U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5011

Prepared in cooperation with Stark County and the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses of Selected Streams in 

Stark County, Ohio
Cover. View looking upstream from the U.S. Route 30 and Interstate 77 interchange over West 

Branch Nimishillen Creek in Canton, Ohio. Photograph by U.S. Geological Survey, May 2018.
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses of 

Selected Streams in Stark County, Ohio

By Chad J. Ostheimer and Matthew T. Whitehead

Prepared in cooperation with Stark County and the Muskingum Watershed 

Conservancy District

Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5011

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2020

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit https://store.usgs.gov.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Ostheimer, C.J. and Whitehead, M.T, 2020, Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of selected streams in Stark County, 

Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5011, 15 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205011.

Associated data for this publication:

Ostheimer, C.J., and Whitehead, M.T., 2020, Geospatial datasets and hydraulic models for selected streams in Stark 

County, Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9YQJ8B7.

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Study Area Description........................................................................................................................3

Previous Studies ...................................................................................................................................3

Study Approach..............................................................................................................................................4

Hydrologic Analyses......................................................................................................................................4

Hydraulic Analyses........................................................................................................................................4

Energy-Loss Factors.............................................................................................................................4

Field Surveys..........................................................................................................................................7

Topographic and Bathymetric Data..........................................................................................7

Hydraulic Modeling .....................................................................................................................7

Development of Flood-Inundation Maps ...................................................................................................9

Disclaimer for Flood-Inundation Maps ...........................................................................................10

Uncertainties and Limitations Regarding Use of Flood-Inundation Maps ................................10

Summary........................................................................................................................................................11

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................11

Appendixes 1–4............................................................................................................................................15

Figures

1. Map showing locations of study reaches and U.S. Geological Survey streamgages in 

Stark County, Ohio ........................................................................................................................2

Tables

1. U.S. Geological Survey gaging information for the Nimishillen Creek drainage

area within Stark County, Ohio...................................................................................................3

2. Summary of the explanatory variable values used in the regression equations,

the initial 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent and 1-percent plus annual exceedance

probability flood-peak streamflow estimates, and locations for the selected

streams in Stark County, Ohio.....................................................................................................5

3. Peak-flood streamflow estimates for the 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent annual

exceedance probability floods are reported in Koltun and others (2006), and

weighting ratio is equal to the weighted regression estimate divided by the

regression estimate......................................................................................................................7

4. Basin development factor estimates (as described in Sauer and others, 1983)

used to urbanize the initial peak-flood estimates for Broad-Monter Creek .......................7

5. Summary of the final 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent and 1-percent plus annual

exceedance probability flood-peak streamflow estimates and locations for the

selected streams in Stark County, Ohio....................................................................................8

6. Selected hydraulic properties used in the hydraulic models .............................................10
iv

Conversion Factors

U.S. customary units to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

inch (in) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Datum

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to (1) stage, the height above an arbitrary datum 

established at a streamgage, and (2) elevation, the height above the North American Vertical 

Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Abbreviations

AEP annual exceedance probability

DEM digital elevation model

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIS Flood Insurance Study

HEC–GeoRAS Hydrologic Engineering Center-GeoRiver Analysis System

HEC–RAS Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System

lidar light detection and ranging

NWS National Weather Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses of Selected Streams in 

Stark County, Ohio

By Chad J. Ostheimer and Matthew T. Whitehead

Abstract

To update and expand a part of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency Flood Insurance Study, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, 

and the Stark County Commissioners began a cooperative 

study. The study consisted of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for selected reaches of 14 streams in Stark County, Ohio: 

Broad-Monter Creek, Chatham Ditch, East Branch Nimishillen Creek, Fairhope Ditch, Firestone Ditch, Hayden Ditch, 

Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek, Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek Tributary Number 1, Nimishillen Creek, Reemsnyder Ditch, Sherrick Run, unnamed stream, West Branch 

Nimishillen Creek, and Zimber Ditch. The study totaled nearly 

50 miles of stream reaches.

Instantaneous peak streamflows for floods with 10-, 4-, 

2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent and 1-percent plus annual exceedance 

probabilities were estimated using historical streamflow data 

from the streamgages Nimishillen Creek at North Industry, 

Ohio (U.S. Geological Survey station number 03118500), 

and Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek at Canton, Ohio (U.S. 

Geological Survey station number 03118000), regional flood 

regression equations, and streamflow urbanization techniques.

The annual exceedance probability streamflows were 

then used in a Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis 

System step-backwater model to determine water-surface profiles, flood-inundation boundaries for the 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 

0.2-percent and 1-percent plus annual exceedance probability 

floods, and a regulatory floodway along a selected reach of 

each stream. Model input included DEM-derived cross sections supplemented with field surveys of open channel cross 

sections and hydraulic structures, field estimates of roughness 

values, and annual exceedance probability flood estimates 

from regional regression equations and historical streamflow 

data. Flood-inundation boundaries were mapped for the 1- and 

0.2-percent annual exceedance probability floods and a regulatory floodway for each stream reach.

Introduction

Damaging flooding took place in Stark County, Ohio, 

along numerous streams in 1913, 1935, 1959, 1969, and 

1979. The 1959 flood event in Canton caused more than 

$5 million (in 1959 dollars) in industrial damage and forced 

400 people from their homes (U.S. Geological Survey, 1964). 

During the July 1969 flood, Massillon, Ohio (not shown on 

figure 1, about 4 miles west of Canton, fig. 1), received more 

than 6 inches of rain (U.S. Geological Survey, 1969 and Ohio 

Historical Society, 1969). In 2003, a peak stage of 14.18 feet 

(ft) (table 1) was recorded at the Nimishillen Creek at North 

Industry, Ohio, streamgage (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 

station number 03118500). For reference, major flood stage 

for the North Industry streamgage as designated by the 

National Weather Service (NWS) is 13 ft (National Weather 

Service, 2019).

