Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy (NPS-IS) for Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05)

Prepared for:

Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District

Prepared by: Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Toledo, Ohio

Version 1.0 Approved: June 29, 2021

This page intentionally left blank.

Acknowledgements

Version 1.0 prepared and written by:

Deanna Bobak Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4841 Monroe Street, Suite 103 Toledo, OH 43623

Brigitte Hisey Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District 1415 US 22 SW, Suite 500 Washington Court House, OH 43160

The Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) would like to acknowledge the collaboration of multiple partners in the preparation of this Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy (NPS-IS) for the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05). The Fayette SWCD appreciates those individuals and organizations that contributed background information, insight into objectives and projects for inclusion in this NPS-IS. Thank you to Rick Wilson, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency – Division of Surface Water, for guidance throughout the NPS-IS development process, as well as Jessica D’Ambrosio and the staff of The Nature Conservancy for providing modeling data generated by the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF).

This product or publication was financed in part or totally through a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency through an assistance agreement with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 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 or United States Environmental Protection Agency peer or administrative review and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency or the United States Environmental Protection Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Cover graphic: Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 USGS boundary .

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. i Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Acronyms and Abbreviations

The acronyms and abbreviations below are commonly used by organizations working to restore Ohio’s watersheds and are found throughout this document.

Numbers §319 Section 319 of the Clean Water Act

A ACPF Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework ALU Aquatic Life Use

B BMP Best Management Practice

C CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation CDL Cropland Data Layer CRP Conservation Reserve Program

D DEM Digital Elevation Model DO Dissolved Oxygen

E ECBP Eastern Corn Belt Plains EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera – sensitive macroinvertebrate species EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program EWH Exceptional Warmwater Habitat

F FOTG Field Office Technical Guide FLS Federally Listed Species FSA Farm Service Agency

G GIS Geographic Information Systems

H HAB Harmful Algal Bloom HSTS Home Sewage Treatment System HTF Hypoxia Task Force HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. ii Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy I IBI Index of Biotic Integrity ICI Invertebrate Community Index

M MARB Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin MIwb Modified Index of Well Being MRBI Mississippi River Basin Initiative MWH Modified Warmwater Habitat

N NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS Nonpoint Source NPS-IS Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

O OAC Ohio Administrative Code ODA Ohio Department of Agriculture ODH Ohio Department of Health ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources Ohio EPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency OpTIS Operational Tillage Information System ORB Ohio River Basin ORBA Ohio River Basin Alliance OSU Ohio State University

P PAD-US Protected Areas Database of the United States PCWP Paint Creek Watershed Project

Q QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index

R RM River Mile RPHF Ross, Pickaway, Highland, Fayette (Solid Waste District)

S SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District

T TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. iii Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy U USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey

V VRT Variable Rate Technology

W WAP Watershed Action Plan WQS Water Quality Standards (Ohio Administrative Code 3745-1) WRP Wetlands Reserve Program WWH Warmwater Habitat

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. iv Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Table of Contents

Acknowledgements...... i Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... ii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Report Background ...... 1 1.2 Watershed Profile & History ...... 4 1.3 Public Participation and Involvement ...... 6 Chapter 2: HUC-12 Watershed Characterization and Assessment Summary ...... 8 2.1 Summary of HUC-12 Watershed Characterization ...... 8 2.2 Summary of HUC-12 Biological Trends ...... 15 2.3 Summary of HUC-12 Pollution Causes and Associated Sources ...... 18 2.4 Additional Information for Determining Critical Areas and Developing Implementation Strategies ...... 19 Chapter 3: Critical Area Conditions AND Restoration Strategies ...... 20 3.1 Overview of Critical Areas ...... 20 3.2 Critical Area #1: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Prioritized Agricultural Lands ...... 21 3.3 Critical Area #2: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Streambank and Riparian Restoration ...... 31 Chapter 4: Projects and Implementation Strategy ...... 37 4.1 Critical Area #1 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table ...... 38 4.2 Critical Area #2 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table ...... 41 Chapter 5: Works Cited ...... 42

Table of Figures

Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Overview ...... 1 Paint Creek Watershed ...... 5 Location of the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 ...... 5 Soils by Particle Size ...... 9 Political Boundaries in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 ...... 10 Land Use ...... 11 Wetlands in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 ...... 12 Parks and Protected Lands ...... 13 Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Critical Area Overview ...... 20 Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Critical Area #1 ...... 22 Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Critical Area #2 ...... 31

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. v Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Table of Tables

Nine Elements for Watershed Plans and Implementation Projects ...... 2 Sub-watersheds in the Headwaters Rattlesnake Creek HUC-10 ...... 6 Small Tributary Characteristics ...... 8 Estimated Animal Counts in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 ...... 11 Land Use Classifications in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 ...... 12 Threatened and Endangered Species in Fayette, Clinton and Highland Counties ...... 13 OpTIS Countywide Conservation Practice Averages for 2014-2018 for Select Counties in the Paint Creek Watershed ...... 14 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Contract Acreage by County ...... 14 Biological Indices Scores for Sites in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 ...... 15 Water Quality Standards for the Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) Ecoregion ...... 16 QHEI Matrix with WWH and MWH Attribute Totals for Sites in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 ...... 18 Causes and Sources of Impairments for Sampling Locations in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 ...... 19 Estimated Total Nitrogen Loadings from Contributing NPS Sources in the Waddle Ditch- Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 ...... 19 Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Critical Area Descriptions ...... 21 Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework Results ...... 22 Critical Area #1 - Fish Community and Habitat Data ...... 24 Critical Area #1 - Macroinvertebrate Community Data ...... 25 Estimated Annual Nutrient Load Reductions from Each Objective ...... 29 Critical Area #2 - Fish Community and Habitat Data ...... 32 Critical Area #2 - Macroinvertebrate Community Data ...... 33 Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) — Critical Area #1 ...... 38 Critical Area #1 – Project #1 ...... 39 Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) — Critical Area #2 ...... 41

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. vi Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)-12 (05060003 03 05) is a sub- watershed of the Paint Creek watershed, located mainly in southwestern Fayette County, extending slightly to the west into Clinton County and slightly to the south into Highland County. It contains an area of 25.24 square miles (Figure 1). The Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 contains a 17.4 mile-long segment of Rattlesnake Creek, from the entry of the West Branch Rattlesnake Creek to the confluence with Lees Creek. The watershed is primarily agricultural (~71% cultivated crops and ~11% pasture), with a notable amount of forested acreage (~15%). The Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 has been identified as an area of focus within the Ohio River Basin (ORB) due to the estimated loading of total nitrogen that flows into the tributaries of the Ohio River, to the Mississippi River and its end-receiving waterbody, the Gulf of Mexico.

Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Overview

1.1 Report Background

While watershed plans could be all-inclusive inventories, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) identified nine critical elements to include in strategic planning documents for impaired waters (Table 1). To ease implementation of projects addressing nonpoint source (NPS) management and habitat restoration, current federal and state NPS and habitat restoration funding opportunities require strategic watershed plans incorporate these nine key elements, concisely to HUC-12 watersheds. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) has historically supported watershed-based planning in many forms (Ohio EPA, 2016).

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy In 1997, Ohio EPA issued guidance for the development of Watershed Action Plans (WAPs), which typically covered larger watersheds (HUC-10 to HUC-8 size). The WAPs included an outline and checklist to ensure USEPA’s nine elements were included within each plan. The USEPA issued new guidance in 2013 and concluded Ohio’s interpretation for WAP development did not adequately address critical areas, nor did it include an approach that detailed the nine elements at the project level (Ohio EPA, 2016). In response, Ohio EPA developed a new template for watershed planning in the form of a Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy (NPS-IS), ensuring NPS pollution is addressed at a finer resolution and that individual projects listed within each plan include each of the nine elements. The first NPS-IS plans were approved in 2017. Over time, these plans have evolved to not only address in-stream (near-field) water quality impairment from NPS pollution, but they also address reductions in nutrient loadings to larger bodies of water (far-field).

Nine Elements for Watershed Plans and Implementation Projects Element Description Identification of causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar sources that a need to be controlled to achieve load reductions b Load reductions expected from management measures described under element (c) below Description of the NPS measures that need to be implemented to achieve load reductions c estimated under element (b) above and an identification of the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement this plan An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs d and/or sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement this plan An information/education component that will be used to enhance public understanding of the e project and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting, designing and implementing the NPS management measures that will be implemented A schedule for implementing the NPS measures identified in this plans that is reasonably f expeditious A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS management g measures or other control actions are being implemented A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved h over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standards A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over i time, measured against the criteria established under element (h) above (Source: USEPA, 2008)

Hypoxia Task Force The State of Ohio is an active participant in the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force (HTF), a multi-state agency effort established in 1997 to understand the causes and effects of eutrophication in the Gulf of Mexico and coordinate activities throughout the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin (MARB) to reduce the size, severity and duration and ameliorate the effects of hypoxia within the Gulf (USEPA, 2020). The HTF has outlined a goal to reduce nutrient loading from major sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in the MARB by 20% by 2025 (HTF, 2014). Ohio EPA’s Nutrient Mass Balance Study for Ohio’s Major Rivers (2020) has identified high nitrogen and phosphorus loads within the Ohio portion of the

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy ORB, particularly from the Scioto River and Great Miami River watersheds, citing 82% and 83% of the nitrogen load and 69% and 66%, respectively, of the phosphorus load in these two watersheds is from NPS contributions (Ohio EPA, 2020c).

Through the State of Ohio’s Domestic Action Plan, state agencies modeled and estimated nutrient loads for NPS classifications (agricultural, home sewage treatment system (HSTS) and urban contributions) at the HUC-12 level within the northwestern portion of the state, underlining the state’s commitment to nutrient reduction from all landscapes (OLEC, 2020). While this level of modeling has not yet occurred within the ORB, approximate loads from agricultural and urban landscapes, based upon nutrient loss literature and Mass Balance results, have been estimated for select HUC-12s within the ORB, including those in the Upper Scioto, Great Miami River, Little Miami River and Paint Creek watersheds as a beginning step in setting reduction targets to make progress towards HTF goals (personal communication with Rick Wilson, Ohio EPA, November 12, 2020).

