards.

Map 1: Location of Burgess Run - Yellow Creek watershed with in the Mahoning River Basin

1 1.1 Report Background This NPS-IS was created as an update to the Yellow Creek Watershed Action Plan (WAP) completed by Eastgate Regional Council of Governments and endorsed by Ohio EPA and Ohio Department of Natural Resources in 2015. The goal of the WAP is to describe the watershed’s characteristics and water quality, while addressing water quality impairments and habitat alterations within the watershed. The WAP will serve as a technical and educational document for both the watershed’s governing agencies and citizens and will establish recommended goals for education and outreach opportunities, preservation/protection, restoration, and overall water quality improvement measures via increased data collection and model ordinances.

The Yellow Creek WAP was developed under the Ohio EPA’s former guidelines, Appendix 8: Guide to Developing Local Watershed Action Plans in Ohio . In late 2016, the Ohio EPA redeveloped their Nonpoint Source Pollution Program’s watershed plan program to ensure plans meet the U.S EPA’s 9-essential elements as described in the U.S. EPA’s Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters . With the further change of program focus to align plans with, Ohio’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update (FY2014 to FY2018), this NPS-IS is being created to guide the region in addressing nonpoint source pollution issues for the Burgess Run- Yellow Creek HUC-12 (050301030806), rather than a watershed plan for all issues in the watershed. State and Federal nonpoint source funding is now closely tied to strategic implementation-based planning that meets U.S. EPA’s nine minimum elements of a watershed plan for impaired waters.

1.2 Watershed Profile & History Burgess Run - Yellow Creek is one of two HUC-12s in the Yellow Creek Watershed, which is a major subwatershed of the Lower Mahoning River HUC-10 (0503010308), and contains one of the river’s main tributaries, Yellow Creek. The Mahoning River watershed drains approximately 1,132 square miles and it’s elevation drops from its headwaters (elevation of 1,204 feet), to an elevation of 761 feet at its confluence with the Shenango River near New Castle in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. Here the two rivers join and become the Beaver River which then flows into the Ohio River. The Ohio River eventually flows into the Gulf of Mexico via its confluence with the Mississippi River.

Development is a factor in the Burgess Run subwatershed. Poland and Boardman Townships in Mahoning County experienced the greatest increase in growth both residentially and commercially from 1950 to the present day. Since the late 1950s, State Route 224, South Avenue, and Western Reserve Roads have been the fastest growing commercial corridors of the watershed. In the 1970s, Interstate 680 (I-680) further changed the landscape of Boardman and Poland Townships. Urban sprawl continues on a southern path and into Beaver and Springfield Townships.

History of Yellow Creek The Yellow Creek watershed is mainly rural, but transitions to an urban/suburban setting near its confluence with the Mahoning River at RM 15.38 in the city of Struthers. Yellow Creek contains multiple lake impoundments, two of which (Evans Lake and Lake Hamilton) serve as drinking water sources.

Burgess Run - Yellow Creek Watershed is located in the glaciated Allegheny Plateau region of the Appalachian Highlands, specifically the Killbuck-Glaciated Pittsburgh Plateau within the Allegheny Plateau region. The Killbuck- Glaciated Pittsburgh Plateau is composed of ridges and flat uplands generally above 1,200 feet, covered by thin drift and dissected by steep valleys. Valley segments alternate between broad drift-filled and narrow rock-walled reaches with elevations between 600 feet and 1,505 feet with moderate relief around 200 feet (Ohio Division of Geological Survey, 1998). Topography features gently sloping plain of the Burgess Run-Yellow Creek. Vegetation within this region typically includes hardwood, beech-maple, and elm-ash forests.

2 NPS-IS Final Draft

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

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

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

Meeting attendance, response to outreach, and contributions were made by: • Austintown Township • Boardman Township • Canfield Township • City of Youngstown • Boardman Township Park • Mill Creek MetroParks • Mahoning County Natural Resource Conservation District • Mahoning County Engineers Office • Mahoning County District Board of Health • Mahoning County Planning Commission • Mahoning County Soil & Water Conservation District • Mahoning River Corridor Initiative • Western Reserve Land Conservancy • Western Reserve Port Authority • Ohio Department of Transportation • Natural Resource Conservation District • Friends of the Mahoning River • Green Youngstown Group

Figure 1: Public Meeting Breakout Session

3 NPS-IS Final Draft

Map 2: Public Mapping of Areas for Preservation and Restoration

Participants were asked to draw projects suggestions on to maps, post comments, and place a red dot for needed restoration, a blue dot for needed preservation, a green dot for land acquisition, and a yellow dot for reduction of imperviousness.

In addition to the December public meeting, watershed, agencies, partners, and the public were invited to share their thoughts on critical areas and projects via a GIS web application created for the watershed. They were told that they could mark up a map and send it or provide a place name, street intersection, address, or latitude/longitude.

CT prepared a slide presentation covering a review of NPS-IS planning, background on the Burgess Run - Yellow Creek HUC 12 and next steps in the planning process. Large working maps of the watershed showed sampling site attainment, projects and proposed critical areas potential projects. Data on the working maps included riparian corridors, wetlands (NWI), the 100-year floodplain (FEMA), and percent slope. These maps were used during breakouts where facilitators from CT and Eastgate could discuss the watershed’s problem areas and potential restoration and preservation areas. Colored dots representing the need of restoration, preservation, land acquisition, and reduction in impervious surfaces were used to map areas of concern and potential projects.

CT also produced a list of example objectives to achieve the overall nonpoint source restoration goal of improving scores or attaining full attainment. Participants were asked to indicate with a dot if they liked the examples. Green infrastructure, land acquisition, and riparian corridor improvement efforts would score the highest.

In addition, Eastgate developed an online survey sent to the watershed agencies and partners. The public was also invited to participate via press release and Eastgate announcements at their public meetings and on their web page. The survey ran from November 2019 to January 2020, and had the following questions:

4 NPS-IS Final Draft

1. What watershed are you taking the survey for? 2. What do you feel are key issues affecting the water quality of the Mahoning River, its tributaries, and its natural resources in the watershed? 3. What do you feel causes these issues? 4. What locations do you see these issues in? 5. What actions do you feel could be taken to solve these issues? 6. Would you be interested in pursuing state or federal grant funding to accomplish the actions you’ve selected?