Before this study, officials and emergency responders 

relied on several information sources to make decisions 

on how to best alert the public and mitigate flood damages. One source of information is the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) 

for Stark County, Ohio, dated February 16, 2012 (Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 2012). A second source 

of information is the USGS National Water Information 

System (table 1) from which current (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2017a, b, c, d, e, f, g) and historical (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017h) stages and streamflows, including 

annual peak streamflows, can be obtained. A third source 

of flood-related information is the NWS Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service, which displays the USGS stage 

data from the Nimishillen Creek at North Industry, Ohio 

streamgage (USGS station number 03118500) and provides 

forecasts of stage for the streamgage (National Weather 

Service, 2019)
2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses of Selected Streams in Stark County, Ohio

03118500

03118299

03118258

03118209

03118000

03118131

03118050

North

Canton

Canton

Meyers

Lake

Hills

and

Dales

East

Canton

Louisville

Zimber

Ditch

Middle Branch

Nimishillen Creek

Tributary Number 1

Hayden

Ditch

West Branch

Nimishillen Creek

Nimishillen

Creek

East Branch

Nimishillen Creek

Broad-Monter

Creek

Middle Branch

Nimishillen Creek Firestone

Ditch

Unnamed

Stream

Fairhope

Ditch

Chatham

Ditch

Reemsnyder Ditch

Sherrick Run

2,275,000 2,300,000 2,325,000

400,000 425,000 450,000

Study area

STARK 

COUNTY

OHIO

EXPLANATION

Municipal boundary

Stark County

Study reach

Stream

Streamgage and U.S. Geological Survey 

station number

03118258

0 1 2 3 MILES

0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, variously scaled, 2007

State Plane Coordinate System (feet), Ohio North

North American Datum of 1983

Figure 1. Locations of study reaches and U.S. Geological Survey streamgages in Stark County, Ohio.
Introduction 3

Table 1. U.S. Geological Survey gaging information for the Nimishillen Creek drainage area within Stark County, Ohio.

[Site locations are shown in figure 1. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ft, foot; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; °, degree; ′, 

minute; ′′, second; mm, month; dd, day; yyyy, year]

Site name

USGS 

station 

number

Drainage area 

(square mile) Latitude Longitude Period of record

Maximum stage 

(elevation), 

date

Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek 

at Canton, Ohio

03118000 43.1 40°50′29′′ 81°21′14′′ 1941–2018 6.78 ft (1,052.90 ft 

NAVD 88), 03/01/11

East Branch Nimishillen Creek at 

Louisville, Ohio

03118050 15.0 40°50′33′′ 81°15′34′′ 2015–2018 13.62 ft (1,105.37 ft 

NAVD 88), 06/16/18

East Branch Nimishillen Creek at 

Trump Ave near Canton, Ohio

03118131 43.0 40°48′43′′ 81°19′23′′ 2015–2018 12.99 ft (1,060.39 ft 

NAVD 88), 01/12/17

West Branch Nimishillen Creek at 

North Canton, Ohio

03118209 15.8 40°52′05′′ 81°23′04′′ 2015–2018 7.27 ft (1,079.24 ft 

NAVD 88), 01/12/17

Zimber Ditch at North Canton, 

Ohio

03118258 11.9 40°52′13′′ 81°24′59′′ 2015–2018 10.25 ft (1,058.10 ft 

NAVD 88), 01/12/17

West Branch Nimishillen Creek 

at Tuscarawas Street at Canton, 

Ohio

03118299 43.5 40°48′03′′ 81°23′27′′ 2015–2018 9.26 ft (1,019.22 ft 

NAVD 88), 06/18/17

Nimishillen Creek at North 

Industry, Ohio

03118500 172 40°44′59′′ 81°22′10′′ 1921–2018 14.18 ft (994.23 ft 

NAVD 88), 07/28/03

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe the methods and 

results of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for 14 stream 

reaches totaling 49.7 miles in Stark County, Ohio (fig. 1). 

The analyses include (1) estimates of flood-peak streamflows 

corresponding to floods with annual exceedance probabilities 

(AEPs) of 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent and 1-percent plus; 

and (2) determination of water-surface profiles and flood plain 

boundaries associated with the AEPs and a regulatory floodway. The probability of an occurrence is expressed as a percentage. An AEP is always a fraction of one. So, a 0.2-percent 

AEP flood has a 20-percent chance of occurring in any given 

year, and corresponds to a 5-year recurrence-interval flood. 

The 1-percent plus flood elevation is defined by FEMA as 

a flood elevation derived by using streamflows that include the 

average predictive error for the regression equation streamflow 

calculation for the Flood Risk project (Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 2019a). This error is then added to the 

1-percent AEP flood streamflow to calculate the new 1-percent 

plus streamflow. A “regulatory floodway” means the channel 

of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that 

must be reserved to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water-surface elevation more than a 

designated height (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

2019b).

Study Area Description

Stark County is in northeast Ohio (fig. 1) with an estimated population of about 375,300 (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2010). The average annual precipitation is between 35 and 

39 inches (1931 to 1980) in the county (Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, 2019), and approximately 30.6 percent of 

the area is covered by forest (U.S. Geological Survey, 2014). 

The streams evaluated in this study are within the Nimishillen Creek drainage area draining mainly to the west and 

south. Two of the largest streams, East Branch Nimishillen 

Creek and Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek, join on the east 

side of Canton to form Nimishillen Creek (fig. 1). Farther 

downstream, on the southwest side of Canton, the other 

major stream, West Branch Nimishillen Creek, is tributary to 

Nimishillen Creek. The upper drainage areas of Nimishillen 

Creek are predominantly rural in the east and south, with the 

lower drainage areas quickly becoming urban in the Canton 

metropolitan area.

Previous Studies

The effective FEMA FIS for Stark County (Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 2012) was published on 

February 16, 2012. The detailed hydrologic and hydraulic 
4 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses of Selected Streams in Stark County, Ohio

analyses in the 2012 FIS that pertain to the 14 stream reaches 

in this study effort were completed at various times from 

1977 to 1993, with the most being completed in 1981. Of 

the 14 reaches in this study, all but 2 streams (East Branch 

Nimishillen Creek and West Branch Nimishillen Creek) were 

remapped in 2011; however, the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were not updated. Parts of the East and West 

Branches of Nimishillen Creek had detailed restudies completed by the USGS in 2005 (Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 2012).

Study Approach

Tasks specific to development of the flood maps were 

(1) estimation of peak-flood streamflows using regional 

regression equations and streamgage data where available, 

(2) collection of topographic and bathymetric data for selected 

cross sections and geometric data for structures and bridges 

along the study reaches, (3) estimation of energy-loss factors 

(roughness coefficients) in the stream channel and flood plain, 

(4) computation of water-surface profiles (including a regulatory floodway) by using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 

Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC–

RAS) computer program (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

2010), and (5) production of flood-inundation maps at various 

stream stages by using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 

Hydrologic Engineering Center GeoRiver Analysis System 

(HEC–GeoRAS) computer program (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2009) and geographic information systems.

