G Total Maximum Daily Loads For The Upper Mahoning River .
August 2011Total Maximum Daily Loads forthe Upper Mahoning RiverWatershedFinal ReportAugust 17, 2011John R. Kasich, GovernorMary Taylor, Lt. GovernorScott J. Nally, Director
Photo caption: Upper Mahoning River at the Lake Milton spillwayin Mahoning County, OhioOhio EPA received financial assistance for this work fromU.S. EPA and the American Recovery and ReinvestmentAct of 2009.
Upper Mahoning River Watershed TMDLsTable of Contents1234Introduction . 11.1The Clean Water Act Requirement to Address Impaired Waters . 11.2Public Involvement . 41.3Organization of Report . 4Characteristics and Expectations of the Watershed . 52.1Watershed Characteristics . 52.1.1 Population and Distribution . 52.1.2 Land Use . 72.1.3 Soils, Geology and Topography . 82.1.4 Point Sources - Waste Water and Storm Water . 82.2Water Quality Standards and Targets . 132.2.1 Recreation Uses . 142.2.2 Aquatic Life Uses . 152.2.3 Public Drinking Water Supply Use . 182.2.4 Human Health Use (Fish Tissue). 18Water Quality Conditions in the Watershed . 203.1Aquatic Life and Recreation Use Attainment Status. 203.1.1 Mahoning River – Headwaters to Below Beech Cr. (05030103-01) . 243.1.2 Deer Creek – Mahoning River (05030103 - 02). 263.1.3 West Branch Mahoning River – Mahoning River (05030103 - 03) . 293.1.4 Eagle Creek – Mahoning River (05030103 - 04) . 323.2Summary of the Causes and Sources of Aquatic Life and Recreation UseImpairments . 353.3Statistical Strength of Relationship between Biological Communities andHabitat . 41Methods to Calculate Load Reductions . 444.1Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) and HydrographProportioned Daily Loads . 454.1.1 Sources of Data . 484.1.2 Water Quality Targets . 494.1.3 Selection of Method . 494.1.4 Calibration of the Model . 494.1.5 Margin of Safety and Other Considerations. 524.2Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) and BATHTUB. 524.2.1 Sources of Data . 544.2.2 Water Quality Targets . 554.2.3 Selection of Method . 554.2.4 Calibration and Validation of Model . 554.2.5 Margin of Safety and Other Considerations. 564.3Habitat Alteration and Sediment Method . 564.3.1 Selection of Method . 584.3.2 Water Quality Targets . 584.3.3 Margin of Safety and Other Considerations. 604.4Load Duration Curves – Pathogens . 614.4.1 Selection of Method . 654.4.2 Water Quality Targets . 664.4.3 Margin of Safety. 664.4.4 Allowance for Future Growth . 67i
Upper Mahoning River Watershed TMDLs5674.4.5 Seasonality and Critical Conditions . 67Watershed Analysis, Loading Capacity, and Allocations . 685.1Mahoning River – Headwaters to Below Beech Cr. (05030103-01) . 705.1.1 E. coli Bacteria (HUCs 01-01, 01-02, and 01-03) . 705.1.2 Sediment and Habitat (HUCs 01-01, 01-02, 02-03). 735.1.3 Total Phosphorus (HUCs 01-01 and 01-03) . 765.2Deer Creek - Mahoning River (05030103-02) . 815.2.1 E. coli Bacteria (HUCs 02-01, 02-02, 02-03, and 02-04) . 815.2.2 Sediment and Habitat (HUCs 02-01, 02-02) . 855.2.3 Total Phosphorus (HUCs 02-01 and 02-02) . 875.3West Branch Mahoning River - Mahoning River (05030103-03) . 915.3.1 E. coli Bacteria (HUCs 03-01, 03-02, 03-03, 03-04, 03-05, and03-06) . 915.3.2 Sediment and Habitat (HUCs 03-01, 03-02, 03-03, 03-05, 03-06) . 965.4Eagle Creek - Mahoning River (05030103-04) . 1005.4.1 E. coli Bacteria (HUCs 04-01, 04-02, 04-03, 04-04, 04-05, 04-06). 1005.4.2 Sediment and Habitat (HUCs 04-01, 04-02) . 1075.4.3 Total Phosphorus (HUCs 04-01, 04-03, 04-04) . 1105.5Summary of TMDL Results . 1155.5.1 Nutrient TMDLs (Total Phosphorus) . 1155.5.2 Habitat and Sediment TMDLs (QHEI Analyses) . 116Water Quality Improvement Strategy . 1206.1Regulatory Measures for Abatement . 1206.2Mahoning River – headwaters to below Beech Cr. (05030103-01) . 1216.2.1 Beaver Run-Mahoning River 01-01 . 1226.2.2 Beech Creek 01- 02 . 