Paint Creek Watershed Management Plan The Paint Creek Watershed Project (PCWP) began in 1994 as a Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) initiative to reduce erosion in the watershed. The PCWP formed an advisory board consisting of members from each of the six main counties containing the watershed (Highland, Fayette, Ross, Clinton, Greene and Madison) (PCWP, 2002). Through a series of grants from Ohio EPA’s Section 319 Program, the PCWP continued conservation efforts in the watershed and submitted the Paint Creek Watershed Management Plan. The plan’s purpose was to facilitate the maintenance, and where, appropriate, the restoration of water quality and biological habitat throughout the watershed by documenting existing conditions, providing an understanding of cause and effect relationships between conditions and water quality trends, defining goals and identifying solutions for water quality problems (PCWP, 2002). This WAP was endorsed in 2005 and will be updated through the NPS-IS planning process, as plans are developed for each individual HUC-12.

Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 NPS-IS The development of NPS-IS in watersheds contained within the ORB is critical to the efforts focused on implementing the HTF’s goal to reduce nutrient loadings from major sources of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Gulf of Mexico, as well as to meet state water quality standards and local goals. Development of NPS-IS within Ohio’s portion of the ORB also aligns with goals established by the Ohio River Basin Alliance (ORBA) for abundant clean water and healthy and productive ecosystems in the Ohio River (USACE, 2020). The Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 NPS-IS will address NPS pollution by accounting for both near-field (within stream/watershed) and far-field (loadings to the Ohio River) effects. The Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 NPS-IS serves as an update to the Paint Creek Watershed Management Plan and is one of three plans sponsored and developed by the Fayette SWCD, funded through a sub- grant from the Ohio EPA from the HTF.

Removal of NPS impairments, reduction in overall sediment and nutrient loss and restoration of streambanks, floodplains and wetlands in Rattlesnake Creek and its tributaries within the Waddle Ditch- Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 is crucial to the maintenance and attainment of aquatic life use (ALU)

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy standards both within the Paint Creek watershed and on a greater scale within the context of the Ohio River watershed, the Mississippi River and its end-receiving waterbody, the Gulf of Mexico. Within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12, four biological sample locations were established in Rattlesnake Creek during a sampling event conducted in 2006. Two of these locations were found to be in Full Attainment of the Warmwater Habitat (WWH) designation, while two were found to be in Partial Attainment due to the effects of channelization from agricultural activities impacting habitat and sedimentation within the waterway.

Land use activities within the watershed have altered instream habitat along the length of Rattlesnake Creek, and high nutrient loadings both pose a threat to local water quality and contribute to large-scale impairment within the ORB. This NPS-IS will be used to strategically identify and outline key projects that should be implemented within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 to address management of NPS pollution to not only maintain or achieve attainment of Water Quality Standards (WQS) within the sub-watershed boundaries, but to also make progress towards far-field watershed goals on a larger scale within the greater ORB, MARB and Gulf of Mexico.

1.2 Watershed Profile & History

The land area contained within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 is part of the larger Scioto watershed (05060001). The Scioto watershed is located in the central to south-central region of Ohio and drains a total of 6,509 square miles. The Scioto River is approximately 231 miles in length, flowing from Hardin County in northwest Ohio, through Columbus, to empty into the Ohio River at Portsmouth. Along its course, the watershed is broken into three HUC-8 basins: the Upper Scioto (05060001), Lower Scioto (05060002) and Paint Creek (05060003). The Paint Creek watershed contains Paint Creek, a 108.5 mile- long1 stream flowing south from southwestern Madison County through Washington Court House and the Village of Greenfield to then head east to empty in the Scioto River at River Mile (RM) 63.50 in Chillicothe. Paint Creek drains an area of approximately 1,144 square miles (ODNR, 2001). The Paint Creek HUC-8 is broken into ten sub-basins at the HUC-10 level, including tributary watersheds for North Fork Paint Creek, Sugar Creek, Rocky Fork and Rattlesnake Creek (Figure 2).

The entire Rattlesnake Creek watershed consists of two HUC-10s: the Lees Creek-Rattlesnake Creek HUC- 10 and the Headwaters Rattlesnake Creek HUC-10, which includes the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12. The Headwaters Rattlesnake HUC-10 has a drainage area of ~130 square miles or 83,018 acres (Figure 3). Land use within the Headwaters Rattlesnake HUC-10 is mainly agricultural and rural, with most of the land area unincorporated. Sabina is the largest village in the Headwaters Rattlesnake Creek HUC- 10, supporting a population of approximately 2,700 people, while other small villages, such as Milledegville and South Solon have populations in the lower hundreds (US Census Bureau, 2010). The Headwaters Rattlesnake Creek HUC-10 is further divided into five HUC-12 watersheds (Table 2).

1 The Ohio Gazetteer of Streams (ODNR, 2001) lists Paint Creek as 94.7 miles in length; however, the River Mile Index (Ohio EPA, 2020e) shows Paint Creek with a length of 108.5 miles. Biological sampling stations utilize the river mile locations in the River Mile Index.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Paint Creek Watershed

Location of the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Sub-watersheds in the Headwaters Rattlesnake Creek HUC-10 Headwaters Rattlesnake Creek HUC-10 (05060003 03) HUC-12 Area (Square miles) Area (Acres) Wilson Creek HUC-12 (01) 21.48 13,744 Grassy Creek HUC-12 (02) 13.13 8,406 West Branch Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (03) 24.78 15,861 Headwaters Rattlesnake Creek (04) 45.08 28,852 Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek (05) 25.24 16,155 (Source: Ohio EPA, 2020a)

1.3 Public Participation and Involvement

Watershed planning is best accomplished by collaboration and input from a diverse group of entities, including governmental agencies, private businesses, academia, non-profit groups, neighborhood organizations and the public at large. This planning effort is led by the Fayette SWCD, an agency dedicated to promoting wise stewardship of natural resources through cooperative partnerships, educational programs, and technical assistance in land and water management. The Fayette SWCD strives to be recognized as the lead local agency providing innovative tools to protect natural resources and enhance the quality of life for present and future generations. In 2016, the Fayette SWCD contributed to the Fayette County Comprehensive Plan and is listed as the agency with goals to 1) improve the health of the watersheds in the county by protecting them from the negative impacts of urban and agricultural runoff; 2) preserve and create wildlife habitats and increase the amount of forested and prairie areas in the county; and, 3) protect the county’s groundwater resources from aging septic systems.

Since 2015, the Fayette SWCD has served as the lead facilitator for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI) program throughout ten sub-watersheds within the Upper Paint Creek. The Fayette SWCD works to encourage farmers and landowners to employ practices on their land that will conserve soil and water resources. The district provides technical assistance, cost-share opportunities, education, conservation and drainage engineering services, and nutrient management assistance to the residents of Fayette County. District staff often provide technical plans for waterway designs and woodchip bioreactors for water quality. The Fayette SWCD also provides educational programs for farmers, the Women Caring for the Land program and the general public on best management practices (BMPs) for rural and urban audiences.

Chapters 1, 2 and 3 were primarily prepared using the 2020 Ohio Integrated Report (Ohio EPA, 2020a), the Biological and Water Quality Study of the Paint Creek Watershed, 2006, EAS/2008-1-2 (Ohio EPA, 2008) and the Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Paint Creek Watershed (Ohio EPA, 2012). Project information for Chapter 4 was compiled by collaborative outreach with organizational stakeholders, community partners and local landowners, when possible. The Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 NPS-IS was developed during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic occurring in 2020- 2021, limiting in-person meetings and gatherings. Stakeholder and public input was solicited through

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 6 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy hybrid virtual/in-person meetings held on February 23, 2021 and March 25, 2021 and targeted outreach mailings.

Input and feedback during the planning process was solicited from organizational stakeholders from the Fayette County Engineer’s Office, the Fayette County Health Department, Ohio State University (OSU) Extension, Master Gardeners, Tri County Trails, Pheasants Forever, City of Washington Court House, Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA)- Division of Soil and Water Conservation, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Township Trustees in Perry, Concord, Jasper and Union and the Ross, Pickaway, Highland and Fayette (RPHF) Solid Waste District. These stakeholders provided watershed background knowledge, conservation data and input on critical areas and potential projects within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12. Landowner involvement in meetings was promoted through targeted mailings to approximately 60 producers of larger operations and public announcements through Facebook and the newspaper. A watershed survey was also created and distributed by Fayette SWCD to solicit additional input and potential project Stakeholder Meeting, February 23, 2021. Photo credit: Fayette SWCD. locations.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 7 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy CHAPTER 2: HUC-12 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION AND ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

2.1 Summary of HUC-12 Watershed Characterization

2.1.1 Physical and Natural Features The Headwaters Rattlesnake Creek HUC-10 is comprised of five HUC-12 watersheds; this document focuses on the #05 hydrologic unit—the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12. The Waddle Ditch- Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 contains a 17.4-mile segment of Rattlesnake Creek, from the entry of the West Branch Rattlesnake Creek at RM 26.87 to the confluence with Lees Creek at RM 9.46. Rattlesnake Creek is a 48.2 mile-long2 stream that originates near South Solon in Madison County and flows southerly to its entry point in Paint Creek at RM 43.273 in Highland County. Rattlesnake Creek has an average fall of 7.2 feet/mile and a total drainage area of ~279 square miles (ODNR, 2001). The Waddle Ditch- Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 contains 25.24 square miles (16,154.63 acres) and is the downstream terminus of the headwaters section of Rattlesnake Creek.

Rattlesnake Creek is designated as a WWH stream along its entire length. Historically, the mainstem has been channelized for drainage, and most of its tributaries are actively maintained as conveyance ditches (Ohio EPA, 2008). Larger, named tributaries to Rattlesnake Creek include West Branch Rattlesnake Creek, Lees Creek, Walnut Creek, Hardin Creek, Big Branch and Fall Creek. Smaller tributaries include Maple Grove Creek, Persinger Ditch, Waddle Ditch and Hicks Ditch. With the exception of Maple Grove Creek, these smaller tributaries flow to Rattlesnake Creek within the segment contained within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (Table 3). In total, 55.02 miles (290,506 linear feet) of stream segments flow throughout the sub-watershed.