Hydrologic Analyses

Regional regression equations were used to estimate 

the 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent and 1-percent plus AEP 

flood-peak streamflows for selected locations (generally at 

stream confluences or at easily identifiable points [such as a 

road crossing] along stream reaches with gradually increasing drainage area) on all stream reaches using the Ohio 

StreamStats application. The StreamStats application (Koltun 

and others, 2006) solves regional regression equations that 

use (1) drainage area, (2) main channel slope (determined 

by the 10–85 method, SL10–85), and (3) storage (percentage of drainage classified as water and wetlands area) as 

explanatory variables. The explanatory variables are computed 

within StreamStats based on geospatial datasets. StreamStats 

estimates are based on the assumption that the basin is not 

appreciably regulated and is without significant urbanization 

(Koltun and others, 2006). The resulting flood-peak streamflow estimates are listed in table 2.

Of the seven USGS streamgages on reaches in the 

study area (table 1), only two (Nimishillen Creek at North 

Industry, Ohio [03118500], and Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek at Canton, Ohio [03118000], established in 1921 

and 1941, respectively) have been established long enough 

to provide an adequate length of streamflow data (generally 

10 years) to estimate flood-peak streamflows (Interagency 

Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982). The streamgages 

East Branch Nimishillen Creek at Trump Avenue near Canton, Ohio (03118131), and West Branch Nimishillen Creek at 

Tuscarawas Street at Canton, Ohio (03118299), were established in 2015. Only stage is collected at the three remaining 

streamgages (streamflow is not computed).

The initial AEP flood-peak streamflows for Nimishillen Creek and Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek were then 

adjusted using a gage weighting ratio technique (Koltun and 

others, 2006). For the “1-percent plus” flood, the ratio was 

assumed to be the same as the 1-percent AEP flood. The gage 

weighting data used to adjust the initial regression estimates 

are given in table 3.

The 2012 FIS (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

2012) reported urbanized peak-flood estimates for BroadMonter Creek. This restudy also employed the use of the same 

urbanization techniques. The regression estimates for BroadMonter Creek were urbanized using techniques outlined in 

Sauer and others (1983). The urbanization data used to adjust 

the initial regression estimates are given in table 4. Final peakflood estimates for all streams are given in table 5.

Hydraulic Analyses

The water-surface profiles used to develop the flood-inundation maps for this study were computed using HEC–RAS, 

version 4.1.0 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). HEC–

RAS is a one-dimensional step-backwater model for determining water-surface profiles under steady-state or unsteady flow 

conditions. All water-surface profiles developed for this report 

were run within HEC–RAS using the steady-state flow condition. Steady-state flow data consisted of flow regime, boundary conditions, and streamflow estimates. Subcritical flow 

regime was assumed for all simulations based on hydrologic 

judgment.

Energy-Loss Factors

Hydraulic analyses require the estimation of energy 

losses exerted by a channel on flow. These energy losses are 

quantified by the Manning’s roughness coefficient (“n” value). 

The n values were selected on the basis of field observations and high-resolution aerial photographs. For the study 

reaches, the n values ranged from 0.030 to 0.050 (sand/cobble 

to riprap/debris piles) for the main channel and from 0.040 to 

0.150 (grass/shrub to heavily wooded) for the overbank areas 

(table 6).
Hydraulic Analyses 5

Table 2. Summary of the explanatory variable values used in the regression equations, the initial 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent and 

1-percent plus annual exceedance probability flood-peak streamflow estimates, and locations for the selected streams in Stark County, 

Ohio.

[Dark gray shaded values indicate data from the 2012 effective Flood Insurance Study (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2012); light gray values 

indicate data calculated for this study effort not included in the 2012 effective Flood Insurance Study; bold values indicate the locations of U.S. Geological 

Survey streamgages. ft3/s, cubic foot per second; %, percent; °, degree; ′, minute; ′′, second; US, upstream; SW, southwest; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; DS, 

downstream; NW, northwest]

Location description Latitude Longitude

Drainage area 

(square 

mile)

Main 

channel 

slope1

(foot per 

mile)

Storage 

(water or 

wetlands 

area), 

percent

Annual exceedance probability flood-peak streamflows2

 (ft3/s)

10% 4% 2% 1% 0.2% 1% 

plus3

Broad-Monter Creek

At Broad Street 40°50′05′′ 81°14′46′′ 1.09 47.1 1.69 158 200 230 259 324 357

At abandoned railroad 40°49′46′′ 81°15′32′′ 1.65 45.4 1.16 227 289 332 375 471 518

At mouth 40°49′39′′ 81°16′09′′ 2.20 43.5 0.96 288 365 420 475 597 656

Chatham Ditch

At mouth 40°52′42′′ 81°22′47′′ 1.15 19.6 1.69 139 173 197 220 271 304

East Branch Nimishillen Creek

At Nickel Plate Street 40°50′42′′ 81°14′50′′ 9.29 20.4 0.57 788 985 1,130 1,270 1,570 1,750

US from tributary 2 40°50′37′′ 81°15′17′′ 9.40 26.5 0.55 838 1,050 1,200 1,350 1,680 1,850

US from North Chapel 

Creek

40°50′28′′ 81°15′42′′ 15.0 24.9 0.65 1,160 1,450 1,650 1,850 2,300 2,540

US from Broad-Monter 

Creek

40°49′39′′ 81°16′10′′ 19.3 23.4 0.66 1,380 1,720 1,960 2,200 2,720 3,020

US from unnamed 

tributary

40°49′16′′ 81°16′42′′ 21.9 21.2 0.73 1,480 1,830 2,080 2,340 2,880 3,200

At SW Louisville corporate limit40°49′25′′ 81°17′21′′ 32.6 18.7 0.87 1,900 2,350 2,660 2,980 3,660 4,090

At Trump Avenue 40°48′42′′ 81°19′24′′ 42.7 12.5 0.96 2,170 2,660 3,010 3,360 4,110 4,640

US from Middle Branch 40°48′26′′ 81°21′13′′ 46.5 12.4 1.09 2,270 2,780 3,140 3,510 4,280 4,840