1236.2.3 Fish Creek-Mahoning River 01-03 . 1246.3Deer Creek - Mahoning River (05030103-02) . 1276.3.1 Deer Creek 02-01 . 1286.3.2 Willow Creek 02-02. 1296.3.3 Mill Creek 02-03. 1306.3.4 Island Creek-Mahoning River 02-04 . 1306.4West Branch Mahoning River - Mahoning River (05030103-03) . 1326.4.1 Kale Creek 03-01 . 1336.4.2 Headwaters West Branch Mahoning River 03-02. 1346.4.3 Barrel Run 03-03 . 1356.4.4 Kirwan Reservoir-West Branch Mahoning River 03-04 . 1356.4.5 Town of Newton Falls-West Branch Mahoning River 03-05 . 1356.4.6 Charley Run Creek-Mahoning River 03-06. 1366.5Eagle Creek - Mahoning River (05030103-04) . 1396.5.1 Headwaters Eagle Creek 04-01. 1406.5.2 South Fork Eagle Creek 04-02 . 1416.5.3 Camp Creek-Eagle Creek 04-03 . 1416.5.4 Tinkers Creek 04-04 . 1426.5.5 Mouth Eagle Creek 04-05 . 1426.5.6 Chocolate Run-Mahoning River 04-06 . 1426.6Future Evaluations of the Project Area and Corrective Actions. 1456.6.1 Current and Ongoing Monitoring . 1456.6.2 Schedule for Ohio EPA Monitoring . 1466.6.3 Approach Toward Revisions . 146References . 148ii
Upper Mahoning River Watershed TMDLsAppendicesAppendix A.Appendix B.Appendix C.Appendix D.Appendix E.Appendix F.NPDES Permitted DischargesStatus of Water QualityWater Quality Standards in OhioLoading Analysis InformationImplementation and Reasonable AssurancesResponse Summary to Public Comments on the Draft TMDL ReportList of TablesTable 1-1. Summary of impairments in the upper Mahoning River watershed andmethods used to address them. . 2Table 2-1. Municipalities in the upper Mahoning River TMDL watershed area. . 7Table 2-2. Land use percentages in the basin . 7Table 2-3. Water Quality Standards Summary . 13Table 2-4. Quality criteria for recreation use designations. . 14Table 2-5. Biological criteria applicable to rivers and streams throughout Ohio for threeaquatic life use designations. . 15Table 4-1. Summary of causes of impairment and actions taken to address them inassessment units within the 05030103- 01 and 05030103- 02 ten-digithydrologic units. . 44Table 4-2. Summary of causes of impairment and actions taken to address them inassessment units within the 05030103- 03 and 05030103- 04 ten-digithydrologic units. . 45Table 4-3. Total phosphorus targets applicable to the upper Mahoning watershed. . 49Table 4-4. Summary of nutrient TMDL development. . 54Table 4-5. Targets based on Ohio’s proposed Lake Habitat Criteria . . 57Table 4-6. QHEI targets for the habitat TMDL that are applicable to warmwater habitats. . 59Table 4-7. QHEI targets for the sediment TMDL that are applicable to warmwater habitats. . 60Table 4-8. Bacteria sampling site locations where load duration curves represent theupstream loading to account for all of the associated location withrecreation use impairment. . 63Table 5-1. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-01-01 12-digit HUC. . 71Table 5-2. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-01-01 12-digit HUC. . 72Table 5-3. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-01-02 12-digit HUC. . 72Table 5-4. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-01-02 12-digit HUC. . 72Table 5-5. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-01-03 12-digit HUC. . 73Table 5-6. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-01-03 12-digit HUC. . 73Table 5-7. Sediment and Habitat TMDLs for the 05030103-01 10-digit HUC based onQHEI metrics and modified attributes. . 74Table 5-8. Total annual loads and pollutant yields per the significant sources withinthe GWLF modeled area that employs the Alliance gage on theMahoning River (HUCs 01 and 03). . 78Table 5-9. Median Existing and TMDL Loads with reductions needed for the MahoningRiver and tributaries at the Alliance Gage Daily Load and TMDL Modeledover 10 years for Total Phosphorus. . 78iii