The most responses to key issues affecting water quality in the watershed included flooding and flash runoff and the need for improved stormwater management; erosion of streams; urbanization and impervious surfaces; and failing septic systems. See Figure 2 below identifying causes of Water Quality problems

Figure 2: Causes of W ater Qual ity Problems

At the December 18, 2019 kickoff meeting, ABC district hosted the public meeting in Boardman Township to discuss the Burgess Run - Yellow Creek HUC-12 NPS-IS plan. CT and Eastgate presented on the status of the watershed and facilitated feedback sessions where attendees provided input on watershed issues they felt were important to help inform critical area development. 5 NPS-IS Final Draft

Over thirty participants attended this meeting and identified prevalent issues they saw in the HUC-12. Feedback from this meeting helped inform critical area development and recommendations for water quality improvement in the critical areas, as well as potential projects. . On January 9, 2020, CT presented the finding to Eastgate’s CAB to discuss the Burgess Run - Yellow Creek NPS-IS plan. CT presented draft critical areas and potential projects.

On January 29, 2020, ABC hosted a second public meeting at Boardman Township Administration Building. Again, communities within the watershed, agencies, and partners were invited by email, letter, and phone calls. A press release and Eastgate web postings and announcements was also issued inviting the public. CT presented draft critical areas and potential projects. The purpose of this second meeting was to review and comment on the critical areas and the lists of potential projects. At this meeting critical area projects were prioritized. It was also an opportunity to identify any additional critical areas or potential projects for those that missed the first public meeting. About a dozen participated.

6 NPS-IS Final Draft

Chapter 2: Andersons Run – Mill Creek HUC-12 Watershed Characterization and Assessment Summary 2.1 Summary of HUC-12 Watershed Characterization 2.1.1 Physical and Natural Features Burgess Run - Yellow Creek HUC 12 is located within Ohio’s Erie-Ontario Lake Plains (EOLP) Ecoregion. This HUC-12 drains 4,811 acres. Though the watershed has numerous streams, the Gazetteer of Ohio Streams only recognizes two: Yellow Creek and Burgess Run. Other streams locally recognized within the watershed include Drakes Run and McKays Run. The watershed is located within the Erie/Ontario Drift and Lake Plain eco-region (Level III). Vegetation within this region typically includes hardwood, beech-maple, and elm-ash forests.

The watershed is located in the glaciated Allegheny Plateau region of the Appalachian Highlands, specifically the Killbuck-Glaciated Pittsburgh Plateau within the Allegheny Plateau region. The Killbuck-Glaciated Pittsburgh Plateau is composed of ridges and flat uplands generally above 1,200 feet, covered by thin drift and dissected by steep valleys. Valley segments alternate between broad drift-filled and narrow rock-walled reaches with elevations between 600 feet and 1,505 feet with moderate relief around 200 feet (Ohio Division of Geological Survey, 1998). Topography features gently sloping plain of the Burgess Run-Yellow Creek

Map 3: Location of Burgess Run - Yellow Creek watershed within Mahoning County

7 NPS-IS Final Draft

Prominent soil types in the HUC-12 include Chili and Wooster-Ravenna-Frenchtown-Chili-Canfield. These soils contain nearly level to gently rolling slopes with poorly drained to moderate drained characteristics. The moderate to slow permeability poses a hazard for disposing of septic tank effluent on fields. The soils have high winter and spring water tables and coupled with permeability trait makes soils poorly suited for agricultural use unless tile, ditches or other surface/subsurface drainage systems are installed.

Table 1: Soils in th e Burgess Run – Yellow Creek HUC -12

Symbol Acres Name Percent of HUC -12 s6083 6654.47 Wooster-Ravenna-Frenchtown-Chili-Canfield 52% s6086 5956.15 Chili 46% s6546 294.74 Ravenna-Morristown-Canfield 2% Total 12,904.77

The Chili association is composed primarily of soils in the Chili series, which represent 45% of the association. However, numerous other soils from a variety of series exist in small percentages in the association. The Chili series, which dominates the association, consists of deep, well-drained soils formed in Wisconsinan age outwash deposits, mainly of sandstone and shale with a large amount of quartz gravel. Permeability is moderately rapid in the subsoil and rapid in the substratum. Most areas in Burgess Run having less than 12% slopes are cleared and used for general farming, specialty crops, or pasture. Steeper areas are mostly deciduous hardwood forest.

The Ravenna-Morristown-Canfield association is composed of 22% Ravenna soils, 49% Morristown soils and 17% Canfield soils. Ravenna and Canfield soils are very deep, level to steep, somewhat poorly drained and moderately well drained soils that formed in till on till plains. Morristown soils formed in calcareous regolith from surface mine operations. The regolith is a mixture of partially weathered fine earth and fragments of bedrock. Coarse fragments are mostly limestone and shale with some medium-grained sandstone and siltstone.

Glacial deposits in the HUC-12 originated as tills from the Pleistocene-epoch age. The Yellow Creek Watershed is unique because it is near a boundary of maximum glacial extent affected by the last two recent ice advances, the Wisconsinan and the Illinoian, and a number of pre-Illinoian glaciations. As a result, the watershed displays features characteristically occurring at glacial margins including ridge moraine, hummocky moraine, kames, and outwash deposits The till, which composes the moraines in the watershed, include silty clay Hayesvlle and Lavery tills and loamy Kent and Navarre tills.

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

8 NPS-IS Final Draft

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

A cross reference with ODNR’s list of “Wildlife that are Considered to be Endangered, Threatened, Species of Concern, Special Interest, Extirpated, or Extinct in Ohio” was performed to determine Endangered, Threatened, or Species of Concern. The following section details the findings and a letter next to the scientific name indicates if the species is one of Concern (C), Threatened (T), or Endangered (E).

9 NPS-IS Final Draft

Table 2: Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species State Federal Most Recent Species Common Name Status Status County Record Fauna E SC Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Eastern Hellbender - E Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier 2003 E Speyeria idalia Regal Fritillary 1968 E Fusconaia maculata Long-solid 1850 E Pleurobema clava Clubshell - E E Myotis sodalis Indiana Myotis - E Ursus americanus Black Bear 2001 E Sistrurus catenatus Eastern Massasauga 1956 T Psilotreta indecisa Caddisfly sp. 2008 T Ligumia recta Black Sandshell 1995 SC Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk 2000 SC Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite 1995 SC Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink 2014 SC Ammocrypta pellucida Eastern Sand Darter 2007 SC Esox masquinongy Muskellunge 2013 SC Etheostoma microperca Least Darter 2013 SC Euphyes bimacula Two-spotted Skipper 1969 SC Orconectes (Crokerinus) obscurus Allegheny Crayfish 2008 SC Pleurobema sintoxia Round Pigtoe 2013 SC Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat 2012 SC Lasiurus borealis Red Bat 2012 SC Lasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat 2012 SC Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Bat 2012 SC T Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-eared Bat 2012 SC Perimyotis subflavus Tri-colored Bat 2012 SI Carpodacus purpureus Purple Finch 1994 SI Empidonax minimus Least Flycatcher 1996 Flora E Clintonia umbellulata Speckled Wood-lily 1987 E Dryopteris clintoniana Clinton's Wood Fern 1987 E Gymnocarpium dryopteris Common Oak Fern 1997 E Juncus platyphyllus Flat-leaved Rush 1960 E Plantago cordata Heart-leaved Plantain 1982 E Trollius laxus Spreading Globeflower 1986 T Callitriche verna Vernal Water-starwort 1971 T Epilobium strictum Simple Willow-herb 1960 T Eleocharis tenuis Slender Spike-rush 1994 T Lechea pulchella Leggett's Pinweed 1971 P Equisetum sylvaticum Woodland Horsetail 1994 P Luzula bulbosa Southern Woodrush 1997 P Phegopteris connectilis Long Beech Fern 1960 P Platanthera psycodes Small Purple Fringed Orchid 1985