Fairhope Ditch

At State Route 62 40°50′37′′ 81°18′07′′ 1.99 56.0 0.30 310 399 463 527 670 727

At mouth 40°49′11′′ 81°18′40′′ 3.90 28.9 0.97 411 516 591 665 829 918

Firestone Ditch

At mouth 40°52′38′′ 81°19′37′′ 2.58 25.6 2.54 253 314 356 398 489 549

Hayden Ditch

At mouth 40°46′19′′ 81°20′23′′ 2.42 24.8 1.56 260 324 370 414 512 571

Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek

US from Firestone Ditch 40°52′39′′ 81°19′36′′ 28.5 3.75 4.54 973 1,140 1,260 1,380 1,610 1,900

At 55th Street 40°51′32′′ 81°19′38′′ 37.1 4.45 3.98 1,260 1,490 1,650 1,800 2,130 2,480

At USGS streamgage 

(03118000)

40°50′30′′ 81°21′13′′ 43.3 4.79 4.17 1,430 1,680 1,860 2,040 2,410 2,820

US from East Branch 

Nimishillen Creek

40°48′27′′ 81°21′13′′ 46.6 5.76 3.97 1,580 1,870 2,080 2,280 2,700 3,150

Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek Tributary Number 1

At mouth 40°50′36′′ 81°21′09′′ 3.25 28.9 1.87 325 406 463 519 641 716
6 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses of Selected Streams in Stark County, Ohio

Table 2. Summary of the explanatory variable values used in the regression equations, the initial 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent and 

1-percent plus1 annual exceedance probability flood-peak streamflow estimates, and locations for the selected streams in Stark County, 

Ohio.—Continued

[Dark gray shaded values indicate data from the 2012 effective Flood Insurance Study (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2012); light gray values 

indicate data calculated for this study effort not included in the 2012 effective Flood Insurance Study; bold values indicate the locations of U.S. Geological 

Survey streamgages. ft3/s, cubic foot per second; %, percent; °, degree; ′, minute; ′′, second; US, upstream; SW, southwest; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; DS, 

downstream; NW, northwest]

Location description Latitude Longitude

Drainage area 

(square 

mile)

Main 

channel 

slope1

(foot per 

mile)

Storage 

(water or 

wetlands 

area), 

percent

Annual exceedance probability flood-peak streamflows2

 (ft3/s)

10% 4% 2% 1% 0.2% 1% 

plus3

Nimishillen Creek

US from West Branch 

Nimishillen Creek

40°46′45′′ 81°23′08′′ 97.9 5.57 2.46 3,020 3,600 4,010 4,410 5,250 6,090

US from Hurford Run 40°46′29′′ 81°23′11′′ 145 5.50 2.64 4,020 4,770 5,300 5,830 6,930 8,050

US from Sherrick Run 40°46′10′′ 81°22′51′′ 157 5.53 2.57 4,290 5,100 5,670 6,240 7,420 8,610

At USGS streamgage 

(03118500)

40°45′00′′ 81°22′12′′ 172 6.16 2.56 4,700 5,590 6,230 6,860 8,170 9,470

350 feet DS from CSX 

railroad

40°44′03′′ 81°21′10′′ 175 6.71 2.56 4,840 5,770 6,430 7,090 8,460 9,780

Reemsnyder Ditch

DS from Whipple Avenue 

NW

40°50′53′′ 81°25′19′′ 3.34 10.6 4.15 237 286 320 353 424 487

At mouth 40°50′33′′ 81°24′43′′ 3.69 9.62 4.41 247 298 333 367 439 506

Sherrick Run

US from Hayden Run 40°46′19′′ 81°20′23′′ 4.61 42.7 2.51 435 544 621 697 865 962

US from east tributary 

(DS from State Route 

43)

40°46′33′′ 81°20′52′′ 7.21 32.2 2.23 591 735 837 939 1,160 1,300

US from north tributary 

(US from Warner 

Road)

40°47′01′′ 81°21′32′′ 8.66 23.9 2.46 631 779 883 986 1,210 1,360

At mouth 40°46′10′′ 81°22′51′′ 10.4 16.8 2.44 679 832 939 1,050 1,270 1,450

Unnamed stream

At mouth 40°50′38′′ 81°15′17′′ 5.29 31.6 0.82 538 677 777 876 1,090 1,210

West Branch Nimishillen Creek

US from State Route 62 40°49′45′′ 81°23′45′′ 38.6 12.2 2.65 1,710 2,070 2,320 2,570 3,110 3,550

At mouth 40°46′45′′ 81°23′09′′ 46.6 10.9 2.99 1,880 2,270 2,550 2,820 3,390 3,890

Zimber Ditch

At Mount Pleasant Street 40°54′23′′ 81°25′30′′ 5.46 36.0 3.51 449 557 632 707 871 976

At Portage Street 40°52′54′′ 81°25′30′′ 7.63 23.9 2.76 561 692 783 874 1,070 1,210

At Whipple Avenue 40°52′26′′ 81°25′19′′ 10.3 21.8 3.03 680 835 945 1,050 1,280 1,450

At mouth 40°46′45′′ 81°23′09′′ 12.3 18.3 2.60 775 950 1,070 1,190 1,460 1,640

1

The main channel slope is determined by the new channel slope characteristic (SL10–85) (Koltun and others, 2006).

2

Annual exceedance probability flood-peak streamflows were determined using StreamStats web application for Ohio that solves regional regression equations 

(Koltun and others, 2006).

3

The 1-percent plus flood elevation is defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (2019a) as a flood elevation derived by using streamflows that 

include the average predictive error for the regression equation streamflow calculation for the Flood Risk project. This error is then added to the 1-percent annual 

exceedance probability flood streamflow to calculate the new 1-percent plus streamflow. In this study, the average predictive error for the 1-percent annual 

exceedance probability flood is 38 percent. Therefore, the 1-percent plus annual exceedance probability flood streamflows were calculated to be 138 percent of 

the 1-percent annual exceedance probability flood streamflows.
Hydraulic Analyses 7

Table 3. Peak-flood streamflow estimates for the 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent annual exceedance probability 

floods are reported in Koltun and others (2006), and weighting ratio is equal to the weighted regression estimate 

divided by the regression estimate.