Upper Mahoning River Watershed TMDLsTable 5-10. Allocations and percent reductions for total phosphorus by source withinthe GWLF modeled area that employs the Alliance gage on theMahoning River (HUCs 01 and 03). . 79Table 5-11. Existing and proposed loading information, including wasteload allocations,for NPDES dischargers within the GWLF modeled area that employs theAlliance gage on the Mahoning River (HUCs 01 and 03). . 80Table 5-12. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-02-01 12-digit HUC. . 82Table 5-13. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-02-01 12-digit HUC. . 82Table 5-14. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-02-02 12-digit HUC. . 83Table 5-15. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-02-03 12-digit HUC. . 84Table 5-16. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-02-03 12-digit HUC. . 84Table 5-17. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-02-04 12-digit HUC. . 85Table 5-18. Sediment and Habitat TMDLs for the 05030103-02 10-digit HUC based onQHEI metrics and modified attributes. . 86Table 5-19. Existing Daily Load and Allowable Daily Load during Lake Growing Seasonfor Ohio’s Lake Habitat Criteria Attainment (Deer Creek and Dale WalbornSpatial Average water quality). . 89Table 5-20. Modeled Total Phosphorus Existing Load and TMDL Point and Non-PointSource Loads (kg/day) during Growing Season (May-September). . 90Table 5-21. Deer Creek Reservoir Watershed Point Source Discharge Total Phosphorusproposed Limit and Resulting Waste Load. . 90Table 5-22. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-03-01 12-digit HUC. . 92Table 5-23. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-03-01 12-digit HUC. . 92Table 5-24. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-03-02 12-digit HUC. . 92Table 5-25. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-03-03 12-digit HUC. . 93Table 5-26. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-03-04 12-digit HUC. . 93Table 5-27. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-03-04 12-digit HUC. . 93Table 5-28. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-03-05 12-digit HUC. . 94Table 5-29. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-03-05 12-digit HUC. . 94Table 5-30. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-03-06 12-digit HUC. . 95Table 5-31. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-03-06 12-digit HUC. . 95Table 5-32. Sediment and Habitat TMDLs for the 05030103-03 10-digit HUC based onQHEI metrics (total score and substrate, riparian, and channel scores). . 97Table 5-33. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-04-01 12-digit HUC. . 101Table 5-34. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-04-01 12-digit HUC. . 101Table 5-35. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-04-02 12-digit HUC. . 102Table 5-36. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-04-02 12-digit HUC. . 102Table 5-37. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-04-03 12-digit HUC. . 103Table 5-38. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-04-03 12-digit HUC. . 103Table 5-39. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-04-04 12-digit HUC. . 104Table 5-40. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-04-05 12-digit HUC. . 104Table 5-41. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-04-05 12-digit HUC. . 105Table 5-42. E. coli TMDLs for the 05030103-04-06 12-digit HUC. . 105Table 5-43. E. coli wasteload allocations for the 05030103-04-06 12-digit HUC. . 106Table 5-44. Sediment and Habitat TMDLs for the 05030103-04 10-digit HUC based onQHEI metrics (total score and substrate, riparian, and channel scores). . 108Table 5-45. Totla phosphorua TMDLs for Eagle Creek and tributaries. . 111Table 5-46. Allocations and percent reductions for total phosphorus by source within theGWLF modeled area that employs the Phalanx Station gage on EagleCreek (12-digit HUCs 01 through 05). . 112iv