Status: X = Extirpated, E = Endangered, T = Threatened, P= Potentially Threatened, SC = Species of Concern, SI = Species of Interest

10 NPS-IS Final Draft

A review of Division of Natural Areas & Preserves (DNAP) Natural Heritage Program, started in 1976, for the Yellow Creek Watershed did not produce a list of rare, threatened, or endangered fish, mussels, invertebrates, mammals, birds, reptiles or amphibians for the watershed. However, Dan McMillen, a private Lands Biologist with ODNR’s Division of Wildlife, created lists of presumed mammals, birds, and reptiles in December 2003.

2.1.2 Land Use and Protection

Land Cover Land cover in the Burgess Run - Yellow Creek - HUC-12 is characterized in the Ohio EPA’s 2016 Integrated Assessment Report (2016 IR) as 12.44% Developed, 55.02% Forest, 9.46% Grass/Pasture, 9.46% Row Crops, and 5.62% Wetlands. 2017 data from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) lists the dominant types of land cover in the HUC-12 as deciduous forest, hay/pasture, cultivated crops, developed open space, low intensity developed, woods wetlands, mixed forest and medium intensity developed. Land cover is broken down into categories and listed in the table.

Table 3: Land Cover Acres & Percentage

Percent of NLCD Land Cover Acres HUC -12 Open water 42.24 <1% Developed, open 759.60 17% Developed, low 17% intensity 814.95 Developed, medium 4% intensity 172.06 Developed, high <1% intensity 20.45 Deciduous forest 1,131.51 24% Evergreen forest 21.12 <1% Mixed forest 178.51 4% Shrub/scrub 2.89 <1% Grassland / <1% herbaceous 27.34 Pasture/hay 873.86 18% Cultivated crops 688.91 14% Woody wetlands 70.47 <1% Emergent herbaceous <1% wetlands 7.11 Total 4,811.02

Map 4: Land Cover in Burgess Run - Yellow Creek Watershed

11 NPS-IS Final Draft Land Use Burgess-Run Yellow Creek subwatershed contains residential and commercial land uses; some industrial and vacant properties; and agriculture in Burgess Run. There are high urban concentrations in the City of Struthers, the Village of Poland, and Boardman and Poland Townships. Forested land cover makes up 5.6% of the total land cover for the watershed with most of the forested areas located along the mainstem of Yellow Creek with the largest concentration of forests in Boardman Park, Poland Woods, and Yellow Creek Park.

According to the Mahoning County OSU Extension Office and the watershed’s SWCD personnel, the primary crops in the Yellow Creek Watershed are corn, winter wheat, soybean and hay (foyage).

Lake Hamilton is a surface drinking water source owned by Aqua Ohio, a private water supplier. The City of Campbell draws and treats raw water from Lake Hamilton and distributes it to residents in the city and parts of the City of Youngstown. Burgess Lake is located east of Yellow Creek and is connected to Yellow Creek via Burgess Run.

The effects of impervious cover on water quality will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 of this NPS-IS.

Land Protection Eastgate’s GIS data notes approximately 447.35 acres of parkland/conservation with in the Burgess Run-Yellow Creek HUC-12. These lands are part of parks in the area. Yellow Creek Park is a 76-acre gorge located within the City of Struthers and managed by Mill Creek MetroParks. Mauthe Park is 10 acres; located in the City of Struthers and managed by the city. Poland Municipal Forest (Poland Woods) is 244.5 acres; located in the Village of Poland and managed by the village. Boardman Township Park (Boardman Park) is 227 acres; located in Boardman Township and managed by the township. Two of the four parks, Yellow Creek Park and Poland Woods, surround the mainstem of Yellow Creek; Boardman Park surrounds a tributary, McKays Run, to Yellow Creek. Both parks provide a good level of riparian protection.

Table 4: Protected Lands

Park Name Acres Boardman Park 178.47 J.L. Mauthe Park 10.07 Poland Village Park 224.94 Yellow Creek Park 33.87 Total 447.35

Map 5: Parks and Conserved Areas

12 NPS-IS Final Draft

Riparian and wetland setbacks function like front, side, and rear yard setback zoning but are placed along stream corridors rather than parcel lines. They protect the services of riparian areas by providing reasonable controls governing structures and uses in riparian setbacks. Canfield Township, Austintown Township and Boardman Township adopted riparian setbacks into their respective zoning regulations. The Mahoning County Board of Commissioners adopted riparian setbacks in their Erosion and Sediment Control Rules. These rules apply to the unincorporated areas of the county where soil disturbing activities of one or more contiguous acres of land are being developed or used for non- farm residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-farm purposes. A search through the City of Youngstown’s zoning codes do not indicate the city has riparian setbacks. Additional advantages of riparian and wetland setbacks include:

• Reduce flood hazards resulting from high flows and high velocities; • Recharge groundwater; • Reduce pollution in stream flows and surface water by filtering, settling and chemical transformation in floodplain areas and stream side soils; • Reduce sediment loads from stream bank erosion; and allow recovery of previously degraded or channelized streams; • Provide adequate room for stream meander patterns or channel migration; • Provide high quality habitats for wildlife; • Limit the need for costly measures such as channel armoring that would otherwise be necessary to protect structures and reduce property damage; • Protect natural aesthetics and the environmental quality of stream corridors and the value of nearby property. (22)

Boardman Township and Poland Township have adopted riparian setbacks into their respective zoning regulations. The Mahoning County Board of Commissioners adopted riparian setbacks in their Erosion and Sediment Control Rules. These rules apply to the unincorporated areas of the county where soil-disturbing activities of one or more contiguous acres of land are being developed or used for non-farm residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-farm purposes.