Small Tributary Characteristics Entry Point to Drainage Area Tributary Name Length (Miles) Rattlesnake Creek (Square miles) Persinger Ditch RM 25.6 ~0.9 0.55 Waddle Ditch RM 23.6 1.7 3.25 Hicks Ditch RM 20.0 ~1.0 0.44 (Source: Ohio EPA, 2020e; USGS, 2021)

The majority of the Paint Creek watershed is located in the Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) ecoregion, including the area contained within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12. A small section in the southeast portion of the HUC-8 falls within the Western Allegheny Plain ecoregion, while a thin swath along the southern edge overlaps with the Interior Plateau ecoregion (Ohio EPA, 2012). The ECBP consists of a rolling till plain with local end moraines (USEPA, 2013). Wisconsinan glacial deposits are extensive

2 The Ohio Gazetteer of Streams (ODNR, 2001) lists Rattlesnake Creek as 42.3 miles in length; however, the River Mile Index (Ohio EPA, 2020e) shows Rattlesnake Creek with a length of 48.2 miles. Biological sampling stations utilize the river mile locations in the River Mile Index. 3 Paint Creek is impounded to form the Paint Creek Reservoir.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 8 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy across the ecoregion in thick deposits of silt, sand and gravel and these soils supported beech forests prior to settlement. North of Greenfield, the Paint Creek watershed lies in the Wisconsin till plain, exhibiting low relief and rich soils conducive to intensive rowcrop agriculture (Ohio EPA, 2008). The ecoregion today mostly supports corn, soybean and livestock production. Streams within the area have been highly channelized for agricultural drainage, which has negatively impacted stream chemistry and turbidity.

In the northwestern flank of the Paint Creek watershed, where the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 is located, soils are generally thinner and drift thicknesses vary between 30 and 100 feet (ODNR, 2021). Soils in this area are finer-grained, clay-rich, less permeable and sit atop uniformly consolidated bedrock (Ohio EPA, 2008) (Figure 4). The majority of the soils within the Paint Creek watershed are considered to have a high erodability index (PCWP, 2002). Drift thicknesses vary between 30 and 100 feet (ODNR, 2021). As glaciers of the Wisconsinan dammed up river valleys and channels, many streams, including the Paint, were reversed or diverted to new drainage patterns (PCWP, 2002). Bedrock throughout the Paint Creek watershed is Silurian in age and includes dolomites and shales found in the Salina Group, the Springfield Dolomite, Euphemia Dolomite, Massie Shale, Noland Formation, and Tymochtee Dolomite. A bedrock shelf forms a waterfall in Rattlesnake Creek near East Monroe.

Soils by Particle Size

The northwest-southeast, then north-south orientation of the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 provides a long, linear swath footprint that crosses several county and township boundaries. The sub- watershed is contained mostly within Fayette County (84%), with 5% in Clinton County and 11% in Highland County (Figure 5). Concord, Green and Perry Townships are the main political subdivisions

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 9 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy within the sub-watershed, with a small amount of area covered by Jasper and Richland Townships in Clinton County and Madison and Fairfield in Highland County. Urban areas are non-existent in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12. No National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)- permitted facilities are located within the sub-watershed (Ohio EPA, 2020d).

Political Boundaries in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12

In the rural landscape, residences and small businesses use HSTS, which are a potential source of NPS pollution for bacteria and nutrients. Using National Small Flows Clearinghouse Data from 1992 and 1998, 73 HSTS were estimated to be found within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (Tetra Tech, 2018). Studies conducted by the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) across Ohio have shown an average HSTS failure rate of 31% (ODH, 2013). Fayette County has actively administered grant money offered through Ohio EPA’s HSTS Repair/Replacement Program (Ohio EPA, 2017). The PCWP had identified the Village of Buena Vista as a community that would likely not ever be connected to sanitary sewer infrastructure (PCWP, 2002). East Monroe in Highland County was also identified as a community of concern for HSTS improvement. Many homes within the community are older and HSTS failure is likely. Though the amount of NPS pollution from HSTS in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 is relatively small, repair or replacement of failing HSTS or connection to sanitary sewer lines reduces the potential for NPS pollution from this source.

Landmarks and points of interest within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 include: . Sabina Airport; . Buena Vista (unincorporated); and, . East Monroe.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 10 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy 2.1.2 Land Use and Protection Land use within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 is dominated by agricultural land use (~71% cultivated cropland and ~11% pasture lands), with a notable amount of forested land (~15%) (Figure 6). The USDA Census of Agriculture (2017) lists soybeans as the largest field crop harvested in Fayette, Clinton and Highland Counties (≥ 45%), while corn accounts for 35-44% of crops in Fayette County, 25- 34%of crops in Clinton County and 15-24% of crops in Highland County (USDA, 2017). In general, livestock operations are small, though Fayette County did realize a significant increase in inventory of hogs and pigs in 2017 (Table 4). No large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are permitted within the sub-watershed.

Land Use

Estimated Animal Counts in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Livestock Type Animal Units Livestock Type Animal Units Beef 303 Horse 42 Dairy 142 Chicken 117 Swine 261 Turkey 1 Sheep 95 Duck 1 (Source: USDA Census of Agriculture, 2012, as presented in the STEPL Input Data Server (Tetra Tech, 2017)

Approximately 15% of land within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 is forested (Table 5). The forested stands form a riparian corridor around Rattlesnake Creek, which widens in the southern part of the sub-watershed. Within these forested stands, pockets of wetlands may be present, though wetland coverage is now sparse, despite the presence of a high amount of hydric soils throughout the sub-

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 11 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy watershed (PCWP, 2002) (Figure 7). Wetlands were once prominent in this area, known as the “Little Swamp”, prior to the formation of Fayette County (Fayette County, 2006). Essentially no parks or protected lands are identified in the sub-watershed in the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) (USGS, 2019). Near the downstream terminus, the sub-watershed drains to the Paint Creek Recreation Area and the Paint Creek Reservoir, but very little of it overlaps within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (Figure 8).

Land Use Classifications in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) Land Use Area (mi2) Area (acres) % Watershed Area Bare/Mines 0.02 15.16 0.08% Commercial/Industrial/Transportation 0.07 46.15 0.28% Crop 17.94 11,476.22 71.08% Deciduous Forest 3.83 2,454.15 15.17% Evergreen Forest 0.01 6.08 0.04% Open Water 0.53 341.03 2.10% Pasture 2.84 1,815.84 11.25% Total 25.24 16,154.63 100.00% (Source: Homer, 2020)

Wetlands in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 12 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Parks and Protected Lands

Lack of protected lands within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 may be detrimental for threatened and endangered species listed in Fayette, Clinton and Highland Counties by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Table 6). The Ohio Mussel Survey Protocol categorizes Rattlesnake Creek as a Group 1 stream, indicating that mussels may be present, but the Federally Listed Species (FLS) on USFWS’s listing are not expected to be found (ODNR, 2020).

Threatened and Endangered Species in Fayette, Clinton and Highland Counties Species Status Habitat Characteristics Indiana bat1 Hibernates in caves and mines; forages in small stream corridors Endangered (Myotis sodalis) with developed riparian woods and upland forests Hibernates in caves and mines and swarms in surrounding Northern long-eared bat1 Threatened wooded areas in autumn; roosts and forages in upland forests (Myotis septentrionalis) during late spring and summer Eastern massasauga1 Threatened Wetlands and adjacent uplands (Sistrurus catenatus) Running buffalo clover2 Disturbed bottomland meadows; disturbed sites that have Endangered (Trifolium stoloniferum) shade during part of each day (Source: USFWS, 2018)

NOTES 1Species listed in all three counties. 2Species listed in Highland County only.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 13 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Most land within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 is privately owned; therefore, knowledge of land use and conservation practices may be limited. During the late 1990s-early 2000s, several Section 319 grants provided funding for conservation practice implementation throughout the greater Paint Creek watershed. Popular practices included grassed waterways, equipment buy-downs, tree and grass filter strips, streambank stabilization and heavy use feeding pads (PCWP, 2002). More recently, some conservation practices, such as the use of conservation tillage, can be estimated from remote sensing techniques used within the Operational Tillage Information System (OpTIS). From 2014-2018, OpTIS estimated an average of 31.6% of crop fields in the Paint Creek watershed were under no-till conditions, 56.3% were under some form of reduced tillage and 12.1% were under traditional tillage regimes (Dagan, 2019). OpTIS also estimated cover crop usage across the Paint Creek watershed to average 2.0% of fields utilized a winter commodity crop, while 2.5% utilized a winter cover crop over the same five-year period. County-wide estimations were not consistently above or below these HUC-8 averages (Table 7).

Summary data provided by Ohio EPA regarding the use of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 indicated a variety of conservation practices were certified between March 30, 2017 and mid-2019 within the Fayette County portion of the watershed (personal communication with Rick Wilson, June 13, 2019). Certified practices included the development of three nutrient management plans, 1,211.6 acres of nutrient management practices implemented, 200.1 acres of cover crops planted , one 340 foot access road installed and a 0.1 acre heavy use protection pad installed. Additional data provided by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) on current contracts within the counties of the Paint Creek watershed are found in Table 8.

OpTIS Countywide Conservation Practice Averages for 2014-2018 for Select Counties in the Paint Creek Watershed Paint Creek HUC-8 Clinton Fayette Practice % Usage % Usage % Usage No-till conditions 31.6 29.6 20.8 Reduced till conditions 56.3 54.9 61.0 Conventional till 12.1 15.5 18.3 Winter commodity cover crop 2.0 1.7 1.4 Winter cover crop 2.5 3.3 1.1 (Source: Dagan, 2019; provided by The Nature Conservancy in 2021)

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Contract Acreage by County Fayette Highland Clinton Practice Acres* Acres* Acres* Establishment of Permanent Introduced Grasses and Legumes 57.40 33.00 11.04 Shelterbelt Establishment 3.79 1.29 -- Establishment of Permanent Native Grasses 1,614.15 2,862.20 68.20 Filter Strips 2,111.97 2,151.00 168.63 Riparian Buffer 220.45 319.05 11.50 Wetland Restoration 29.14 2.20 -- Wetland Restoration, Non-Floodplain 664.56 4.56 6.00

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 14 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Rare and Declining Habitat 42.00 -- 5.00 Marginal Pastureland and Wildlife Habitat Buffer 443.72 31.41 -- Tree Planting 25.61 166.28 35.80 Marginal Pastureland Wetland Buffer 2.26 -- -- Upland Habitat Buffers 166.39 335.11 216.25 Weed Control in Tree/Shrub Plantings -- 75.41 -- SAFE Habitat for Upland Birds -- 431.61 -- Rare and Declining Habitat -- 1,307.17 -- Permanent Wildlife Habitat for Pheasants 554.34 2,594.96 48.04 Hardwood Tree Planting 28.50 181.71 10.32 Pollinator Habitat 45.65 278.41 58.15 Permanent Wildlife Habitat, Noneasement 91.82 114.31 61.70 Field Windbreak Establishment, Noneasement -- 0.67 0.07 Grassland Wildlife Plan 20.81 104.30 -- Grass Waterways, Noneasement 528.63 331.33 359.27 Shallow Water Areas for Wildlife 7.22 4.10 0.70 (Source: USDA-NRCS, 2018)

NOTES *Acres reported at the county level and may not necessarily fall within the Paint Creek watershed boundaries.