Upper Mahoning River Watershed TMDLsTable 5-47. Existing and proposed loading information, including wasteload allocationsfor NPDES dischargers within the GWLF modeled area that employs thePhalanx Station gage on Eagle Creek (HUCs 01 through 05). . 113Table 5-48. Total annual loads and pollutant yields per the significant sources within theGWLF modeled area that employs the Phalanx Station gage on EagleCreek (HUCs 01 through 05). . 114Table 5-49. Sites exceeding phosphorus target. . 115Table 5-50. Habitat target attainment by stream size (bolded values for 50%) . 119Table 6-1. NPDES permit limits for facilities in the lower Little Miami River watershed. . 121Table 6-2. Restoration and abatement actions recommended for the 01 ten-digit HUC. . 126Table 6-3. Restoration and abatement actions recommended for the 02 ten-digit HUC. . 131Table 6-4. Restoration and abatement actions recommended for the 03 ten-digit HUC. . 137Table 6-5. Restoration and abatement actions recommended for the 04 ten-digit HUC. . 143Table 6-6. Ohio EPA reports on water quality in the upper Mahoning River watershed. . 146List of FiguresFigure 1-1. Overview of the TMDL project process . 1Figure 2-1. Map of the upper Mahoning River watershed showing 12 digit HUCassessment units. . 6Figure 2-2. Population densities based on census block information in the upperMahoning River watershed. . 9Figure 2-3. Land covers in the upper Mahoning River watershed. . 10Figure 2-4. Soil drainage classifications in the upper Mahoning River watershed. . 11Figure 2-5. Representation of the topographic relief of the upper Mahoning Riverwatershed. . 12Figure 2-6. Map of the various categories of recreation use designated to streamsin the upper Mahoning River watershed. . 16Figure 2-7. Map of the various categories of aquatic life use designated to streamsin the upper Mahoning River watershed. . 17Figure 2-8. Map of surface water intakes in the upper Mahoning River watershed. . 19Figure 3-1. Aquatic life use attainment for each of the four ten digit HUCs in the TMDLproject area. Proportions are based on the number of sites assessedin that area. . 21Figure 3-2. Recreation use attainment for each of the four ten digit HUCs in the TMDLproject area. Proportions are based on the number of sites assessed inthat area. . 22Figure 3-3. Recreation use attainment for largest stream in the project area. Proportionsare based on the number of sites assessed in that area. . 23Figure 3-4. HUC 05030103-01 aquatic life and recreation use attainment. . 24Figure 3-5. Map of the causes of aquatic life use impairment in HUC 05030103-01. . 25Figure 3-6. Map of the sources of aquatic life use impairment in HUC 05030103-01. . 25Figure 3-7. Site by site geometric mean for E. coli concentrations for the HUC05030103-01 watershed. . 26Figure 3-8. HUC 05030103-02 aquatic life and recreation use attainment. . 27Figure 3-9. Map of the causes of aquatic life use impairment in HUC 05030103-02. . 28Figure 3-10. Map of the sources of aquatic life use impairment in HUC 05030103-02. . 28Figure 3-11. Site by site geometric mean for E. coli concentrations for the HUC05030103-02 watershed. . 29Figure 3-12. HUC 05030103-03 aquatic life and recreation use attainment. . 30v
Upper Mahoning River Watershed TMDLsFigure 3-13. Map of the causes of aquatic life use impairment in HUC 05030103-03. . 31Figure 3-14. Map of the sources of aquatic life use impairment in HUC 05030103-03. . 31Figure 3-15. Site by site geometric mean for E. coli concentrations for the HUC05030103-03 watershed. . 32Figure 3-16. HUC 05030103-04 aquatic life and recreation use attainment . 33Figure 3-17. Map of the causes of aquatic life use impairment in HUC 05030103-04. . 34Figure 3-18. Map of the sources of aquatic life use impairment in HUC 05030103-04. . 