[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; %, percent]

Site name and 

U.S. Geological Survey 

station number

Annual exceedance probability flood-peak

streamflows (ft3/s) Estimate type

10% 4% 2% 1% 0.2%

Middle Branch Nimishilen 

Creek at Canton, Ohio 

(03118000)

1,170 1,500 1,780 2,080 2,890 Log Pearson Type III

1,420 1,670 1,850 2,020 2,390 Regression

1,180 1,510 1,780 2,070 2,840 Weighted

0.831 0.904 0.962 1.025 1.188 Weighting ratio

Nimishillen Creek at North 

Industry, Ohio (03118500)

5,260 6,330 7,130 7,930 9,820 Log Pearson Type III

4,830 5,770 6,430 7,070 8,470 Regression

5,240 6,300 7,080 7,870 9,720 Weighted

1.085 1.085 1.092 1.113 1.148 Weighting ratio

Field Surveys

The USGS used the differential global positioning system 

and differential-leveling surveys (hereafter referred to as 

conventional surveys) for this study. The differential global 

positioning system surveys established a control network at 

pertinent locations along each of the streams studied. Conventional surveys were done to obtain stream and hydraulic-structure geometry. All conventional survey data met third-order 

accuracy (horizontal and vertical) criteria (Federal Geodetic 

Control Committee, 1984). Differential global positioning system surveys were completed using USGS real-time network 

surveying techniques (Rydlund and Densmore, 2012). Elevations determined by using a differential global positioning system at 10 benchmark locations had a root-mean-square error 

of 0.05 ft compared with National Geodetic Survey published 

elevations.

The USGS field crews surveyed a total of 640 channel cross sections (table 6) and 154 hydraulic structures. The 

cross sections were surveyed to provide ground elevations 

below stream water surfaces that cannot be provided by light 

detection and ranging (lidar). The structures were surveyed for 

geometrical data that have the potential to affect water-surface 

elevations during floods along the streams.

Table 4. Basin development factor estimates (as described 

in Sauer and others, 1983) used to urbanize the initial peakflood estimates for Broad-Monter Creek.

Location description Basin development factor

At Broad Street 6

At abandoned railroad 6

At mouth 3

Topographic and Bathymetric Data

Cross-section elevation data were obtained from a digital 

elevation model (DEM) that was provided by Stark County, 

Ohio. The DEM was derived from lidar data collected during March 2004. The lidar data have a horizontal resolution 

that meets National Map Accuracy Standards and a vertical 

accuracy of plus or minus 1.0 ft at a 95-percent confidence 

level for the “open terrain” land-cover category (root-meansquare error of 0.5 ft) (Federal Geographic Data Committee, 

1998). By this criterion, the lidar data support production of 

2-ft contours (Dewberry, 2012); the final DEM has a vertical 

accuracy of 1.0 ft.

Using HEC–GeoRAS, elevation data were extracted from 

the DEM for a total of 1,415 cross sections (table 6) for use 

in the HEC–RAS models. For all modeled stream reaches, 

the maximum distance between cross sections (surveyed and 

geographic information systems derived) was limited to 500 ft 

and was, on average, 169 ft. DEM-derived cross sections were 

collocated with the locations of the in-channel field-surveyed 

cross sections where available. In those cases, in-channel data 

were directly merged with the DEM data. The bathymetry for 

the DEM-derived cross sections that did not have surveyed inchannel cross sections was estimated by interpolating between 

the closest field-surveyed cross sections.

Hydraulic Modeling

The hydraulic baselines for all modeled stream reaches 

were referenced to feet upstream from their respective mouths 

(table 6). The downstream boundary conditions for all modeled stream reaches were set to be normal depth and were 

calculated from field-surveyed streambed slope near their 

corresponding downstream limits. Normal depth is defined as 

the depth of uniform flow. Flow is considered uniform if the 

energy line, water surface, and channel bottom all are parallel 
8 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses of Selected Streams in Stark County, Ohio

Table 5. Summary of the final 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent and 1-percent plus annual exceedance 

probability flood-peak streamflow estimates and locations for the selected streams in Stark County, 

Ohio.

[Dark gray shaded values indicate data from the 2012 effective Flood Insurance Study; light gray values indicate data 

calculated for this study effort not included in the 2012 effective Flood Insurance Study (Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 2012; bold values indicate the locations of U.S. Geological Survey streamgages. ft3/s, cubic foot per second; %, 

percent; US, upstream; SW, southwest; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; DS, downstream; NW, northwest]

Location 

description

Annual exceedance probability flood-peak streamflows1

(ft3/s)

10% 4% 2% 1% 0.2% 1-% 

plus2

Broad-Monter Creek

At Broad Street 230 279 319 356 434 463

At abandoned railroad 372 449 512 575 702 749

At mouth 470 565 647 728 893 949

Chatham Ditch

At mouth 139 173 197 220 271 304

East Branch Nimishillen Creek

At Nickel Plate Street 788 985 1,130 1,270 1,570 1,750

US from tributary 2 838 1,050 1,200 1,350 1,680 1,850

US from North Chapel Creek 1,160 1,450 1,650 1,850 2,300 2,540

US from Broad-Monter Creek 1,380 1,720 1,960 2,200 2,720 3,020

US from unnamed tributary 1,480 1,830 2,080 2,340 2,880 3,200

At SW Louisville corporate limit 1,900 2,350 2,660 2,980 3,660 4,090

At Trump Avenue 2,170 2,660 3,010 3,360 4,110 4,640

US from Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek 2,270 2,780 3,140 3,510 4,280 4,840

Fairhope Ditch

At State Route 62 310 399 463 527 670 727

At mouth 411 516 591 665 829 918

Firestone Ditch

At mouth 253 314 356 398 489 549

Hayden Ditch

At mouth 260 324 370 414 512 571

Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek

US from Firestone Ditch 921 1,110 1,240 1,390 1,710 1,920

At 55th street 1,110 1,390 1,610 1,830 2,420 2,530

At USGS streamgage (03118000) 1,190 1,520 1,790 2,090 2,860 2,880

US from East Branch Nimishillen Creek 1,350 1,720 2,010 2,330 3,130 3,210

Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek Tributary Number 1

At mouth 325 406 463 519 641 716

Nimishillen Creek

US from West Branch Nimishillen Creek 3,060 3,640 4,060 4,480 5,360 6,180

US from Hurford Run 4,250 5,050 5,630 6,280 7,630 8,670

US from Sherrick Run 4,590 5,460 6,100 6,820 8,320 9,420

At USGS streamgage (03118500) 5,100 6,060 6,800 7,640 9,380 10,500

350 feet DS from CSX railroad 5,250 6,260 7,020 7,890 9,710 10,900
Development of Flood-Inundation Maps 9