HSTS and NPDES Discharges In Mahoning septic tanks with leach fields, or soil absorption systems, are traditionally recognized HSTSs, unless soil and site constraints indicate otherwise. Other systems may include aeration to leach field and septic tank to mound systems. Failing septic discharge is identified as a water quality concern and STS maintenance and repair should be prioritized in locations where connection to a sewer line is not planned or feasible.

Table 5: NPDES Site Permit Type Facility Type Receiving Average Ohio EPA Permit # Facility Name Description Description Stream Design Flow 3PR00546 Shadeland Apartments, LLP NPDES Residential Yellow Creek 0.200 MGD 3IW00082 Aqua Ohio- Struthers Division, NPDES Public Drinking Yellow Creek 0.009 MGD Poland Water Treatment Plant Water OHP000239 Astro Shapes Inc. Indirect Discharge Industrial Yellow Creek N/A (Expired)

13 NPS-IS Final Draft Stormwater Management and Regulation Stormwater can be one of the most significant and difficult nonpoint source pollutants to address within a watershed. Stormwater is problematic because any substance such as chemicals, nutrients, sediment, and other debris is carried into the storm sewer system and discharged untreated into surrounding waterbodies. This has subsequent effects on drinking water, recreational activities, and industries that rely on clean water. The main sources of stormwater runoff come from urban, suburban, and agricultural activities; with each source effecting water quality in a variety of ways. The City of Struthers and Village of New Middletown are under their own Phase II permits and have individual plans under the MS4 program with the Ohio EPA. The Phase II storm water program addresses runoff from communities with populations less than 100,000 and located partially or fully within urbanized areas. Each regulated MS4 is required to develop and implement a stormwater management program to reduce the contamination of stormwater runoff and prohibit illicit discharges.

A joint effort to approach storm water quality and quantity from a watershed perspective was established between Austintown, Boardman, and Canfield townships and is formally named the ABC Water District. Boardman and Canfield townships charges a storm water utility fee based on Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs). Austintown Township is the only member of the ABC Water District not implementing the utility fee at this time. The utility fee calculation assigns a rate for residential properties based on estimated impervious surfaces and a value for commercial and industrial properties as determined by the district. The fees collected are used to pay for the repair, replacement, planning, improvement, operation, regulation, administration and maintenance. More information on the ABC Water District can be found at: https://www.abcwaterdistrict.com.

Burgess Run - Yellow Creek HUC-12 Dams Three low head dams exist within various streams of the Burgess Run- Yellow Creek HUC-12. The Dam at Lake Hamilton was built as to provide recreational opportunities. The other two dams are on Burgess Run the HUC-12 are privately owned and located outside the parks’ boundaries. A listing of the dams and impoundments within the HUC-12 is included below.

Table 6: Dams

Burgess Run -Yellow Creek Dams Location Stream Purpose Hamilton Lake Austintown Yellow Creek Recreation/Public Woodside Lake dam Austintown Burgess Run Unknown Thompson Lake dam Canfield Burgess Run Recreation/Private

14 2.2 Summary of HUC-12 Biological Trends The Ohio EPA’s 2016 Water Quality: Assessment Unit Summaries interactive map lists the Burgess Run-Yellow Creek HUC-12 as impaired for its Warmwater Habitat (WWH) aquatic life use. The WWH use applies to “typical” warmwater assemblages of aquatic organisms for Ohio rivers and streams and represents the principal restoration target for water resource management efforts in Ohio. The table below lists the metrics for what is considered attainment of the WWH, EWH, and MWH aquatic life use designations using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), Modified Index of well-being (MIwb), and Invertebrate Community Index (ICI).

Ohio EPA performed monitoring in 2011 at five locations in the Burgess Run-Yellow Creek HUC-12. Yellow Creek at river miles (RMs) 2.0 and 8.40 (Campbell and Struthers Public Water Supply Intake locations respectively) are designated a warmwater habitat, listed as a public, agricultural, and industrial water supply. It is considered a primary contact recreation source. Burgess Run at RM 2.0 (Struthers public Water Supply Intake location) is designated a warmwater habitat, listed as a water supply (public, agricultural, and industrial), and is considered a primary contact recreation source. All other segments are designated as warmwater habitats and listed as agricultural and industrial water sources, and are considered primary contact recreation waters.

One site was monitored in 1994 and data from the survey was published in Ohio EPA’s 1996 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Mahoning River Basin report. The Ohio EPA revisited the 1994 location along with four locations in the 2011 survey are recorded in the Ohio EPA’s 2018 Biological and Chemical Study of the Lower Mahoning River Watershed, 2011 and 2013. A summary of the monitoring locations and their biological status in the Burgess Run - Yellow Creek HUC-12 from the 1996 and 2017 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Lower Mahoning River Watershed reports are provided in the following table. Historical data is not available for the four survey sites making it difficult to determine water quality changes. Indices with stressed communities or below baseline scores are in red print.

15 NPS-IS Final Draft

Map 6: Aquatic Life Use Sampling Locations

16 NPS-IS Final Draft

Table 7: Ohio EPA Biological Criteria Sampling for Burgess Run - Yellow Creek HUC 12 Station Sample River ALU IBI MIwb MIwb ICI IBI Narr. ICI Narr. QHEI ID Station Name Mile Attain. Score Score Narr. Score

Yellow Creek @ N03S18 Struthers @ 0.40 Full 42 Good 8.5697 Good 40 Good 85.5 Lowellville Road

Yellow Creek @ 301739 6.30 NON 32 Fair 7.0799 Fair 0 n/a 77 Walker Mill Road

Yellow Creek @ Marginally 301468 E. Western 7.75 Partial 36 6.3112 Fair 28 Fair 49 Good Reserve Road

Burgess Run @ Marginally 301469 North Lima 1.05 Full 42 Good n/a 89 Good Road

Table 8 : Ohio EPA Biological Criteria for the Applicable Aquatic Life Use Designations 1

Ecoregion Biological Index Assessment Method 2,3 WWH EWH MWH 4 Headwater 40 50 24 IBI Wading 38 50 24 Boat 40 48 24/30 Erie-Ontario Lake Plains (EOLP) Wading 7.9 9.4 6.2 MIwb Boat 8.7 9.6 5.8/6.6 ICI All 5 34 46 22 1 Coldwater habitats (CWH), limited warmwater habitat (LWH), resource waters (LRW) and seasonal salmonid habitat (SSH) do not h ave associated biological criteria 2 The assessment method used at a site is determined by its drainage area (DA) according to the following: Headwater: DA ≤ 20mi 2; wading: DA > 20mi 2 and ≤ 500mi 2; boat: DA > 500mi 2 3 MIwb not applicable to drainage areas less than 20mi 2 4 Biocriteria depend on type of MWH. MWH -C (due to chan nelization) is listed first and MWH -I (due to impoundment) is listed second 5 Limited to sites with appropriate conditions for artificial substrate placement

17 NPS-IS Final Draft 2.2.1 Fish (Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and Modified Index of well-being (MIwb)) IBI sampling in the Burgess Run – Yellow Creek watershed took place in 2011. The sites had fair communities with one good site in Burgess Run. Community performance ranged from good to poor, with all non-attainment of the WWH aquatic life use occurring on Yellow Creek. The average IBI score of 39.2. A Use Designation of Exceptional Warm Water Habitat is potentially attainable in some areas with appropriate restoration.