34Figure 3-19. Site by site geometric mean for E. coli concentrations for the HUC05030103-04 watershed. . 35Figure 3-20. Phosphorus concentrations in the upper Mahoning River watershed. . 38Figure 3-21. Nitrate concentrations in the upper Mahoning River watershed. . 39Figure 3-22. Distribution of causes of impairment for ALU impaired sites. . 40Figure 3-23. Distribution of sources of impairment for ALU impaired sites. . 40Figure 3-24. PCA for habitat scores in the upper Mahoning River basin. . 43Figure 4-1. Two areas where total phosphorus TMDL were developed using GWLF.The map on the left show the area draining to the Alliance gage whilethe right is for the Phalanx Station gage. . 47Figure 4-2. Mahoning River at Alliance Gage hydrology simulation result after calibration(Gross Monthly Flow, r2 0.466004, Predicted/Observed 1.060122). . 51Figure 4-3 Load duration curve for E. coli bacteria at sample location N01K26 on theMahoning River at river mile 97.69 within the 01-01 twelve digit HUC. . 65Figure 5-1. Locations where load duration curves are developed for E. coli bacteria(identified by STORET number). . 69Figure 5-2. Mahoning River at Alliance Gage Daily Load and TMDL Modeled over10 years for Total Phosphorus (median 95% confidence interval range andvalues are presented). . 77Figure 5-3. Eagle Creek at Phalanx Station Gage Daily Load and TMDL Modeled over10 years for Total Phosphorus (median 95% confidence interval rangeand values are presented). . 111Figure 5-4. QHEI scores for upper Mahoning River watershed. . 117Figure 6-1. Twelve digit HUCs in the 01 watershed and sites impaired for aquatic life andrecreation uses. . 122Figure 6-2. Twelve digit HUCs in the 02 watershed and sites impaired for aquatic life andrecreation uses. . 128Figure 6-3. Twelve digit HUCs in the 03 watershed and sites impaired for aquatic life andrecreation uses. . 133Figure 6-4. Twelve digit HUCs in the 04 watershed and sites impaired for aquatic life andrecreation uses. . 140vi
Upper Mahoning River Watershed TMDLsAcronyms and LELLEPFLRAULRWaquatic life useassessment unitagricultural water supplybest management practicesbase neutral and acid extractable compoundsbathing waterconfined animal feeding operationCode of Federal Regulationscubic feet per secondUnited States Army Corps of EngineersConservation Reserve Enhancement Program (USDA program)Conservation Reserve Program (USDA program)combined sewer overflowConservation Security Program (USDA program)Clean Water Actcoldwater habitatdissolved oxygenDivision of Natural Areas and Preserves (part of ODNR)Division of Wildlife (part of ODNR)Division of Surface Water (part of Ohio EPA)Division of Soil and Water Conservation (part of ODNR)Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ecoregion)Environmental Protection Agency, see U.S. EPAEnvironmental Quality Incentive Plan (USDA program)exceptional warmwater habitatfish consumption advisoryfederal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30)Farm Service AgencyFederal Water Pollution Control Actgallons per dayGrassland Reserve Program (USDA program)Huron Erie Lake Plain (ecoregion)hydrologic unithydrologic unit codeinfiltration and inflowIndex of Biotic IntegrityInvertebrate Community IndexIntegrated Reportindustrial water supplykilogramliterload allocationLakewide Management Plan(Ohio) Lake Erie Commissionlowest effect levelLake Erie Protection Fund (LEC program)large river assessment unitlimited resource watervii