Table 5. Summary of the final 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent and 1-percent plus annual exceedance 

probability flood-peak streamflow estimates and locations for the selected streams in Stark County, 

Ohio.—Continued

[Dark gray shaded values indicate data from the 2012 effective Flood Insurance Study; light gray values indicate data 

calculated for this study effort not included in the 2012 effective Flood Insurance Study (Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, 2012; bold values indicate the locations of U.S. Geological Survey streamgages. ft3/s, cubic foot per second; %, 

percent; US, upstream; SW, southwest; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; DS, downstream; NW, northwest]

Location 

description

Annual exceedance probability flood-peak streamflows1

(ft3/s)

10% 4% 2% 1% 0.2% 1-% 

plus2

Reemsnyder Ditch

DS from Whipple Avenue NW 237 286 320 353 424 487

At mouth 247 298 333 367 439 506

Sherrick Run

US from Hayden Run 435 544 621 697 865 962

US from east tributary (DS from SR43) 591 735 837 939 1,160 1,300

US from north tributary (US from Warner 

Road)

631 779 883 986 1,210 1,360

At mouth 679 832 939 1,050 1,270 1,450

Unnamed stream

At mouth 538 677 777 876 1,090 1,210

West Branch Nimishillen Creek

US from State Route 62 1,710 2,070 2,320 2,570 3,110 3,550

At mouth 1,880 2,270 2,550 2,820 3,390 3,890

Zimber Ditch

At Mount Pleasant Street 449 557 632 707 871 976

At Portage Street 561 692 783 874 1,070 1,210

At Whipple Avenue 680 835 945 1,050 1,280 1,450

At Mouth 775 950 1,070 1,190 1,460 1,640

1

Annual exceedance probability flood-peak streamflows were determined using StreamStats web application for Ohio 

that solves regional regression equations (Koltun and others, 2006).

2

The 1-percent plus flood elevation is defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (2019a) as a flood elevation derived by using streamflows that include the average predictive error for the regression equation streamflow calculation for the Flood Risk project. This error is then added to the 1-percent annual exceedance probability flood streamflow to 

calculate the new 1-percent plus streamflow. In this study, the average predictive error for the 1-percent annual exceedance 

probability flood is 38 percent. Therefore, the 1-percent plus annual exceedance probability flood streamflows were calculated to be 138 percent of the 1-percent annual exceedance probability flood streamflows.

(Chow, 1959). The HEC–RAS models were used to generate seven water-surface profiles corresponding to the 10-, 4-, 

2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent and 1-percent plus AEP floods, and a 

regulatory floodway.

As required by FEMA for a FIS, a Technical Support 

Data Notebook and floodway data tables were prepared and 

are given in appendix 1 and 2, respectively. Water-surface 

profiles for each stream were also prepared and are given 

in appendix 3. The profiles are also in tabular format in an 

accompanying data release (Ostheimer and Whitehead, 2020). 

These profiles show computed water-surface elevations as a 

function of distance from a reference location. Also depicted 

on the profile plots are the minimum channel elevations at 

each cross section and the hydraulic structures. All elevations 

in the profile plots are referenced to the North American 

Vertical Datum of 1988. The model archive for the hydraulic 

models used in this study also is included in the accompanying 

data release (Ostheimer and Whitehead, 2020).

Development of Flood-Inundation Maps

As required by FEMA for a FIS, flood-inundation maps 

were created in a geographic information system for three 

water-surface profiles (1- and 0.2-percent AEP floods and a 

regulatory floodway) by combining flood-profile data with the 

DEM provided by Stark County (Ostheimer and Whitehead, 
10 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses of Selected Streams in Stark County, Ohio

Table 6. Selected hydraulic properties used in the hydraulic models.

[DEM, digital elevation model; ft/ft, foot per foot]

Stream name

Baseline 

reference 

location1

Study 

reach 

length 

(mile)

Number 

of 

surveyed 

cross 

sections

Number 

of cross 

sections 

derived 

from DEM

Number 

of 

hydraulic 

structures

Slope used 

for normal 

depth2

calculation 

(ft/ft)

Manning’s roughness coefficient (n)

Main

channel Overbanks

Lowest

value

Highest 

value

Lowest

value

Highest

value

Broad-Monter Creek Mouth 2.1 50 99 12 0.0044 0.030 0.050 0.044 0.056

Chatham Ditch Mouth 1.0 10 35 2 0.0050 0.040 0.042 0.050 0.050

East Branch Nimishillen 

Creek Mouth 9.0 89 214 23 0.0021 0.038 0.050 0.040 0.150

Fairhope Ditch Mouth 2.9 47 86 11 0.0026 0.040 0.042 0.050 0.054

Firestone Ditch Mouth 1.3 35 52 7 0.0024 0.042 0.042 0.050 0.050

Hayden Ditch Mouth 0.6 10 21 2 0.0014 0.040 0.040 0.050 0.050

Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek Mouth 9.5 81 211 20 0.0016 0.038 0.044 0.046 0.056

Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek Tributary 

Number 1

Mouth 0.7 6 21 1 0.0034 0.042 0.048 0.052 0.068

Nimishillen Creek Mouth 6.9 93 172 23 0.0015 0.034 0.040 0.046 0.050

Reemsnyder Ditch Mouth 0.9 11 34 2 0.0063 0.040 0.042 0.060 0.068

Sherrick Run Mouth 3.9 42 115 10 0.0051 0.040 0.042 0.050 0.050

Unnamed stream Mouth 2.2 30 81 7 0.0037 0.040 0.044 0.042 0.068

West Branch Nimishillen 

Creek Mouth 4.5 94 168 24 0.0016 0.038 0.046 0.040 0.064

Zimber Ditch Mouth 4.2 42 110 10 0.0012 0.040 0.044 0.050 0.054

1

Location from which the river stationing is measured upstream, in feet.

2

Normal depth is the depth of uniform flow. Flow is considered uniform if the energy line, water surface, and channel bottom all are parallel (Chow, 1959).

2020). Initial flood-inundation boundaries were developed for 

each profile using HEC–GeoRAS software (U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, 2009). HEC–GeoRAS is a set of procedures, 

tools, and utilities for processing geospatial data in ArcGIS. 