2.2 Summary of HUC-12 Biological Trends

Ohio EPA sampled Rattlesnake Creek in 2006 as part of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study for the Paint Creek Watershed. TMDL targets were established for habitat, sediment and bacteria within the headwaters section of Rattlesnake Creek. The TMDL study included eight sampling locations within the mainstem of Rattlesnake Creek in the Headwaters Rattlesnake Creek HUC-10, four of which are located in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12. A summary of these sample locations are provided in Table 9. For reference, WQS for the ECBP ecoregion are presented in Table 10.

Biological Indices Scores for Sites in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) River Drainage Attainment IBI MIwba ICIb QHEI Location Mile Area (mi2) Status Rattlesnake Creek (WWH) 23.97W 110.0 33* 6.4* 44 52.0 Partial Snow Hill Road 18.01W 122.0 42 9.3 -- 59.0 (Full) Stafford Road Upstream Zimmerman 15.00W 125.0 43 7.6* 44 71.0 Partial Road 13.23W 128.0 45 8.3 E 77.5 Full Fishback Road (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008)

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 15 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy NOTES WWH Warmwater Habitat IBI Index of Biotic Integrity a The Modified Index of Well Being (MIwb) is not applicable to headwater sites (drainage ≤20 mi2). ICI Invertebrate Community Index b Narrative evaluation used in lieu of ICI (E=Exceptional; G=Good; MG=Marginally Good; H Fair =High Fair; F=Fair; L Fair=Low Fair; P=Poor; VP=Very Poor). QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index W Wading site ns Nonsignificant departure from ecoregion biocriteria (≤4 IBI or ICI units, ≤5 MIwb units). * Significant departure from applicable biocriteria (>4 IBI or ICI units, or >0.5 MIwb units). Underlined scores are in the poor to very poor range. () Attainment based off of one index score.

Water Quality Standards for the Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) Ecoregion ECBP EWH WQS WWH WQS MWH WQS Ecoregion Wading Headwater Boat Wading Headwater Boat Headwater Wading Boat IBI 50 50 48 40 40 40 24 24 24 MIwb 9.4 N/A 9.6 8.3 N/A 8.5 N/A 6.2 5.8 ICI 46 46 46 36 36 36 22 22 22 QHEIa 75 75 75 60 55 60 43.5 43.5 43.5 (Source: OAC 3745-1)

NOTES EWH Exceptional Warmwater Habitat WWH Warmwater Habitat MWH Modified Warmwater Habitat WQS Water Quality Standards a QHEI is not criteria included in Ohio WQS; however, it has been shown to be highly correlated with the health of aquatic communities. In general, sites scoring 60 or above (or above 55 for headwater sites) support healthy aquatic assemblages indicative of WWH, while scores between 43.5 and 60 are aligned with MWH assemblages (Ohio EPA, 2013). Sites scoring 75 or above support EWH assemblages (Ohio EPA, 1999). N/A MIwb not applicable to headwater sampling locations with drainage areas ≤ 20 mi2.

Fishes (Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwb] & Index of Biotic Integrity [IBI]) In total, eight sampling locations were established in Rattlesnake Creek during the 2006 sampling event, four of which were located within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12. Only half of the sites sampled within Rattlesnake Creek met WWH criterion for IBI scores. Low dissolved oxygen (DO) scores and poor habitat are chronic problems throughout the stream, but especially in the segment upstream from the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12, between US 35 and State Route 729, where intolerant species were absent and overall relative abundance was low (Ohio EPA, 2008). Within the sub- watershed, IBI scores met appropriate thresholds at all sites except Snow Hill Road (RM 23.97), but MIwb scores were not consistently meeting criterion, mainly due to a high percentage of tolerant species.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 16 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Macroinvertebrates (Invertebrate Community Index [ICI]) Benthic communities were evaluated at seven sites within Rattlesnake Creek in 2006, three of which were located in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12. Macroinvertebrate communities fared relatively well, given historical and current channelization, and communities at all but one site were considered in attainment of WWH biocriterion. Generally, habitat increased along a downstream trend, as gradient increased. Within the sub-watershed, ICI scores ranged from Very Good to Exceptional and communities were consistently represented by moderately intolerant taxa (Ohio EPA, 2008).

Habitat (via Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index [QHEI]) Ohio EPA sampling crews documented various water quality and habitat attributes during the QHEI assessment in the summer of 2006 (Table 11). Overall habitat scores in Rattlesnake Creek generally improved with increased drainage, with scores ranging from 49.0 to 77.5 along its entire length (Ohio EPA, 2008). Habitat scores within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 included the majority of this range, with the lowest recorded score at 52.0 and the highest at 77.5. Generally, streams that have QHEI scores of at least 60 are capable of supporting WWH assemblages. Strong correlations exist between habitat attributes and a stream’s ability to support healthy aquatic assemblages (Ohio EPA, 1999). The presence of certain attributes are shown to have a larger negative impact on fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Streams designated as WWH should exhibit no more than four total Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH) attributes; additionally, no more than one of those four should be of high-influence (Ohio EPA, 2013). Within the boundaries of the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC- 12, habitat within Rattlesnake Creek gains WWH attributes on a downstream gradient, but three of four sites are still relatively influenced by MWH attributes (4-6 attributes each). Rattlesnake Creek has been historically channelized, and the potential for recovery within its mainstem may be limited by high clay- content soils and low baseflow (Ohio EPA, 2008).

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 17 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy QHEI Matrix with WWH and MWH Attribute Totals for Sites in the Waddle Ditch- Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) Key QHEI MWH Attributes WWH Attributes Components High Influence Moderate Influence

ubstrate Origin ubstrate

No Riffle No

Depth >40 cm >40 Depth

River Mile

QHEI Score

No Sinuosity No

Low Sinuosity Low

Gradient (ft/mi)

Influence MWH Attributes MWH Influence

No Fast Current Fast No

WWH Attributes WWH

Sparse/No Cover Sparse/No

-

Max Max cm <40 Depth Max

Silt Free Substrates Free Silt

Recovering Channel Recovering

Fast Current/Eddies Fast

Silt/Muck Substrates Silt/Muck

Influence MWH Attributes MWH Influence

Sand Substrate (Boat) Substrate Sand

-

Only 1 or 2 Cover Types Cover 2 1 or Only

Fair/Poor Development Fair/Poor

Intermediate/Poor Pools Intermediate/Poor

Moderate/High Sinuosity Moderate/High

Hardpan S Hardpan

Channelized/No Recovery Channelized/No

Extensive/Moderate Cover Extensive/Moderate

Heavy/Moderate Silt Cover Silt Heavy/Moderate

Low/Normal Embeddedness Low/Normal

Good/Excellent Development Good/Excellent

Not Channelized or Recovered or Channelized Not

High/Moderate Embeddedness High/Moderate

High

ow/No Riffle/Run Embeddedness Riffle/Run ow/No

Boulder/Cobble/Gravel Substrate Boulder/Cobble/Gravel

L

High/Moderate Riffle Embeddedness Riffle High/Moderate Moderate Rattlesnake Creek (WWH) 23.97W 52.0 1.72 • • • • 4 • 1 • • • • 4 18.01W 59.0 3.50 • • • • 4 0 • • • • • • 6 15.00W 71.0 9.17 • • • • • • • 7 0 • • • • 4 13.23W 77.5 7.52 • • • • • • • • • 9 0 0 (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008)

NOTES QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index WWH Warmwater Habitat MWH Modified Warmwater Habitat W Wading site

2.3 Summary of HUC-12 Pollution Causes and Associated Sources

As shown in the 2006 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Paint Creek Watershed, two biological sampling sites in Rattlesnake Creek are meeting attainment of the WWH designation, while two are in Partial Attainment due underperforming fish communities (Table 12). Near-field impairment at these two locations is primarily driven by habitat and sedimentation impacts caused by agricultural channelization. Loss of sediment from the surrounding landscape also implies loss of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, as a fraction of these nutrients introduced to the landscape through fertilization techniques and other sources bind to soil particles. As soil particles are lost to local waterways, nutrients can become available for microorganism uptake, and in situations where nutrients concentrate and are overabundant, eutrophication occurs and drives Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) and hypoxic zone formation. During the 2006 study, moderate algae growth was present at several sites along the upper and mid- segments of Rattlesnake Creek, and channelization with little riparian buffer failed to provide capacity for nutrient assimilation (Ohio EPA, 2012).

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 18 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Causes and Sources of Impairments for Sampling Locations in the Waddle Ditch- Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) River Attainment Primary Cause(s) Primary Source(s) Location Mile Status Rattlesnake Creek (WWH) 23.97W Channelization – ag Habitat Partial Snow Hill Road 18.01W -- -- (Full) Stafford Road Upstream 15.00W Channelization – ag Sedimentation Partial Zimmerman Road 13.23W -- -- Full Fishback Road (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008) NOTES WWH Warmwater Habitat W Wading site () Attainment based upon one index In addition to the near-field impairments that exist in this sub-watershed, the presence and persistence of the hypoxic zone within the Gulf of Mexico has shown the need for reduced NPS pollution, particularly in regards to nitrogen, and to a lesser extent phosphorus, throughout the entire MARB, of which the Ohio River is a main tributary. Nitrogen loss within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 contributes to this far-field impairment. Ohio EPA has estimated nitrogen loadings from individual sub-watersheds in targeted areas of the ORB. These estimates include a breakdown of estimated loads from contributing sources of NPS pollutants, including agricultural lands/activities and developed/urban lands (Table 13). Efforts to reduce nutrients from each of these contributing sources will focus on reaching the 20% reduction goal by 2025, as outlined by the HTF in 2014.