2.2.2 Macroinvertebrates (Invertebrate Community Index (ICI)) Three sites on Yellow Creek and one site on Burgess Run, a tributary at RM 5.26, were sampled and assessed for benthic macroinvertebrate communities in 2011. Community performance ranged from good to poor, with all non- attainment of the WWH aquatic life use occurring on Yellow Creek.

Habitat quality was the presiding influence on benthic communities in Yellow Creek. Three of the four sampling locations did not meet WWH expectations. Intermittent flows combined with channelization and wetland-like instream habitat resulted in the poor evaluation at RM 14.03. Continuous flow conditions returned downstream at RM 11.40, but channelization and low-gradient conditions persisted, resulting in marginal improvement and an evaluation of fair. Beaver dams confounded sampling at RM 7.75, although the benthic community likely reflected the ongoing slack flow conditions. In addition, sediments were noted to be black and anoxic, and algal mats were observed during sampling, suggesting an additional impact to the reach. Only the lowermost site at RM 0.40 met the biocriterion with an ICI score of 40, although EPT and sensitive taxa were still somewhat below expectations. This was the only site on Yellow Creek with an intact riparian corridor and riffles and runs with coarse substrates.

The community collected in Burgess Run at RM 1.05 indicated marginally good water quality, which was within non- significant departure of the WWH biocriterion. Mayfly diversity was lower than expected given the high-quality habitat, and aquatic worms were also more abundant than expected. Urbanization may influence the community, as well as discharges from Burgess Lake.

Historically, the Yellow Creek subwatershed has only been sampled for macroinvertebrates in the lower mile of Yellow Creek. Results from the previous comprehensive water quality survey in 1994 indicated achievement of the WWH biocriterion at RM 1.0 with a community assessment of good. A mini-survey of Yellow Creek in 2006 revealed full attainment at the RM 0.40 location, but non-attainment downstream at RM 0.10, due to an unspecified intermittent discharge (Ohio EPA 2006). Both the 2006 and 2013 sampling at RM 0.40 produced nearly identical ICI scores. Three sites had ICI sampling. Scores ranged from poor to fair, with one marginally good site on Burgess Run. Scores were dependent on habitat. Yellow Creek has very poor bed-form diversity, restoring natural gravels and associated riffle structures will greatly improve the ICI for this area.

Figure 3 : Poor Bedform Diversity : Yellow Creek 18 NPS-IS Final Draft

2.2.3 Habitat (Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)) The habitat quality of the Burgess Run –Yellow Creek HUC-12 was measured for three sites. Burgess Run and the Walker Mill Rd. and Lowellville Rd. sites on Yellow Creek were excellent. According to the Ohio EPA’s QHEI score, the main-stem of Yellow Creek and Burgess Run do not exhibit any signs of channelization. The QHEI’s metric 3, Channel Morphology, classifies stream segments as never been channelized, recovered (from channelization), recovering (from channelization), or recent or no recovery. According to the Ohio EPA’s QHEI metric 3 score, assessments indicated, Yellow Creek at E. Western Reserve Rd. shows signs of recovery from past channelization. Floodplain conditions were incorporated in QHEI assessments. Metric 4, Bank Erosion and Riparian Zone, analyzes stream erosion, riparian width, and the floodplain quality. Based on the final metric score, the floodplain quality of Yellow Creek and Burgess Run in the Burgess Run-Yellow Creek sub-watershed are mainly good due to the protection afforded by the surrounding forested land.

The table below details the QHEI scores and subcomponent attributes for each sampling location.

Table 9 : QHEI matrix with WWH and MWH attribute totals and ratios for the Burgess Run -Yellow Creek HUC 12, 2011 -2013

Recovering Channel Heavy/Moderate Silt Cover Sand Substrates (Boat) Hardpan Substrate Origin FairPoor Development Low Sinuosity Only 1-2 Cover Types Intermittent and PoorPools No FastCurrent High/ ModerateOverall Embeddedness High/ ModerateRiffle Embeddedness No Riffle (MWH High Influence+1)/ (WWH+1) Ratio (MWH Mod. Influence+1)/ (WWH+1) Ratio River Mile QHEI Score No Channelization or Recovered Boulder/ Cobble/ Gravel Substrates Silt FreeSubstrates Good/ ExcellentDevelopment Moderate/ High Sinuosity Extensive/ Moderate Cover Fast Current/ Eddies Low Normal Overall Embeddedness Maximum Depth > 40 cm Low Normal Riffle Embeddedness ChannelizedNo Recoveryor Silt Muck Substrates No Sinuosity SparseNo Cover Maximum Depth < 40 cm (Wade, HW) Total WWH Attributes Total High Influence MWH Attributes Total Moderate Influence MWHAttributes Yellow Creek 0.36 85.5 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7 0 □ □ 2 0.13 0.38 6.3 77 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 8 0 □ □ □ 3 0.11 0.56 7.75 49 □ □ □ □ 4 □ 1 □ □ □ □ □ 5 0.40 1.40 11.4 40.5 □ 1 □ □ □ □ 4 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 7 2.5 4.00 Burgess Run 1.1 9 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 0 0 0.10 1.10 89.0

19 NPS-IS Final Draft

2.3 Summary of HUC-12 Pollution Causes and Associated Sources At Yellow Creek at East Western Reserve Road, the causes of impairment included nutrient/organic enrichment, sedimentation/siltation, Total dissolved Solids (TDS), and fish passage barriers. Dam/impoundments, failing septic systems, agricultural runoff, livestock, and urban runoff were sited as sources of impairment. At Yellow Creek at Walker Mill Road, the causes of impairment included nutrients and sedimentation/siltation; sources of impairment included failing package plant and on-site treatment systems, urban runoff, and channelization.

Lake Hamilton Dam and other earthfill dams along Burgess Run prevent naturally assimilating and serve as a sink accumulating decades of sediment. .