Upper Mahoning River Watershed NPSNRCSOACODAODHODNRODOTOEPAOhio pbPSPTIPTOPWSQAQCQHEIRMSCRSDWASELSFYSMPsq milong-term control planmilligrammillion gallons per daymobile home parkModified Index of well beingsquare milesmillilitermonthly operating reportmost probable numbermunicipal separate storm sewer systemmodified warmwater habitatnumber (of data points in a grouping)National Hydrography Datasetnotice of intentNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systemnonpoint sourceNatural Resource Conservation ServiceOhio Administrative CodeOhio Department of AgricultureOhio Department of HealthOhio Department of Natural ResourcesOhio Department of TransportationOhio Environmental Protection AgencyOhio Environmental Protection Agency (preferred nomenclature)Ohio Revised CodeOhio River Valley Water Sanitation Commissionon-site coordinatorOhio State University ExtensionOhio Water Development AuthorityOhio Water Resources Councilpolyaromatic hydrocarbonspolychlorinated biphenylsprimary contact recreationprobable effect concentrationpublic drinking water supplyprobable effect concentrationparts per billionpoint sourcepermit to installpermit to operatepublic water supplyquality assurancequality controlqualitative habitat evaluation indexriver milesecondary contact recreationSafe Drinking Water Actsevere effect levelstate fiscal year (July 1 to June 30)sludge management plansquare milesviii
Upper Mahon
Photo caption: Upper Mahoning River at the Lake Milton spillway in Mahoning County, Ohio Ohio EPA received financial assistance for this work from U.S. EPA and the American Recovery and Reinvestment . assessment units within the 05030103- 01 and 05030103- 02 ten-digit
Choosing the right screw jack, and hence also its proper functioning, mostly depends on the identification of the real load acting on the screw jack. Loads can be divided in two main groups: static loads and dynamic loads; these groups are further made-up of:traction loads,compression loads,lateral loads,radial loads,
wheel loads. Additionally, impact and fatigue loads must be considered in design. It is permitted to account for these additional loads by increasing the vehicle and wheel loads by 30 percent (IBC 1607.7.4.1). Similar to heavy live loads for floors, the live load for heavy vehicles must be posted in accordance with IBC 106.1.
Right-J Worksheet Infiltration Miscellaneous Report Total Building Summary Loads System Summary Loads Building Analysis Component Constructions Project Summary Ventilation Note that type & efficiency does not show up on reports. Miscellaneous Report Total Building Summary Loads System Summary Loads Loads show in: Load Short Form ("Other Equip .
400mg daily w/food With TDF, H2RA or PPI: ATV RTV 300/100mg daily w/food With EFV: ATV RTV: 400/100mg daily w/food Pediatric 6yr: 15-24kg; ATV RTV 150/80mg daily; 25-31kg: 200/100mg daily; 32-38kg 250/100mg daily; 39kg 300/100mg daily w/food 13yr, 39kg and unable to tolerate RTV: ATV 400mg daily w/food Experienced Adult
2.2 Daily Deal Services Many daily deal companies are using Twitter for business. Daily deal sites offer customers daily discounts, called deals, on products or services. The daily deal business model is increasing in popularity, and more than 200 daily deal companies exist in the United States as of December 2010. Groupon and LivingSocial
achieve the bidirectional power flow. Generally, the electrical loads of a ship include both three-phase loads and single-phase loads. If the three-phase loads fail, or the loads on the three single-phase power lines are unequal, the total three-phase load of the power generation system would be unbalanced. The
monitored annual loads of total suspended solids and total nitrogen at all end-of-system sites during the 2012-2013 monitoring year. The combined loads of the Burdekin, Fitzroy and Burnett catchments, accounted for at least 90 per cent of the total suspended solids (8.7 million tonnes) and total phosphorus
Keywords: Tall buildings, seismic loads, wind loads, response spectrum method, gust factor method. Introduction In general, for design of tall buildings both wind as well as earthquake loads need to be considered. Governing criteria for carrying out dynamic analyses for earthquake loads are different from wind loads.