Estimated Total Nitrogen Loadings from Contributing NPS Sources in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Agricultural Load (lbs/yr) Developed/Urban Load (lbs/yr) Current Estimates* 360,000 51,000 Target Loadings 288,000 50,000 (Source: personal communication with Rick Wilson, Ohio EPA, November 12, 2020) NOTES *Estimated using two significant figures

2.4 Additional Information for Determining Critical Areas and Developing Implementation Strategies

Assessment data from the 2006 study and data referenced in the 2008 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Paint Creek Watershed, 2006, Technical Report EAS/2008-1, the Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Paint Creek Watershed and the 2020 Integrated Report were used in the development of this NPS- IS (Ohio EPA, 2008; Ohio EPA, 2012; Ohio EPA, 2020a). Any additional documents and/or studies created by outside organizations that were used as supplemental information to develop this NPS-IS are referenced in Chapter 5 (Works Cited), as appropriate.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 19 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy CHAPTER 3: CRITICAL AREA CONDITIONS AND RESTORATION STRATEGIES

3.1 Overview of Critical Areas

Overall, four sampling sites are located in Rattlesnake Creek within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12. Two sites are in Full Attainment of the WWH designation, while two sites are in Partial Attainment of the WWH designation, due to habitat and sedimentation impacts related to channelization for agricultural purposes. Two critical areas have been identified within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12. These critical areas will address far-field impacts of nutrients and sediments flowing to the Ohio River, Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico, the end receiving waterbody of drainage from the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (Figure 9).

Many BMP implementation activities nested within this watershed also simultaneously benefit near-field effects in Rattlesnake Creek through sediment reduction. Because many of these BMPs offer dual benefits of nutrient and sediment reduction and agricultural land prioritization is not substantially different for nutrient and sediment reduction within this sub-watershed, critical areas for this land use category address both near-field and far-field impacts (Table 14). Additional critical areas may be developed in subsequent versions of this NPS-IS.

Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Critical Area Overview4

4 Critical area maps developed with the most recently available digital geographic data and may not reflect current land use or existing conditions that have changed since digital publication.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 20 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Critical Area Descriptions Critical NPS Pollutant Area Critical Area Description Focus Area Addressed Number 1 Prioritized Agricultural Lands Sediment and nutrients Far-field (with near-field effects) 2 Streambank and Riparian Sediment and nutrients Far-field (with near-field effects) Restoration

3.2 Critical Area #1: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Prioritized Agricultural Lands

3.2.1 Detailed Characterization Ohio’s Nutrient Mass Balance Study (Ohio EPA, 2020c) estimated 82% of the nitrogen nutrient loading to the Ohio River via the Scioto River was primarily from nonpoint sources, related to land use activities, with only small contributions from failing HSTS and NPDES-permitted facilities. Given the dominance of agricultural land use throughout the greater Scioto River watershed, the use of BMPs are recommended for

agricultural operations to minimize nutrient and associated Nutrients can enter waterways through sediment loss to local waterways and drainage ditches through surface runoff or drain tiles surface and tile flow. While BMPs are encouraged on all agricultural lands, certain lands are more prone to nutrient loss than others and are prioritized for BMP implementation. Lands maintained under conventional agricultural production or managed as pasture are prone to contribute excessive sediment and nutrient loadings to adjacent waterways that eventually flow to the ORB. Lands that are proximal to streams and ditches or do not currently implement specific BMPs are most vulnerable to excessive nutrient and sediment loss, and these lands are also prioritized as critical within this watershed. Critical Area #1 contains prioritized agricultural lands throughout the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (Figure 10).

An Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) database was assembled for the Waddle Ditch- Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 by The Nature Conservancy. The Geographic Information System (GIS)-based tool utilizes input data including a high resolution digital elevation model (DEM), the National Cropland Data Layer (CDL), parcel boundary details and detailed soil surveys to identify potential areas for conservation practices. Results from this tool informed the prioritization of critical lands and objective building (Table 15). The ACPF identified 2,392 acres of high-runoff risk fields, which accounts for approximately 21% of all agricultural lands within the sub-watershed. Approximately seventy-six percent (76%) of these are directly adjacent to perennial streams in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12. The Fayette SWCD will utilize the ACPF outputs to focus conservation planning discussions in identified areas.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 21 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Critical Area #1

Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework Results Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) Critical Runoff Risk (acres)* Very High High Moderate Low 275 2,117 4,554 8,909 Number of Best Management Practice Total Size Treated Acreage Potential Locations Grassed waterways1 85 21,014 linear feet -- Drainage water management structures 98 -- 3,637 Bioreactors 87 -- 4,719 Saturated buffers 52 36,886 linear feet 4,105 52 acres (pool) Nutrient removal wetlands 19 4,806 120 acres (buffer) WASCOBs 22 -- 197 (Source: TNC, unpublished data provided by Alexis Sakas through personal communication on September 30, 2020)

NOTES * The ACPF model analyzes drainage area based upon high-resolution imagery. Watershed boundaries may be redrawn based upon drainage patterns and extend beyond current USGS HUC-12 boundaries; therefore, acreage may not be equal to acreage calculated for the USGS HUC-12s. 1Grassed waterway tool was analyzed by Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. without optional inputs for waterbodies and depressions.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 22 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 23 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Of the 13,292 agricultural acres in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12, prioritized lands are operations that meet one or more of the following criteria:

. Lands identified as having a high runoff risk; . Lands directly adjacent to streams or drainage waterways; . Lands in need of surface water management for runoff or erosion; . Lands with uncontrolled or unfiltered subsurface drainage water; and, . Lands without a current (<3 years) nutrient management plan or soil test.

3.2.2 Detailed Biological Conditions Fish community data for the four sampling locations within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 are summarized below (Table 16). Analysis of the abundance, diversity and pollution tolerance of existing fish species found by Ohio EPA at each sampling location, in relation to the corresponding QHEI score, aids in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. Two of four locations within Rattlesnake Creek are not reaching WWH attainment thresholds. Ohio EPA noted DO levels within Rattlesnake Creek were relatively low throughout the stream, and habitat was generally of lower quality along its length. Communities dominated by tolerant fish, such bluntnose minnow and sunfish, at Snow Hill Road (RM 23.97) are indicative of longer-term water quality issues. Though IBI and habitat scores at Zimmerman Road (RM 15.00) suggest WWH populations could be supported, the MIwb score fell within the Fair range. Ohio EPA suggested that recovery of historical channelization in Rattlesnake Creek may be inhibited by naturally high clay content and low gradient flows.

Critical Area #1 - Fish Community and Habitat Data Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) River Drainage Total Predominant Species Narrative QHEI IBI MIwba Mile Area (mi2) Species (Percent of Catch) Evaluation Rattlesnake Creek (WWH) Hybrid sunfish (22%), green sunfish 23.97W 110.0 25 52.0 33* 6.4* Fair (16%), bluntnose minnow (16%) Gizzard shad (36%), golden redhorse Good – 18.01W 122.0 28 59.0 42 9.3 (15%), northern hog sucker (12%) Very Good Greenside darter (25%), sand shiner Good – 15.00W 125.0 15 71.0 43 7.6* (16%), rainbow darter (15%) Fair Greenside darter (22%), central 13.23W 128.0 16 77.5 45 8.3 Good stoneroller (19%), striped shiner (13%) (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008) NOTES IBI Index of Biotic Integrity a The Modified Index of Well Being (MIwb) is not applicable to headwater sites (drainage ≤20 mi2). QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index W Wading site * Significant departure from applicable biocriteria (>4 IBI or ICI units, or >0.5 MIwb units). Underlined scores are in the poor to very poor range. WWH Warmwater Habitat

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 24 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Characteristics of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community for the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 are summarized below (Table 17). Analysis of the abundance, diversity, and pollution tolerance of existing aquatic macroinvertebrates found by Ohio EPA at these sampling locations, related to QHEI scores, can aid in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. The macroinvertebrate communities within Rattlesnake Creek performed well, despite the stressors of habitat degradation and sedimentation along the stream length. Communities were consistently populated with intolerant taxa and numbers of sensitive and Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) species were relatively numerous. Critical Area #1 - Macroinvertebrate Community Data Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) River Mile ICI Score-Narrativea Notes (Density of Ql./Qt.) Predominant Species Rattlesnake Creek (WWH) 44 – Very Good Micro caddisfly (F), moth larvae (MI), 23.97W Moderate 13 sensitive taxa Asian clam (MI) 18.01W N/A -- -- Riffle beetles (F, MI), case maker 44 – Very Good 15.00W Moderate caddisflies (Neophylax), water pennies, 21 sensitive taxa snails (MI) Caddisflies: fingernet, case maker N/A – Exceptional (Neophylax), netspinner (F, MI); 13.23W Moderate - Low 31 sensitive taxa flatheaded and minnow mayflies (F, MI); water pennies (MI), snails (MI) (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008)

NOTES W Wading site a Narrative evaluation used in lieu of ICI (E=Exceptional; G=Good; MG=Marginally Good; H Fair =High Fair; F=Fair; L Fair=Low Fair; P=Poor; VP=Very Poor). Tolerance Categories: VT=Very Tolerant, T=Tolerant, MT=Moderately Tolerant, F=Facultative, MI=Moderately Intolerant, I=Intolerant. 3.2.3 Detailed Causes and Associated Sources Two sampling sites in Rattlesnake Creek in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 are currently in Full Attainment of the WWH designation. Two sampling sites within Rattlesnake Creek are in Partial Attainment of the WWH designation due to habitat and sedimentation effects from channelization from agricultural activities. The data summarized previously in Table 10 (p.17) reveal a direct link between the presence of attributes in the watershed that have influence on the aquatic communities throughout Rattlesnake Creek in Critical Area #1. These contributing attributes in Critical Area #1 include: . Sparse/ No Cover (at RM 23.97 only); . Fair/Poor Development; . Low Sinuosity; . No Fast Current; . High/Moderate Embeddedness; and, . No Riffle.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 25 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Many of the habitat attributes found during the QHEI sampling event (i.e., low sinuosity, substrate embeddedness, etc.) are likely a result of land use activities, which includes impacts from agricultural operations within the watershed. From a far-field perspective, agricultural land use activities contribute to excessive nutrient loadings to the Ohio River, eventually reaching the Mississippi and then the Gulf of Mexico, contributing to its extensive hypoxic zone. The use of a variety of BMPs on private agricultural lands, at both in-field and edge-of-field locations can help reduce the amount and concentration of nutrient-laden surface runoff and tile drainage. Many BMPs can not only address reduction of nutrients in surface and drainage water, but they can also simultaneously address the loss of sediment from agricultural lands, which contributes to sediment-covered substrates in local waterways. In addition, a reduction of sediment loss to local waterways can also reduce nutrient loss to near-field and far-field waterbodies, as nutrients will also adsorb to sediment particles, potentially becoming dissolved at a later time. The implementation of BMPs on agricultural lands that are prone to sediment and nutrient loss serves as a benefit for both near-field and far-field waterbodies.