Table 10 : Ohio EPA Causes and Sources of Impairment for Andersons Run -Mill Creek HUC -12

Station Sample Station Name Attainment Causes Sources ID Status Yellow Creek @ Struthers @ Lowellville N03S18 N/A N/A Road (RM 0.40) Full Yellow Creek @ Walker Mill Road 301739 Sedimentation/Siltation Upstream sources (RM 6.30) NON Dam or Other flow regime impoundment; alterations; Fish passage Package Yellow Creek @ E. Western Reserve barrier; Organic 301468 plant/permitted small Road (RM 7.75) Partial enrichment; flow discharge; Sedimentation/siltation; Unrestricted cattle Total dissolved solids access Burgess Run @ North Lima Road 301469 N/A N/A (RM 1.05) Full

NPS-IS Final Draft

2.4 Additional Information for Determining Critical Areas and Developing Implementation Strategies Eastgate Regional Council of Government and Mill Creek MetroParks as Certified Credible Data Collectors performed a Level 3 Habitat study of streams in the Yellow Creek Watershed.

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

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

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

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

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

NPS-IS Final Draft Chapter 3: Critical Area Conditions & Restoration Strategies Effective application of nonpoint source best management practices requires that these measures are properly planned, sited, and sized for implementation. An important aspect of the planning process is the identification of critical areas. Implementation of best management practices in critical areas is a key part of meeting targets set by NPS-IS plans or TMDLs, which ultimately lead to achieving water quality goals and objectives including the restoration and protection of degraded beneficial uses of waters of the US. Effective determination of critical areas supports targeted, cost-efficient implementation of practices and measures to meet water quality goals in the most efficient manner possible.

3.1 Overview of Critical Areas Drakes Run is a highly developed subwatershed of the HUC-12 which is 31% impervious. When watersheds exceed 10%, runoff water quality and qualify become a problem. The Burgess Run subwatershed is the location of most of the agriculture is this HUC-12. In addition, the mainstem of Yellow Creek has an extent of protected wooded riparian corridor.

In the Burgess Run – Yellow Creek HUC-12, there are no sampling sites on Drakes Run. None of the three Yellow Creek mainstem sites sampled are in attainment. One site on Burgess Run is in attainment.

Three critical areas have been identified to address the primary nonpoint sources pollution issues believed to be causing the impaired states of these reaches. • Critical Area 1: Drakes Run • Critical Area 2: Yellow Creek Main Stem

Map 7: Critical Areas

NPS-IS Final Draft

3.2 Critical Area #1 Drakes Run: Conditions, Goals & Objectives

3.2.1 Detailed Characterization The Drakes Run Critical Area encompasses the catchment, which contributes flow to Drake’s Run, a tributary to Yellow Creek. It has approximately 31% impervious surface, and is over 80% developed. This level of imperviousness and land use leads to increased degradation of stream habitat and increased amount of pollutant runoff.

Drake’s Run is heavily developed. There is a large commercial development adjacent to this reach. By restoring a vegetated buffer with native plants, there is the potential for a reduction in pollutants within the stream. By restoring a natural buffer on the stream, it will reduce the velocity of surface water entering the channel, which will increase infiltration thereby decreasing pollutants within the channel .

Figure 4 : Residential Development Impacting Drakes Run

Table 11 : Land Cover in Critical Area #1

Land Cover Acres Area (%)

26% Developed, Open Space 756.26 Developed, Low Intensity 894.31 30%

Developed, Medium Intensity 425.70 25% Developed, High Intensity 362.13 13% Barren Land 1.78 <1% Deciduous Forest 384.13 23% Mixed Forest 2.45 <1% Shrub/Scrub 6.00 <1% Herbaceuous 6.22 <1% Hay/Pasture 7.78 <1% Woody Wetlands 39.79 1% Emergent Herbaceuous 2.22 <1% Total 2888.79

Source of spatial data: 2018 National Land Cover Database

NPS-IS Final Draft

3.2.2 Detailed Biological Conditions While there are no sampling sites on Drakes Run, this subwatershed impact drains into the Yellow Creek and impacts the in partial attainment at sampling site 1651. Habitat is a big impactor with influencing factors including canopy, substrate, stream development and riparian quality. Bugs scored poorly. Fish had poor communities in 1994 and fair in 2011. Sources on impairments include nutrients, sedimentation, and habitat alterations. The causes are urban runoff, channelization, and loss of riparian vegetation.

3.2.3 Detailed Causes and Associated Sources The Drakes Run subwatershed has been impacted by direct habitat alterations; sedimentation/siltation, and runoff from impervious surfaces.

For a general review of the impacts of urbanization and references to additional resources, see the CADDIS Urbanization Module (U.S. EPA 2010) and The Importance of Imperviousness (Schueler 1994).The flashy flows (i.e., higher peak flows and volumes) associated with urban stormwater result in the following stressors on biological communities: • Degraded habitat and siltation • High stream flow velocities • Erosion, channel scour, and bank failure • Poor water quality • Increased temperatures or rapid temperature flux • Reduction in base flow

Urban development, with increases in impervious cover and storm sewers, typically degrades aquatic biological communities. Research generally shows that urbanization directly affects aquatic habitat and biota (Schueler 2004; Capiella et al. 2005; Shaver et al 2007; Cuffney et al. 2010). To briefly summarize (Shaver et al 2007, p. 4-98): [O]verall, there tends to be a decline in taxa richness or species diversity, a loss of sensitive species, and an increase in tolerant species […] due mainly to the cumulative impacts of watershed urbanization: altered hydrologic and sediment transport regimes, degradation of in-stream habitat quality and complexity, stream bed fine sediment deposition, poor water quality, and the loss of native riparian vegetation.

3.2.4 Outline Goals and Objectives for the Critical Area #1: Drakes Run

Goals The overall nonpoint source restoration goals of any NPS-IS plan is to improve IBI, MIwb, ICI, and QHEI scores such that a waterbody is brought into, or to maintain full attainment of the designated ALU. Full- attainment in this critical area is already achieved, however, the MIwb scored below the Biological Data for Aquatic Life Use attainment. Therefore, the goals for Drakes Run Critical Area are to improve MIwb score and to maintain the IBI, ICI, and QHEI scores at Yellow Creek @ Lowellville Rd (RM 0.40, Station ID N03S18). These goals are specifically to:

Goal 1. Achieve an IBI score of 40 at Yellow Creek @ Lowellville Rd (RM 0.40, Station ID N03S18) u Achieved: Site currently has a score of 42. Goal 2. Achieve a MIwb score of 8.7 at Yellow Creek @ Lowellville Rd (RM 0.40, Station ID N03S18) u Not Achieved: Site currently has 8.6 which is good Goal 3. Achieve an ICI score of 34 at Yellow Creek @ Lowellville Rd (RM 0.40, Station ID N03S18) u Achieved: Site currently has a score of 40 which is good. Goal 4. Achieve a QHEI score of 80 at Yellow Creek @ Lowellville Rd (RM 0.40, Station ID N03S18) u Achieved: Site currently has a score of 85.5.