The hydraulic model was calibrated to 16 flood events. Floodinundation boundaries and depth grids for the inundated areas 

were modified in ArcMap (Environmental Systems Research 

Institute, 2019), as required by FEMA, to ensure hydraulically 

reasonable transitions of the flood boundaries between modeled cross sections.

Any inundated areas that were disconnected from the 

main channel were examined to identify artificial connections 

with the main river, such as through culverts under roadways. 

Where such connections existed, the mapped inundated areas 

were retained in their respective flood maps; otherwise, the 

disconnected inundated areas were deleted. The flood-inundation areas were overlain on high-resolution georeferenced 

aerial photographs of the study area. The flood-inundation 

maps are in appendix 4.

Disclaimer for Flood-Inundation Maps

The flood-inundation maps should not be used for navigation, regulatory, permitting, or other legal purposes. The 

USGS provides these maps “as is” for a quick reference, emergency planning tool but assumes no legal liability or responsibility resulting from the use of this information.

Uncertainties and Limitations Regarding Use of 

Flood-Inundation Maps

Although the flood-inundation maps represent the boundaries of inundated areas with a distinct line, some uncertainty 

is associated with these maps. The flood boundaries shown 

were estimated on the basis of water stages and streamflows 

at selected USGS streamgages. Water-surface elevations 

along the stream reaches were estimated by steady-state 

hydraulic modeling, assuming unobstructed flow, and using 
References Cited 11

streamflows and hydrologic conditions anticipated at the 

USGS streamgage. The hydraulic model reflects the landcover characteristics and any bridge, dam, levee, or other 

hydraulic structures existing as of January 2019. Unique 

meteorological factors (timing and distribution of precipitation) may cause actual streamflows along the modeled reach 

to vary from those assumed during a flood, which may lead 

to deviations in the water-surface elevations and inundation 

boundaries shown. Additional areas may be flooded because 

of unanticipated conditions such as changes in the streambed 

elevation or roughness, backwater into major tributaries along 

a main stem river, or backwater from localized debris or ice 

jams. The accuracy of the floodwater extent portrayed on these 

maps will vary with the accuracy of the DEM used to simulate 

the land surface.

If this series of flood-inundation maps will be used in 

conjunction with NWS river forecasts, the user should be 

aware of additional uncertainties that may be inherent or factored into NWS forecast procedures. The NWS uses forecast 

models to estimate the quantity and timing of water flowing 

through selected stream reaches in the United States. These 

forecast models (1) estimate the amount of runoff generated 

by precipitation and snowmelt, (2) simulate the movement 

of floodwater as it proceeds downstream, and (3) predict the 

flow and stage (and water-surface elevation) for the stream 

at a given location (Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service 

forecast point) throughout the forecast period (every 6 hours 

and 3–5 days out in many locations). For more information on 

Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service forecasts, please see 

https://water.weather.gov/ahps/pcpn_and_river_forecasting.

pdf. Additional uncertainties and limitations pertinent to this 

study are described elsewhere in this report.

Summary

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the 

Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District and the Stark 

County Commissioners, updated and expanded a part of the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance 

Study for Stark County, Ohio. The study consisted of a total of 

49.7 miles and 14 stream reaches in the Nimishillen drainage area: Broad-Monter Creek, Chatham Ditch, East Branch 

Nimishillen Creek, Fairhope Ditch, Firestone Ditch, Hayden 

Ditch, Middle Branch Nimishillen Creek, Middle Branch 

Nimishillen Creek Tributary Number 1, Nimishillen Creek, 

Reemsnyder Ditch, Sherrick Run, unnamed stream, West 

Branch Nimishillen Creek, and Zimber Ditch. Water-surface 

profiles were developed for the 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent 

and 1-percent plus annual exceedance probability floods and 

a regulatory floodway. Mapping for each stream was developed for the 1- and 0.2-percent annual exceedance probability 

floods and a regulatory floodway.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System program was used 

to compute water-surface profiles and delineate estimated 

flood-inundation area boundaries. Model input included 

DEM-derived cross sections supplemented with field surveys 

of open channel cross sections and hydraulic structures, field 

estimates of roughness values, and annual exceedance probability flood estimates from regional regression equations and 

historical streamflow data. The flood-inundation areas were 

overlain on high-resolution, georeferenced aerial photographs 

of the study area. The water-surface profiles can help emergency planners and the public make more informed decisions 

about flood risk.

References Cited

Chow, V.T., 1959, Open channel hydraulics: New York, 

McGraw Hill, 680 p.

Dewberry, 2012, National Enhanced Elevation Assessment: 

Fairfax, Va., Dewberry, 84 p., accessed February 14, 2019, 

at http://www.dewberry.com/services/geospatial/nationalenhanced-elevation-assessment.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2019, About 

ArcGIS—The mapping and analytics platform: Esri web 

page, accessed February 14, 2019, at https://www.esri.com/

en-us/arcgis/about-arcgis/overview.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2012, Flood 

Insurance Study, Stark County, Ohio, and incorporated 

areas: Washington, D.C., Flood Insurance Study Number 

39151CV001B, 98 p., accessed February 14, 2019, at 

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch#searchresultsa

nchor.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2019a, Guidance 

for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping: Washington, D.C., 

20 p., accessed February 14, 2019, at https://www.fema.

gov/media-library-data/1556727028010-090889650cfe5ad

6845c3f2f39863053/General_Hydrologic_Considerations_

Guidance_Feb_2019.pdf.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2019b, Floodway: 

Federal Emergency Management Agency web page, 

accessed February 14, 2019, at https://www.fema.gov/

floodway.

Federal Geodetic Control Committee, 1984, Standards and 

specifications for geodetic control networks: Rockville, 

Md., Federal Geodetic Control Committee, accessed 

February 14, 2019, at https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/FGCS/

tech_pub/1984-stds-specs-geodetic-control-networks.pdf.
12 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses of Selected Streams in Stark County, Ohio

Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1998, Geospatial 

positioning accuracy standards part 3—Nation standard for 

spatial data accuracy: Reston, Va., U.S. Geological Survey, 

FGDC–STD–007.3–1998, accessed February 14, 2019, at 

https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standardsprojects/accuracy/part3/chapter3/.

Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982, 

Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency: Reston, 

Va., U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin 17B of the Hydrology 

Subcommittee, Office of Water Data Coordination, 183 p.

Koltun, G.F., Kula, S.P., and Puskas, B.M., 2006, A 

streamflow statistics (StreamStats) web application for 

Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2006–5312, 62 p., accessed February 14, 2019, at 

https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20065312.

National Weather Service, 2019, Nimishillen Creek at 

North Industry: National Weather Service—Advanced 

Hydrologic Prediction Service web page, accessed February 

14, 2019, at https://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.

php?wfo=cle&gage=nhso1.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2019, Precipitation 

in Ohio: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division 

of Water, Fact Sheet 92–11, accessed February 14, 2019, at 

https://water.ohiodnr.gov/portals/soilwater/pdf/inventory/

fctsht11.pdf.

Ohio Historical Society, 1969, July 4, 1969—Independence 

Day Flood: accessed February 14, 2019, at http://ohsweb.

ohiohistory.org/swio/pages/albums/1969_flood/1969_flood_

albumPage06.html.

Ostheimer, C.J., and Whitehead, M.T., 2020, Geospatial 

datasets and hydraulic models for selected streams in Stark 

County, Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://

doi.org/10.5066/P9YQJ8B7.

Rydlund, P.H., Jr.; and Densmore, B.K., 2012, Methods 

of practice and guidelines for using survey-grade 

global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) to establish 

vertical datum in the United States Geological Survey: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 11, 

chap. D1, 102 p. with appendixes.

Sauer, V.B.; Thomas, W.O., Jr.; Stricker, V.A.; and Wilson, 

K.V., 1983, Flood characteristics of urban watersheds in 

the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2207, 63 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009, HEC–GeoRAS—GIS 

tools for support of HEC–RAS using ArcGIS—User’s 

manual, version 4.2: Davis, Calif., U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic 

Engineering Center [variously paged], accessed February 

14, 2019, at https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hecgeoras/documentation/HEC-GeoRAS42_UsersManual.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010, HEC–RAS—River 

analysis system—Hydraulic reference manual, version 

4.1: Davis, Calif., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute 

for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 

[variously paged], accessed February 14, 2019, at https://

www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/

stelprdb1042486.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, Profile of general population and 

housing characteristics—2010—2010 demographic profile 

data: United States Census Bureau web page, accessed 

February 14, 2019, at https://data.census.gov/cedsci/

all?q=population%20estimates%20stark%20county%20

ohio%202010&g=0500000US39151&hidePreview=false

&table=DP05&tid=ACSDP1Y2010.DP05&t=Counts,%20

Estimates,%20and%20Projections&y2010&vinage=2010&

cid=DP05_0001E&layer=county&lastDisplayedRow=17.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1964, Summary of floods in the 

United States during 1959: U.S. Geological Survey 

web page, accessed February 14, 2019, at https://doi.

org/10.3133/wsp1750B.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1969, Floods of July 4–8, 1969, in 

north-central Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey web page, 

accessed February 14, 2019, at https://doi.org/10.3133/

ofr72252.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2014, NLCD 2011 Land cover 

(2011 edition, amended 2014)—National Geospatial 

Data Asset (NGDA) land use land cover: Sioux Fall, 

S. Dak., U.S. Geological Survey metadata, accessed 

November 18, 2019, at https://www.mrlc.gov/

data?f%5B0%5D=category%3Aland%20cover&f%5B1%5

D=region%3Aconus&f%5B2%5D=year%3A2011.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017a, USGS 03118000 Middle 

Branch Nimishillen Creek at Canton OH, in USGS water 

data for the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Information System database, accessed February 14, 2019, 

at http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN. [Site information 

directly accessible at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/oh/nwis/

inventory/?site_no=03118000.]

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017b, USGS 03118050 East Branch 

Nimishillen Creek at Louisville OH, in USGS water data 

for the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Information System database, accessed February 14, 2019, 

at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN. [Site information 

directly accessible at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/oh/nwis/

inventory/?site_no=03118050.]

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017c, USGS 03118131 E Branch 

Nimishillen Crk at Trump Ave nr Canton, OH in USGS 

water data for the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National 

Water Information System database, accessed February 

14, 2019, at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN. [Site 

information directly accessible at https://waterdata.usgs.

gov/oh/nwis/inventory/?site_no=03118131.]
References Cited 13

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017d, USGS 03118209 West Branch 

Nimishillen Creek at North Canton OH, in USGS water 

data for the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Information System database, accessed February 14, 2019, 

at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN. [Site information 

directly accessible at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/oh/nwis/

inventory/?site_no=03118209.]

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017e, USGS 03118258 Zimber 

Ditch at North Canton OH, in USGS water data for 

the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Information System database, accessed February 14, 2019, 

at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN. [Site information 

directly accessible at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/oh/nwis/

inventory/?site_no=03118258.]

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017f, USGS 03118299 W Br 

Nimishillen Crk at Tuscarawas St at Canton OH, in USGS 

water data for the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National 

Water Information System database, accessed February 

14, 2019, at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN. [Site 

information directly accessible at https://waterdata.usgs.

gov/oh/nwis/inventory/?site_no=03118299.]

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017g, USGS 03118500 Nimishillen 

Creek at North Industry OH, in USGS water data for 

the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Information System database, accessed February 14, 2019, 

at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN. [Site information 

directly accessible https://waterdata.usgs.gov/oh/nwis/

inventory/?site_no=03118500.]

U.S. Geological Survey, 2017h, USGS water data for the 

Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information 

System database, accessed February 14, 2019, at https://doi.

org/10.5066/F7P55KJN.

Appendixes 1–4

Appendixes 1–4 are available for download at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205011. Appendix 1 

is the Technical Support Data Notebook. Appendix 2 contains floodway data tables for 14 sites 

in Stark County, Ohio. Appendix 3 contains graphs of computed water-surface profiles for 

14 sites in Stark County, Ohio. Appendix 4 contains flood-inundation maps for 14 sites in Stark 

County, Ohio.
For more information about this publication, contact:

Director, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

6460 Busch Boulevard Suite 100

Columbus, OH 43229–1737

614–430–7700

For additional information, visit:

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/oki-water

Publishing support provided by

Madison and Rolla Publishing Service Centers

Ostheimer and Whitehead—Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses of Selected Streams in Stark County, Ohio—Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5011

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205011