3.2.4 Outline Goals and Objectives for the Critical Area The overarching goal of any NPS-IS is to improve water quality scores in order to remove a waterbody’s impairment status or protect quality areas to maintain attainment status. Agricultural land use activities in Critical Area #1 contribute to not only near-field impairment and stressed aquatic communities in Rattlesnake Creek, but also far-field impairment through excessive nutrient loss to local waterways that flow to the Ohio River. The Ohio EPA has estimated nutrient loadings associated with various land uses and sources within targeted HUC-12s in the ORB, and has set nitrogen reduction goals for agricultural and urban sources. To achieve the desired nitrogen reduction from agricultural land use in the Waddle Ditch- Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12, the following goal has been established:

Goal 1. Reduce nitrogen loading contributions in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 to a level at or below 288,000 lbs/year (20% reduction).

NOT ACHIEVED: Current estimated load contribution is 360,000 lbs/year.

Simultaneous goals relate to the improvement of in-stream conditions within Rattlesnake Creek, in order to improve the health of aquatic communities. Implementation of BMP objectives geared towards nutrient reduction efforts will generally also help make incremental progress towards the following goals:

Goal 2. Achieve IBI score at or above 40 at Snow Hill Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 23.97).

NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 33.

Goal 3. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Snow Hill Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 23.97).

NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 6.4.

Goal 4. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 at Snow Hill Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 23.97).

✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 44.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 26 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Goal 5. Achieve QHEI score at or above 60 at Snow Hill Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 23.97).

NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 52.0.

Goal 6. Maintain IBI score at or above 40 at Stafford Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 18.01).

✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 42.

Goal 7. Maintain MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Stafford Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 18.01).

✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 9.3.

Goal 8. Achieve QHEI score at or above 60 at Stafford Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 18.01).

NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 59.0.

Goal 9. Maintain IBI score at or above 40 at Zimmerman Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 15.00).

✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 43.

Goal 10. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Zimmerman Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 15.00).

NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 7.6.

Goal 11. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 at Zimmerman Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 15.00).

✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 44.

Goal 12. Maintain QHEI score at or above 60 at Zimmerman Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 15.00).

✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 71.0.

Goal 13. Maintain IBI score at or above 40 at Fishback Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 13.23).

✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 45.

Goal 14. Maintain MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Fishback Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 13.23).

✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 8.3.

Goal 15. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 (Good) at Fishback Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 13.23).

✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of Exceptional (46).

Goal 16. Maintain QHEI score at or above 60 at Fishback Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 13.23).

✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 77.5.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 27 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Objectives

In order to make substantive progress toward the achievement of the nitrogen load reduction goal of 72,000 lbs for the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12, efforts must commence on more widespread implementation, according to the following objectives within Critical Area #1. Additionally, actions taken to address nutrient reduction will also help reduce stressors on aquatic communities within Rattlesnake Creek.

Objective 1: Implement nutrient management (planning and implementation through soil testing and Variable Rate Technology (VRT)) on at least at least 3,750 additional acres.

Objective 2: Plant cover crops on at least 2,150 additional acres annually.5

Objective 3: Implement conservation tillage (of at least 30% residue) on at least 2,050 additional acres6.

Objective 4: Reduce nutrient loss from subsurface tile drainage through the installation of drainage water management structures that drain at least 400 acres.

Objective 5: Reduce nutrient loss from subsurface tile drainage through the installation of blind inlets that drain at least 40 acres.

Objective 6: Reduce erosion and nutrient loss through the installation or rehabilitation of grassed waterways (as a standalone practice or coupled with erosion control structures/other drainage management practices) that receive/treat surface water from at least 600 acres.

Objective 7: Reduce erosion and nutrient loss through the installation of filter strips/buffers (of at least a 50 ft setback) or saturated buffers that receive/treat surface water from at least 980 acres.

Objective 8: Reduce erosion and nutrient loss through the installation of forested riparian buffers (of at least a 100 ft setback) that receive/treat surface water from at least 20 acres.

Objective 9: Install nitrogen bioreactors to treat subsurface drainage water from at least 70 acres.

Objective 10: Create, enhance and/or restore at least 60 acres of wetlands and/or water retention basins for treatment of agricultural runoff and/or nutrient reduction purposes from 1,500 total agricultural acres.

Objective 11: Reduce erosion from agricultural streambanks and drainage conveyances through natural channel design or two-stage ditch design stabilization techniques to at least 6,600 linear feet (1.25 miles).

5 Cover crop usage is estimated to occur on approximately 285 acres, based upon OpTIS data (Dagan, 2019). Cover crop plantings may be implemented in the absence of grant funding. 6 Current estimates indicate reduced tillage occurs on approximately 6,400 acres, based upon OpTis data (Dagan, 2019).

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 28 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Objective 12: Increase the retirement of marginal and highly vulnerable lands by enrolling at least 30 acres into programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).

These objectives will be directed towards implementation on prioritized agricultural lands and are estimated to reach the nitrogen reduction goal (Table 18). Additional conservation activities within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12, both on priority and secondary lands, may also make incremental progress towards nitrogen reduction goals. The implementation of BMPs included in these objectives, as well as BMPs implemented through federal and state programs and other voluntary efforts may be tracked to monitor progress towards nitrogen reduction goals within the watershed.

Estimated Annual Nutrient Load Reductions from Each Objective Total Estimated Annual Objective Best Management Practice Acreage Nitrogen Load Number Treated Reduction (lbs) Nutrient Management (Planning and Implementation 1 3,750 14,990 through Soil Testing and VRT)a 2 Cover Crops 2,150 11,190 3 Conservation Tillage ( at least 30% residue) 2,050 8,950 4 Drainage Water Management Structures 400 4,030 5 Blind Inletsb 40 470 6 Grassed Waterwaysc 600 5,130 7 Filter Strips/Buffers (of at least 35 ft)d 980 9,210 8 Forested Buffers (of at least 100 ft) 20 260 9 Bioreactors 70 820 10 Wetlandse and/or Water Retention Basins 1,500f 9,770 11 Stream Stabilization and/or Two-Stage Ditch 370g 6,680 12 Land Retirement 30 730 TOTAL 11,960 72,230 (Source Model: Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL), Version 4.4, (USEPA, 2018))

NOTES a Nutrient Management consists of “managing the amount (rate), source, placement (method of application) and timing of plant nutrients and soil amendments to budget, supply and conserve nutrients for plant production; to minimize agricultural nonpoint source pollution of surface and groundwater resources; to properly utilize manure or organic byproducts as a plant nutrient source; to protect air quality by reducing odors, nitrogen emissions (ammonia, oxides of nitrogen) and the formation of atmospheric particulates; and/or to maintain or improve the physical, chemical and biological condition of soil,” as defined by the STEPL guidance documents (Tetra Tech, 2018). b Blind inlet nitrogen reduction efficiency estimated from values listed in Gonzalez, Smith and Livingston, 2016. c Grassed waterway nitrogen reduction efficiency estimated from urban grass swale efficiencies in STEPL. d Concentrated flow must be distributed so the area can slow, filter, and/or soak in runoff. Design specifications will be Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) 393 Filter strips/area, and/or CRP CP-11 or CP2

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 29 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Filter recharge areas. Conservation Cover (FOTG 327 and CRP CP-21) would not be designed to treat contributing runoff. e Nitrogen load reduction for wetlands was calculated using the estimated 5-year average cropland nutrient yield in the Scioto River watershed from 2013-2017 (12.9 lbs/acre nitrogen), provided by Heidelberg University National Center for Water Quality Research. f If drainage water is routed through restored/created wetlands, it is assumed a 50% reduction in nitrogen from total nutrient yield for the drainage area, with a 25:1 ratio of drainage area to receiving wetland (Hoffmann et al., 2012; Woltemade, 2000). For this objective of 60 wetland acres, total drainage area is 1,500 acres. g One linear foot of stream is estimated to drain 0.056 acres in this sub-watershed.

Water quality monitoring is an integral part of the project implementation process. Both project-specific and routinely scheduled monitoring will be conducted to determine progress towards meeting the goals (i.e., water quality standards and nutrient reduction targets). Through an adaptive management process, the aforementioned objectives will be reevaluated and modified as necessary. Objectives may be added to make further progress towards attainment or reduction goals, or altered, as a systems approach of multiple BMPs can accelerate the improvement of water quality conditions. The Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update (Ohio EPA, 2020b) will be utilized as a reevaluation tool for its listing of all eligible NPS management strategies to consider including:

. Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies; . Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies; . Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies; and, . High Quality Waters Protection Strategies.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 30 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy 3.3 Critical Area #2: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Streambank and Riparian Restoration

3.3.1 Detailed Characterization

Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 Critical Area #2

As suggested in the 2006 TMDL study for the Paint Creek watershed, riparian, floodplain and streambank stabilization and restoration is needed throughout the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 in areas where land use has resulted in bare/denuded banks susceptible to erosion and perennial streams have been disconnected from their floodplains (Figure 11). Specific actions suggested for this sub-watershed include restoring streambanks by recontouring or regrading; planting native grasses, trees and shrubs throughout riparian areas; restoring floodplains, stream channels and natural flow; installing in-stream structures; constructing two-stage channels; reconnecting wetlands to streams and constructing and restoring wetlands (Ohio EPA, 2012). Using the rationale described in the Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (USEPA, 2008)(Section 10.3.4): “In general, management practices are implemented immediately adjacent to the waterbody or upland to address the sources of pollutant loads”, Critical Area #2 includes approximately 126,192 linear feet (23.9 miles) of stream length and a 100-foot buffer width on each side. The potential for restoration of approximately 580 acres of riparian corridor and floodplain exists in Critical Area #2.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 31 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy 3.3.2 Detailed Biological Conditions Fish community data for the four sampling locations within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 are summarized below (Table 19). Analysis of the abundance, diversity and pollution tolerance of existing fish species found by Ohio EPA at each sampling location, in relation to the corresponding QHEI score, aids in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. Two of four locations within Rattlesnake Creek are not reaching WWH attainment thresholds. Ohio EPA noted DO levels within Rattlesnake Creek were relatively low throughout the stream, and habitat was generally of lower quality along its length. Communities dominated by tolerant fish, such bluntnose minnow and sunfish, at Snow Hill Road (RM 23.97) are indicative of longer-term water quality issues. Though IBI and habitat scores at Zimmerman Road (RM 15.00) suggest WWH populations could be supported, the MIwb score fell within the Fair range. Ohio EPA suggested that recovery of historical channelization in Rattlesnake Creek may be inhibited by naturally high clay content and low gradient flows.