NPS-IS Final Draft

Objectives With the subwatershed being dominated by impervious surfaces, improving aquatic community health will be difficult. To achieve the overall nonpoint source restoration goal of full attainment, the following objectives need to be achieved within Critical Area #1:

Objective 1: Restore channelized, armored, and culverted stream by removing impairments and restoring streams and riparian areas using bioengineering design. . Restore 6,000 or more linear feet of stream habitat along Drake’s Run and its tributaries . Restore 12,000 or more linear feet of stream bank habitat . Restore 10 or more acres of riparian floodplain with native plantings

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

NPS-IS Final Draft

3.3 Critical Area #2 Yellow Creek Main Stem: Conditions, Goals & Objectives 3.3.1 Detailed Characterization The Yellow Creek critical area encompasses the Yellow Creek main stem. This reach of Yellow Creek is bounded on its upstream and downstream ends by man-made dams and lakes. It is largely forested; however, there are areas where residential development abuts Yellow Creek. This land use increases runoff entering Yellow Creek.

To address water quality issues within the watershed it is suggested to restore natural floodplain to areas where it has been impacted. By restoring the native floodplain and associated wetlands it will increase the amount of filtration as surface runoff will flow through the buffer and infiltrate the soil before entering the channel. Figure 5: Yellow Creek Floodplain

Table 12: Land Cover in Cri ti cal Area # 2 Land Cover Acres Area (%) Open Water 100.48 20 Developed, open 92.03 19 Developed, low intensity 31.34 6 Developed, medium intensity 12.00 2 Developed, high intensity 6.45 1 Deciduous forest 129.16 26 Evergreen forest 2.67 <1 Mixed forest 35.35 7 Grassland / herbaceous 4.22 <1 Pasture/hay 7.56 2 Woody wetlands 73.80 15 Emergent herbaceous 1.11 <1 Total 496.17

Source of spatial data: 2018 National Land Cover Database

3.3.2 Detailed Biological Conditions Yellow Creek drains to site 1651 where the subwatershed drains into the Mahoning River. The site is in partial attainment of biological criteria. The most recent data evaluated fish and macroinvertebrate community health was in 2011.

3.3.3 Detailed Causes and Associated Sources Loss of wetlands, imperious surfaces, and channelization and development in the riparian corridor have created erosion problems from vegetation removal and runoff. In addition, stormwater from urban development has been a big problem. Stream channel and associated floodplain restoration is needed.

NPS-IS Final Draft

Stakeholder feedback has identified areas of flooding, eroding streambanks, the need to acquire land and restore wetlands, and the reduction of impervious surfaces as problems in the critical area. . Eroding streambanks contribute excess sediment to the stream and when combined with low-flow conditions cause sediment to settle out into the channel and embed into the substrates. Reforestation of riparian corridors and further protection of the corridors are additional recommended measures to fully address water quality in this critical area.

3.3.4 Outline Goals and Objectives for the Critical Area #2: Yellow Creek Main Stem

Goals The overall nonpoint source restoration goals of any NPS-IS plan is to improve IBI, MIwb, ICI, and QHEI scores such that a waterbody is brought into, or to maintain full attainment of the designated ALU. Full- attainment in this critical area is already achieved, however, the MIwb scored below the Biological Data for Aquatic Life Use attainment. Therefore, the goals for Yellow Creek Mainstem are to improve MIwb score and to maintain the IBI, ICI, and QHEI scores at Yellow Creek @ Lowellville Rd (RM 0.40, Station ID N03S18). These goals are specifically to:

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

Objective 1: Restore channelized, armored, and culverted stream by removing impairments and restoring streams and riparian areas using bioengineering design. . Restore 1,000 or more linear feet of stream habitat along Drake’s Run and its tributaries . Restore 2,000 or more linear feet of stream bank habitat . Restore 2 or more acres of riparian floodplain with native plantings

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

NPS-IS Final Draft Chapter 4: Projects and Implementation Strategy Projects and evaluations believed to be necessary to address the causes and sources of impairments to the Burgess Run – Yellow Creek watershed are presented by critical area in this section. As Ohio assesses attainment using numeric biological criteria, periodic reevaluation of biological condition will be necessary to determine if the implemented projects restore the critical areas.

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

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

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

NPS-IS Final Draft

4.1 Critical Area #1 Drakes Run: Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table One project in Drakes Run has been identified, and is a floodplain restoration. It will be necessary to periodically re-evaluate the status of Drakes Run to determine if other projects are needed to achieve restoration. Time is an important factor to consider when measuring project success and overall status. Biological systems in some cases can show response fairly quickly (months); others may take longer (years) to show recovery. There may also be reasons other than nonpoint source pollution for the impairment. Those issues will need to be addressed under different initiatives, authorities or programs which may or may not be accomplished by the same implementers addressing the nonpoint source pollution issues.

Map 8: Projects in Critical Area #1

NPS-IS Final Draft

Table 1 3: Critical Area #1: Overview Table

Applicable Goal Objective Project # Project Title Lead Time Frame Estimated Cost Potential/Actual Critical Area (EPA Criteria g) Organization (EPA Criteria f) (EPA Criteria d) Funding Source (criteria d) (EPA Criteria d)

Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies None identified Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies 1 1, 2, 1 1 Drakes Run ABC Medium TBD Clean Ohio, 3,4 Floodplain Section 319, Restoration local funds

Agricultural Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies Not applicable High Quality Waters Protection Strategies Not applicable Other NPS Causes an d Associated Sources of Impairment Not applicable

4.1.1 Critical Area #1: Project Summary Sheets No PSSs have been developed for Critical Area #1 projects.

NPS-IS Final Draft

4.2 Critical Area #2 Yellow Creek Main Stem: Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table Below are the projects and evaluation needs currently believed to be necessary to remove the impairments to the Yellow Creek Main Stem Run Critical Area #2 of the Burgess Run- Yellow Creek HUC-12 as a result of the identified causes and associated sources of nonpoint source pollution. Because the attainment status is based on biological conditions, it will be necessary to periodically re-evaluate the status of the critical area to determine if the implemented projects are sufficient to achieve restoration. Time is an important factor to consider when measuring project success and overall status. Biological systems in some cases can show response fairly quickly (months); others may take longer (years) to show recovery. There may also be reasons other than nonpoint source pollution for the impairment. Those issues will need to be addressed under different initiatives, authorities, or programs which may or may not be accomplished by the same implementers addressing the nonpoint source pollution issues.

Map 9 : Projects in Critical Area # 2 31 1 NPS-IS Final Draft

Table 14: Critical Area #2: Overview Table Applicable Goal Objective Project Project Title Lead Time Frame Estimated Potential/Actual Critical # (EPA Criteria Organization (EPA Cost Funding Source Area g) (criteria d) Criteria f) (EPA Criteria (EPA Criteria d) d) Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies Not yet identified Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies 2 1,2,3,4 1 1 Floodplain ABC Medium N/A Clean Ohio, Restoration Section 319, local funds Agricultural Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies Not applicable High Quality Waters Protection Strategies Not applicable Other NPS Causes and Associated Sources of Impairment Not applicable

4.2.1 Critical Area #2: Project Summary Sheets No PSSs have been developed for Critical Area #2 projects.

NPS-IS Final Draft

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

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

Eastgate Regional Council of Governments, 2015. Yellow Creek Action Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPS-IS Final Draft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schueler, T. 1994. The Importance of Imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(3):100–111. ———. 2004. Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual 1. An Integrated Framework to Restore Small Urban Watersheds. Prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Management, Washington, DC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPS-IS Final Draft

3745 Ohio Adm. Code, §1-25 (2011). Retrieved from http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/3745-1-25. 5 Ohio Rev. Code, §504(2010). Retrieved from http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/504. Abbas, Bassel Abdul-Hakim (1992). Evaluation of Trophic Status for Lake Hamilton (Master’s thesis). Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio. Alliance for Watershed Action and Riparian Easements (2001). Mine Drainage Task Force Report , Youngstown, OH. Airato, S., Kolwalkar, S., & Martin, S. C. (2000). Wetland Mitigation Plan for Mill Creek, Yellow Creek, and Meander Creek Watersheds. Clean Water Act. (1972). 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. Retrieved 2011, from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title33/pdf/USCODE-2011-title33-chap26- subchapI-sec1251.pdf. Cowardin, L. M. (1979). Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prarie Wildlife Research Center Online. Retrieved from http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm. Hansen, M. (1997). The Ice Age in Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Division of Geological Survey. History of Columbiana County. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://ohiorivertrail.org/attachements/128_History of Columbiana County author unknown.pdf Kowalkar, Susheel R. (2003). Application of Techniques to Identify Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Opportunities (Master's thesis). Youngstown state University, Youngstown, Ohio. Martin Ph. D, P.E., Scott C. (2003). Preliminary Stream Restoration Plan for Mill Creek Yellow Creek and Meander Creek Watersheds . Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio. Martin Ph. D, P.E., Scott C., Airato, S., & Kolwalkar, S.(n.d). Wetland Mitigation Plan for Mill Creek, Yellow Creek, and Meander Creek Watersheds. Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio. Martin Ph. D, P.E., Scott C., & Kallam, A.R. (2007). Hydrology of Yellow Creek Watershed . Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio. Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (2000). Wetlands. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Land Trust Alliance. (2011). 2010 National Land Trust Census Report. Retrieved from http://www.landtrustalliance.org/land-trusts/land-trust-census/2010-final-report ______(2011). 2010 National Land Trust Census Report . Ohio Factsheet. Retrieved from http://www.landtrustalliance.org/land-trusts/land-trust-census/state-factsheets/ohio-factsheet. Ohio Department of Development. (2011). Ohio County Profiles. Policy Research and Strategic Planning Office, Columbus, OH. Ohio Department of Education. (2010). Interactive Local Report Card Power User Report. ODE Data Warehouse. Retrieved Feb 11, 2010, from http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us Ohio Department of Education. (2012). 2010-2011 Report Card . Retrieved from Ohio School Report Cards: http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us Ohio Department of Natural Resources (1980). Inventory of Ohio's Lakes. Ohio Water Inventory Report No. 26. ODNR Division of Water. ______(1991). Update to Inventory of Ohio's Lakes. Ohio Water Inventory Update to Report No. 26. ODNR Division of Water. Ohio Division of Geologic Survey. (2004). Generalized colum of bedrock units in Ohio. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/stratcol.pdf Ohio Division of Geological Surey. (2006). Geologic Map and Cross Section of Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Ohio Division of Geological Survey. (1998). Physiographic Regions of Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Ohio History Central. (2005). Ohio's Geologic Periods. Retrieved from http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1380

NPS-IS Final Draft

Ohio History Central. (2007). Mississippian Period. Retrieved from http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=2815 Ohio History Central. (2007). Pennsylvanian Period. Retrieved from http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=2816 Poff et al. (1997). The Natural Flow Regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience, 47 (11), 770-784. Poland Bicentennial Committee. (1996). T ownship 1, Range 1, Our Western Frontier, Poland Township History . Poland, Ohio. Poland Centennial Committee. (1966). Poland Historical Highlights . Poland, Ohio. Stamm, John. M., Ricker, K.T., & Brown, Larry C. (n.d). Water Resources of Mahoning County. Ohio State Univerity Extension: Food, Agriculture and Biological Engineering (Publication No. AEX 480.50-97) . Columbus, OH: Ohio State Univerity. Retrieved from http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex- fact/0480_50.html. ______Water Resources of Columbiana County . Ohio State Univerity Extension: Food, Agriculture and Biological Engineering (Publication No. AEX 480.15-97 ). Columbus, OH: Ohio State Univerity. Retrieved from h http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0480_15.html. Stout, W. (1944). Sandstones and Conglomerates in Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science, 44 (2), 75- 88. Tiner, R. (1999). Wetland Indicators: A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC. U.S. Census Bureau (2014). 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Ohio . Retrieved May 12, 2014 from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?fpt=table. U.S. Census Bureau (2014). 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Mahoning County and Columbiana County, Ohio . Retrieved May 12, 2014 from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?fpt=table. U.S. Census Bureau (2014). 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Poverty, Ohio . Retrieved May 12, 2014 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html. U.S Geological Survey. (2010). Boundary Descriptions and Names of Regions, Subregions, Accounting Units. Retrieved Nov 29, 2010, from http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory. (1987). Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corp Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2014). 2012 Census of Agriculture: Ohio state and County Data. Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series- Part 35. Williamson, Robert A. (1999). Analysis of Riparian Forest and FloodplainQuality in the Yellow Creek Watershed Using the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (Master's thesis). Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio. Youngstown State University. (2012). Annual Unduplicated Preliminary Enrollment and Degrees Conferred. Youngstown, OH. Retrieved from http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu_generated_bin/documents/basic_module/undup12.pdf. Youngstown State University. (2012). Preliminary 14th Day Enrollment (Fall Terms) by Key Counties, Total University. Office of Institutional Research and Policy Analysis, Youngstown, OH. Retrieved from http://web.ysu.edu/gen/ysu_generated_bin/documents/basic_module/2012countyTOT.pdf.