Critical Area #2 - Fish Community and Habitat Data Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) River Drainage Total Predominant Species Narrative QHEI IBI MIwba Mile Area (mi2) Species (Percent of Catch) Evaluation Rattlesnake Creek (WWH) Hybrid sunfish (22%), green sunfish 23.97W 110.0 25 52.0 33* 6.4* Fair (16%), bluntnose minnow (16%) Gizzard shad (36%), golden redhorse Good – 18.01W 122.0 28 59.0 42 9.3 (15%), northern hog sucker (12%) Very Good Greenside darter (25%), sand shiner Good – 15.00W 125.0 15 71.0 43 7.6* (16%), rainbow darter (15%) Fair Greenside darter (22%), central 13.23W 128.0 16 77.5 45 8.3 Good stoneroller (19%), striped shiner (13%) (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008)

NOTES IBI Index of Biotic Integrity a The Modified Index of Well Being (MIwb) is not applicable to headwater sites (drainage ≤20 mi2). QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index W Wading site * Significant departure from applicable biocriteria (>4 IBI or ICI units, or >0.5 MIwb units). Underlined scores are in the poor to very poor range.

Characteristics of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community for the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 are summarized below (Table 20). Analysis of the abundance, diversity, and pollution tolerance of existing aquatic macroinvertebrates found by Ohio EPA at these sampling locations, related to QHEI scores, can aid in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. The macroinvertebrate communities within Rattlesnake Creek performed well, despite the stressors of habitat degradation and sedimentation along the stream length. Communities were consistently populated with intolerant taxa

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 32 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy and numbers of sensitive and Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) species were relatively numerous.

Critical Area #2 - Macroinvertebrate Community Data Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) River Mile ICI Score-Narrativea Notes (Density of Ql./Qt.) Predominant Species Rattlesnake Creek (WWH) 44 – Very Good Micro caddisfly (F), moth larvae (MI), Asian 23.97W Moderate 13 sensitive taxa clam (MI) 18.01W N/A -- -- 44 – Very Good Riffle beetles (F, MI), case maker caddisflies 15.00W Moderate 21 sensitive taxa (Neophylax), water pennies, snails (MI) Caddisflies: fingernet, case maker (Neophylax), N/A – Exceptional netspinner (F, MI); flatheaded and minnow 13.23W Moderate - Low 31 sensitive taxa mayflies (F, MI); water pennies (MI), snails (MI) (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008)

NOTES W Wading site a Narrative evaluation used in lieu of ICI (E=Exceptional; G=Good; MG=Marginally Good; H Fair =High Fair; F=Fair; L Fair=Low Fair; P=Poor; VP=Very Poor). Tolerance Categories: VT=Very Tolerant, T=Tolerant, MT=Moderately Tolerant, F=Facultative, MI=Moderately Intolerant, I=Intolerant.

3.3.3 Detailed Causes and Associated Sources Two sampling sites in Rattlesnake Creek in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 are currently in Full Attainment of the WWH designation. Two sampling sites within Rattlesnake Creek are in Partial Attainment of the WWH designation due to habitat and sedimentation effects from channelization from agricultural activities. The data summarized previously in Table 10 (p.17) reveal a direct link between the presence of attributes in the watershed that have influence on the aquatic communities throughout Rattlesnake Creek in Critical Area #1. These contributing attributes in Critical Area #1 include:

. Sparse/No Cover (at RM 23.97 only); . Fair/Poor Development; . Low Sinuosity; . No Fast Current; . High/Moderate Embeddedness; and, . No Riffle.

Habitat, as scored by the QHEI, is not a WQS; however, habitat is highly correlated with the performance of aquatic communities. In general, sites that score at least 60 (or 55 for headwater streams) are successful at supporting WWH aquatic assemblages. Projects that address the above described habitat- related attributes (e.g., vegetative cover, etc.) through in-stream and riparian restoration will have a

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 33 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy positive effect in the QHEI scoring index. As the habitat score (QHEI) becomes better, IBI and ICI index scores are also expected to improve.

3.3.4 Outline Goals and Objectives for the Critical Area The overarching goal of any NPS-IS is to improve water quality scores or meet nutrient reduction goals in order to remove a waterbody’s impairment status. For Critical Area #2, addressing streambank and riparian habitat conditions within Rattlesnake Creek and its contributing tributaries will help ameliorate stresses from land use and boost index values for aquatic communities.

The remaining goals for Critical Area #2 of the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 are to reduce sedimentation and channelization effects to improve the aquatic scores through stabilizing streambanks and restoring floodplains and riparian corridors. These goals are to specifically:

Goal 1. Achieve IBI score at or above 40 at Snow Hill Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 23.97). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 33.

Goal 2. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Snow Hill Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 23.97). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 6.4.

Goal 3. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 at Snow Hill Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 23.97). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 44.

Goal 4. Achieve QHEI score at or above 60 at Snow Hill Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 23.97). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 52.0.

Goal 5. Maintain IBI score at or above 40 at Stafford Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 18.01). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 42.

Goal 6. Maintain MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Stafford Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 18.01). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 9.3.

Goal 7. Achieve QHEI score at or above 60 at Stafford Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 18.01). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 59.0.

Goal 8. Maintain IBI score at or above 40 at Zimmerman Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 15.00). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 43.

Goal 9. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Zimmerman Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 15.00). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 7.6.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 34 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Goal 10. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 at Zimmerman Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 15.00). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 44.

Goal 11. Maintain QHEI score at or above 60 at Zimmerman Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 15.00). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 71.0.

Goal 12. Maintain IBI score at or above 40 at Fishback Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 13.23). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 45.

Goal 13. Maintain MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Fishback Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 13.23). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 8.3.

Goal 14. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 (Good) at Fishback Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 13.23). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of Exceptional (46).

Goal 15. Maintain QHEI score at or above 60 at Fishback Road in Rattlesnake Creek (RM 13.23). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 77.5.

Objectives The implementation of these objectives, partnered with implementation throughout other identified critical areas will help ameliorate negative impacts from current and former channelization within the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12, and positive gains will be made towards removing both near- field and far-field impairments. In order to achieve the overall NPS restoration goals of reaching Full Attainment at all sites within Rattlesnake Creek, the following objectives need to be achieved within Critical Area #2.

Objective 1: Stabilize at least five miles (26,400 linear feet) of eroding streambanks.

Objective 2: Restore at least five miles (26,400 linear feet) of stream channel through recontouring, regrading, two-stage and/or natural channel design methods.

Objective 3: Create, enhance or restore at least 120 acres of riparian corridor and/or riparian floodplain wetlands.

Water quality monitoring is an integral part of the project implementation process. Both project-specific and routinely scheduled monitoring will be conducted to determine progress towards meeting the goals (i.e., water quality standards and nutrient reduction targets). Through an adaptive management process, the aforementioned objectives will be reevaluated and modified as necessary. Objectives may be added to make further progress towards attainment or reduction goals, or altered, as a systems approach of multiple BMPs can accelerate the improvement of water quality conditions. The Nonpoint Source

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 35 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy Management Plan Update (Ohio EPA, 2020b) will be utilized as a reevaluation tool for its listing of all eligible NPS management strategies to consider including: . Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies; . Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies; . Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies; and, . High Quality Waters Protection Strategies.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 36 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy CHAPTER 4: PROJECTS AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Projects and evaluation needs identified for the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 are based upon identified causes and associated sources of NPS pollution. Over time, these critical areas will need to be reevaluated to determine progress towards meeting restoration, attainment and nutrient reduction goals. Time is an important variable in measuring project success and overall status when using biological indices as a measurement tool. Some biological systems may show fairly quick response (i.e., one season), while others may take several seasons or years to show progress towards recovery. In addition, reasons for the impairment other than those associated with NPS sources may arise. Those issues will need to be addressed under different initiatives, authorities or programs that may or may not be accomplished by the same implementers addressing the NPS issues.

Implementation of practices described in this NPS-IS may also contribute to nutrient load reduction (specifically the interim 20% reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus loading in the MARB). Nutrient load reduction efforts are consistent with the HTF Action Plan and New Goal Framework (HTF, 2014).

For the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 there are two Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Tables (subsection 4.1 and 4.2). Future versions of this NPS-IS may include subsequent sections as more critical areas are refined and more projects become developed to meet the requisite objectives within a critical area. The projects described in the Overview Table have been prioritized using the following three-step prioritization method:

Priority 1 Projects that specifically address one or more of the listed Objectives for the Critical Area.

Priority 2 Projects where there is land-owner willingness to engage in projects that are designed to address the cause(s) and source(s) of impairment or where there is an expectation that such potential projects will improve water quality in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12.

Priority 3 In an effort to generate interest in projects, an information and education campaign will be developed and delivered. Such outreach will engage citizens to spark interest by stakeholders to participate and implement projects like those mentioned in Priority 1 and 2.

Project Summary Sheets (PSS) follow the Overview Tables, if projects were identified; these provide the essential nine elements for short-term and/or next step projects that are in development and/or in need of funding. As projects are implemented and new projects developed, these sheets will be updated. Any new PSS created will be submitted to the state of Ohio for funding eligibility verification (i.e., all nine elements are included).

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 37 Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

4.1 Critical Area #1 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table

Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) — Critical Area #1 Lead Project Title Time Frame Estimated Cost Potential/Actual Funding Source Goal Objective Project # Organization (EPA Criteria g) (EPA Criteria f) (EPA Criteria d) (EPA Criteria d) (EPA criteria d) Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies

Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies

Agricultural Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies 1, Capps/Cross Grassed Short 6 1 Fayette SWCD $30,000 Ohio EPA §319 9-16 Waterway Rehabilitation (1-3 years) High Quality Waters Protection Strategies

Other NPS Causes and Associated Sources of Impairment

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 38 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

4.1.1 Project Summary Sheet(s) The Project Summary Sheets provided below were developed based on the actions or activities needed to achieve nutrient reduction targets and near-field goals in the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12. These projects are considered next step or priority/short term projects and are considerably ready to implement. Medium and longer-term projects will not have a Project Summary Sheet, as these projects are not ready for implementation or need more thorough planning.

Critical Area #1 – Project #1 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria n/a Title Capps/Cross Grassed Waterway Rehabilitation criteria d Project Lead Organization & Partners Fayette SWCD criteria c HUC-12 and Critical Area Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12; Critical Area #1 criteria c Location of Project Private lands near 39.423607, -83.464996 n/a Which strategy is being addressed by Agricultural Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies this project? criteria f Time Frame Short (1-3 years) criteria g Short Description Rehabilitation of a lined grassed waterway criteria g Project Narrative A local landowner has a 1.51-acre grassed waterway that is currently lined (silted in) and is no longer functionally capturing sediment and associated runoff and preventing erosion. The grassed waterway treats 67.2 acres of cultivated cropland. The proposed project will rehabilitate the grassed waterway through reconstruction of the waterway and the associated drainage and replanting the waterway’s footprint to provide adequate sediment/nutrient capture and erosion reduction. criteria d Estimated Total cost $30,000 criteria d Possible Funding Source Ohio EPA §319 criteria a Identified Causes and Sources Cause: Nutrient loadings, leading to far-field impacts Source: Agricultural land use activities criteria b & h Part 1: How much improvement is The overall goal in Critical Area #1 is to reduce estimated total nitrogen loads. Current estimates needed to remove the NPS indicate the agricultural contribution to the annual load is 360,000 lbs. of nitrogen. In order to meet impairment for the whole Critical the HTF nutrient reduction goals, annual loads must be reduced by 20%, or 72,000 lbs. Area?

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 39 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Critical Area #1 – Project #1 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria Part 2: How much of the needed It is expected that this project will cause a decrease in annual nitrogen loadings by 579 lbs. (0.8% improvement for the whole Critical progress). Area is estimated to be accomplished by this project? Part 3: Load Reduced? Estimated annual reduction: 579 #N/year; 32 #P/year; 16.2 tons sediment/year criteria i How will the effectiveness of this It is generally unrealistic to monitor load reduction from individual agricultural practices; however, project in addressing the NPS ambient monitoring is conducted throughout the ORB by organizations such as Ohio EPA and impairment be measured? Heidelberg University. These entities will continue long term monitoring on various tributaries in the ORB to track load reduction trends. criteria e Information and Education The Fayette SWCD will produce a fact sheet about the importance of conservation practices to reducing nutrient runoff and the alignment of this project with nutrient reduction goals. In addition, the Fayette SWCD will promote the project implementation efforts through newsletters and online and in-person forums (i.e., the Fayette SWCD website, the Fayette SWCD social media pages, Field Days and Annual Meetings. Grant appropriate signage for the project will also be displayed.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 40 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

4.2 Critical Area #2 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table

Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) — Critical Area #2 Lead Project Title Time Frame Estimated Cost Potential/Actual Funding Source Goal Objective Project # Organization (EPA Criteria g) (EPA Criteria f) (EPA Criteria d) (EPA Criteria d) (EPA criteria d) Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies

Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies

Agricultural Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies

High Quality Waters Protection Strategies

Other NPS Causes and Associated Sources of Impairment

At this time, no short-term projects have been identified for Critical Area #2; therefore, no Project Summary Sheets are included.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 41 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

CHAPTER 5: WORKS CITED

Dagan. 2019. Operational Tillage Information System. https://ctic.org/optis_tabular_query. Accessed February 19, 2021.

Fayette County. 2006. Fayette County Comprehensive Land Use Strategy Plan. https://www.fayette-co- oh.com/document_center/Government/Zoning/comprehensive-land-use-strategy-plan-2006.pdf. Accessed April 5, 2021.

Gonzalez, J.M., D.R. Smith and S.J. Livingston. 2016. Blind Inlets as Conservation Practices to Improve Water Quality. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=agroenviron. Accessed October 28, 2019.

Hoffmann, C.C., L. Heiberg, J. Audet, B. Schønfeldt, A. Fuglsang, B. Kronvang, N.B. Ovesen, C. Kjaergaard, H.C.B. Hansen and H.S. Jensen. 2012. Low phosphorus release but high nitrogen removal in two restored riparian wetlands inundated with agricultural drainage water. Ecological Engineering. 46, p.75-87.

Homer, C.G. et al. 2020. Conterminous United States land cover change patterns 2001-2016 from the 2016 National Land Cover Database. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. v. 162, June 2, 2020, p.184-199.

Hypoxia Task Force (HTF). 2014. Mississippi River Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force New Goal Framework. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/htf-goals- framework-2015.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2020.

Ohio Administrative Code. (OAC). 3745-1 Water Quality Standards. https://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/rules/3745_1. Accessed January 5, 2021.

Ohio Department of Health (ODH). 2013. Household Sewage Treatment System Failures in Ohio: A Report on Local Health Department Survey Responses for the 2012 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey. https://odh.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/odh/know-our-programs/sewage-treatment-systems/resources- and-education/2012hstsfailureratesinohio. Accessed October 21, 2020.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2001. Gazetteer of Ohio Streams. 2nd Edition. https://minerals.ohiodnr.gov/Portals/minerals/pdf/industrial%20minerals/gazetteer_ohio_streams.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2020.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2020. Ohio Mussel Survey Protocol, updated April, 2020. https://ohiodnr.gov/static/documents/wildlife/permits/dow-protocol-ohio-mussel-survey.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2021.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 42 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2021. Ohio Geology Interactive Map. https://gis.ohiodnr.gov/website/dgs/geologyviewer/#. Accessed February 18, 2021.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 1999. Association between Nutrients, Habitat and the Aquatic Biota of Ohio’s Rivers and Streams. https://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/lakeerie/ptaskforce/AssocLoad.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2019.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2008. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Paint Creek Watershed, 2006, Technical Report EAS/2008-1-2. https://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/PaintCreekTSD_2006_aug08.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2020.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2012. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Paint Creek Watershed. https://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/tmdl/PaintCr_TMDLreport_FINAL.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2020.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2013. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Ottawa River (Lima Area) Watershed. https://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/tmdl/OttawaLima_Report_Final.pdf. Accessed August 27, 2019.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2016. Guide to Developing Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategic Plans in Ohio. https://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/nps/319docs/NPS- ISPlanDevelopmentGuidance816.pdf. Accessed June 4, 2020.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2017. Fayette County Receives Funding from Ohio EPA to Help Homeowners with Failing Septic Systems. https://epa.ohio.gov/News/Online-News- Room/News-Releases/fayette-county-receives-funding-from-ohio-epa-to-help-homeowners-with- failing-septic-systems. Accessed March 1, 2021.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2020a. 2020 Ohio Integrated Report. https://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/OhioIntegratedReport#123145148-2018. Accessed June 4, 2020.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2020b. Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update (FY2019-2024). https://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/nps/2019-NPS-Mgmt-Plan.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2020.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2020c. Nutrient Mass Balance Study for Ohio’s Major Rivers 2020. https://www.epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/documents/Nutrient-Mass-Balance-Study-2020.pdf. Accessed December 30, 2020.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 43 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2021a. Individual NPDES Permits Interactive Map. https://oepa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b680bd65d1874023ae6ec2f911acb8 41. Accessed January 3, 2021.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2021b. River Miles Index Interactive Map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4f93b8e37d4640a6ab3ac43d2914d25e. Accessed December 29, 2020.

Ohio Lake Erie Commission (OLEC). 2020. Promoting Clean and Safe Water in Lake Erie: Ohio’s Domestic Action Plan 2020 to Address Nutrients. https://lakeerie.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Ohio%20DAP/Ohio%20DAP%202020%20DRAFT%202020-01- 28.pdf?ver=2020-01-28-123210-883. Accessed December 8, 2020.

Paint Creek Watershed Project (PCWP). 2002. Paint Creek Watershed Management Plan. http://wwwapp.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/nps/WAPs/PaintCr.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2021.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load (STEPL) Input Data Server. https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/grts/f?p=109:333. Accessed January 21, 2021.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2018. Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load (STEPL) Input Data Server. http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/steplweb/steplweb.html. Accessed April 11, 2020.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Unpublished Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework Data. Provided by Alexis Sakas on September 30, 2020.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. Plan for the Ohio River Basin: 2020-2025. https://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/Portals/38/docs/orba/Plan%20for%20the%20Ohio%20River%20Basin_ FINAL.PDF?ver=s5zhd_NfTAZ7ao0bWhBLpA%3d%3d. Accessed December 8, 2020.

United States Census Bureau (US Census Bureau). 2020. Quick Facts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/delawarecityohio. Accessed December 30, 2020.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2012. Census of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/. Accessed December 2, 2020.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2019. Census of Agriculture, 2017. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/Ag_Atlas_Maps/index.php. Accessed January 5, 2021.

United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2018. HQ FSA and EQIP Practice Spreadsheet, as distributed to the Hypoxia Task Force.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 44 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015- 09/documents/2008_04_18_nps_watershed_handbook_handbook-2.pdf. Accessed on October 28, 2019.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. Primary Distinguishing Characteristics of Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States. https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregion- download-files-state-region-5#pane-33. Accessed April 20, 2020.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load (STEPL), Version 4.4. https://www.epa.gov/nps/spreadsheet-tool-estimating-pollutant- loads-stepl. Accessed September 22, 2020.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2020. History of the Hypoxia Task Force. https://www.epa.gov/ms-htf/history-hypoxia-task-force. Accessed December 8, 2020.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Ohio – County Distribution of Federally-Listed Endangered, Threatened and Proposed Species, updated January 29. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/ohio-cty.html. Accessed February 2, 2021.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US). https://maps.usgs.gov/padus/. Accessed June 2, 2020.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. StreamStats: Streamflow Statistics and Spatial Analysis Tools for Water-Resources Applications. https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water- resources/science/streamstats-streamflow-statistics-and-spatial-analysis-tools?qt- science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects. Accessed April 4, 2021.

Woltemade, C.J. 2000. Ability of Restored Wetlands to Reduce Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concentrations in Agricultural Drainage Water. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 55(3): 303-309.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 45 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy