Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03)

Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy (NPS-IS) for Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03)

Prepared for: Allen Soil and Water Conservation District

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

Version 1.0: April 2020 Approved: April 29, 2020

This page intentionally left blank.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Acknowledgements

Version 1.0 prepared and written by:

Sandra Springer Allen Soil and Water Conservation District 1601 E. 4th St., Suite B Lima, OH 45804

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

The Allen Soil and Water Conservation District would like to acknowledge the collaboration of multiple partners in the preparation of this Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy (NPS-IS) for the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. Thank you to the individuals and organizations that contributed background information, insight into objectives and projects for inclusion in this NPS-IS. Special thanks to Rick Wilson, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency – Division of Surface Water, for guidance throughout the NPS-IS development process and Beth Seibert and the Ottawa River Coalition for their support.

This product or publication was financed in part or totally through a grant from the Ohio Lake Erie Commission and the United States Environmental Protection Agency with Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funds. 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 Lake Erie Commission or United States Environmental Protection Agency peer or administrative review and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Ohio Lake Erie Commission or the United States Environmental Protection Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. i Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 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 NPS-IS document.

Numbers §319 Section 319 of the Clean Water Act

A ALU Aquatic Life Use

B BMP Best Management Practice

C CAFF Confined Animal Feeding Facility CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program CSA Critical Sewage Area

D DAP Domestic Action Plan

E ECBP Eastern Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program

F FSA Farm Service Agency FLS Federally Listed Species

G GLC Great Lakes Commission GLRI Great Lakes Restoration Initiative GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

H H2Ohio H2Ohio Initiative (Ohio state funding mechanism for water quality improvement) HAB Harmful Algal Bloom HSTS Home Sewage Treatment System HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

I IBI Index of Biotic Integrity ICI Invertebrate Community Index IJC International Joint Commission

J JAMPD Johnny Appleseed Metropolitan Park District

L LRW Limited Resource Waterway

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. ii Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

M MIwb Modified Index of Well Being MTA Metric Tons per Annum MWH-I Modified Warmwater Habitat-Impounded

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

O ODA Ohio Department of Agriculture ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources OEPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency OLEC Ohio Lake Erie Commission ORC Ottawa River Coalition

P PAD-US Protected Areas Database of the United States

Q QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index

R RM River Mile

S STEPL Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads SRW State Resource Waterway SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District

T TMACOG Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSD Technical Support Document

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

W WAP Watershed Action Plan WLEB Western Lake Erie Basin WQS Water Quality Standards (Ohio Administrative Code 3745-1) WWH Warmwater Habitat

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. iii Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements...... i Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... ii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Report Background ...... 2 1.2 Watershed Profile & History ...... 3 1.3 Public Participation and Involvement ...... 5 Chapter 2: HUC-12 Watershed Characterization and Assessment Summary ...... 6 2.1 Summary of HUC-12 Watershed Characterization ...... 6 2.2 Summary of HUC-12 Biological Trends ...... 11 2.3 Summary of HUC-12 Pollution Causes and Associated Sources ...... 15 2.4 Additional Information for Determining Critical Areas and Developing Implementation Strategies ...... 16 Chapter 3: Critical Area Conditions & Restoration Strategies ...... 17 3.1 Overview of Critical Areas ...... 17 3.2 Critical Area #1: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Nutrient Reduction in Prioritized Agricultural Lands ...... 18 3.3 Critical Area #2: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Nutrient Reduction from HSTS ... 25 Chapter 4: Projects and Implementation Strategy ...... 28 4.1 Critical Area #1 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table ...... 29 4.2 Critical Area #2 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table ...... 36 Chapter 5: Works Cited ...... 37

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Overview ...... 1 Figure 2: Western Lake Erie Basin Watershed ...... 4 Figure 3: Location of the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 ...... 4 Figure 4: Soils Classified by Particle Size ...... 7 Figure 5: Wetlands within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 ...... 7 Figure 6: Land Use in the Two Mile Creek-Auglaize River HUC-10 ...... 9 Figure 7: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Critical Area Overview ...... 17 Figure 8: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Critical Area #1 ...... 18 Figure 9: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Critical Area #2 ...... 25

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. iv Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table of Tables

Table 1: Estimated Animal Counts in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 ...... 8 Table 2: Land Use Classifications in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 ...... 9 Table 3: Threatened and Endangered Species in Allen and Auglaize Counties ...... 10 Table 4: Biological Indices Scores for Sites in Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 ...... 11 Table 5: Water Quality Standards for the Eastern Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion ...... 12 Table 6: QHEI Matrix with WWH and MWH Attribute Totals for Sites in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 ...... 14 Table 7: Causes and Sources of Impairments for Sampling Locations in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 ...... 15 Table 8: Estimated Spring Nutrient Loadings from Contributing NPS Sources in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 ...... 16 Table 9: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Critical Area Descriptions ...... 18 Table 10: Critical Area #1 – Fish Community and Habitat Data ...... 19 Table 11: Critical Area #1 – Macroinvertebrate Community Data...... 20 Table 12: Estimated Nutrient Loading Reductions from Each Objective ...... 24 Table 13: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03) — Critical Area #1 ...... 29 Table 14: Critical Area #1 – Project #1 ...... 30 Table 15: Critical Area #1 – Project #2 ...... 32 Table 16: Critical Area #1 – Project #3 ...... 34 Table 17: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03) — Critical Area #2 ...... 36

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. v Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Sims Run-Auglaize River Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)-12 (04100007 02 03) is located in southwestern Allen County, Ohio, and northern Auglaize County, Ohio. The Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 contains a watershed of 28.80 square miles (Figure 1). The Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 wholly contains Sims Run, a nine mile-long stream1 that empties into the Auglaize River at river mile (RM) 71.6 (OEPA, 2019). A section of the Auglaize River, a 101.9 mile long river originating in southeastern Allen County, Ohio, that flows to the Maumee River in Defiance, is also within the boundaries of the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. The watershed is primarily rural, and land use activities are dominated by cultivated cropland (~68%). The Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 has recently been identified as a priority watershed within the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB) for watershed planning and nutrient reduction efforts due to the estimated loadings of total phosphorus and dissolved reactive (soluble) phosphorus that flows into the tributaries of the Maumee River and eventually, Lake Erie.

Figure 1: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Overview

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. To ease implementation of projects addressing nonpoint source (NPS) management and habitat restoration, current federal and state NPS and habitat restoration funding opportunities require

1 Current basemaps utilized in the 2018 Ohio Integrated Report (OEPA, 2018a) and the OEPA River Miles Index (OEPA, 2019) show Sims Run extending to approximately 9 miles in length.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

strategic watershed plans incorporate these nine key elements, concisely to HUC-12 watersheds. In addition, the development of Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategies (NPS-IS) is critical to the efforts focused on implementing Ohio’s Domestic Action Plan (DAP) to reduce total spring nutrient loadings to Lake Erie by 40% by the year 2025, with aspirations to reach a 20% reduction by 2020 (OLEC, 2018). The development of NPS-IS across the entire WLEB will address NPS pollution by accounting for both near-field (within stream/watershed) and far-field (loadings to Lake Erie) effects. The Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 NPS-IS is one of five plans sponsored and developed by the Allen Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) under a grant from the Ohio Lake Erie Commission (OLEC).

1.1 Report Background The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) has historically supported watershed-based planning in many forms (OEPA, 2016). In 1997, OEPA 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 (OEPA, 2016). In response, the OEPA developed a new template for watershed planning in the form of a 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), particularly in the WLEB.

In 2018, all subwatersheds (HUC-12s) within the Auglaize HUC-8 (including the Ottawa River, Little Auglaize River and Little Flatrock Creek HUC-12), the Blanchard HUC-8 (including Eagle Creek), the St. Marys HUC-8 and the Platter Creek HUC-12 were recommended for designation as a “Watershed in Distress” due to relatively higher concentrations of phosphorus in surface waters contributing to harmful algal bloom (HAB) occurrence in Lake Erie. These waterways were found to have flow-weighted mean concentrations of phosphorus two or more times the phosphorus loading goals set forth by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) and the subsequent DAP developed by the State of Ohio (ODA, 2018). In 2019, the proposal to designate these watersheds as distressed was removed from state consideration. Focus is now on developing NPS- Sediments and nutrients flow within tributaries to eventually reach the IS for these subwatersheds in preparation for basin-wide targeted Maumee River and Lake Erie nutrient reduction efforts. No WAP previously existed for the Auglaize River watershed, in whole or in part. The coordination of this NPS-IS for the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 , in conjunction with several others being prepared in 2019, serves as an initial, formal planning effort within the Auglaize River watershed.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Removal of NPS impairments and reduction in overall nutrient loss within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 is crucial to the attainment of aquatic life use (ALU) standards within the Auglaize River and smaller tributaries in the watershed, such as Sims Run, as well as reduction in severity, extent and occurrence of HABs within the WLEB. Within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12, the Auglaize River is in Full Attainment of its Warmwater Habitat (WWH) designation at two locations. The Auglaize River is in Full Attainment of its Modified Warmwater Habitat-Impounded (MWH-I) designation in one impounded segment at the Bresler Reservoir intake. Sims Run is also in Full Attainment of its WWH designation in its downstream segment and is meeting Limited Resource Waterway (LRW) standards in its upstream segment. Buck Run and a Tributary to the Auglaize River at RM 63.4 (also called the Goecke Tributary) are in Non-Attainment of their WWH designations related to flow and habitat alterations, as well as siltation, related to agricultural hydromodification, channelization and riparian removal. Agricultural land use activities within the watershed have severely altered instream habitat locally, and high nutrient loadings also contribute to large-scale impairment within Lake Erie. This NPS-IS will be used to strategically identify and outline key projects that should be implemented within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 to address management of NPS issues that have both near-field and far-field impacts.

1.2 Watershed Profile & History The WLEB is composed of approximately 7,000,000 acres across the tri-state area of Ohio, Indiana and Michigan (Figure 2). The largest direct tributary to the WLEB is the Maumee River, flowing 137 miles through 18 counties in Indiana and Ohio. The WLEB watershed is broken into several subbasins at the HUC-8 level, including the St. Joseph, St. Marys, Auglaize, Blanchard, Tiffin, Ottawa-Stony, River Raisin, Cedar-Portage, Upper Maumee and Lower Maumee watersheds. The Auglaize HUC-8 (04100007) wholly contains the Auglaize River (101.9 miles) from its headwaters in Allen County to its confluence with the Maumee River in Defiance, Ohio. The Auglaize HUC-8 is the largest tributary watershed to the Maumee River, containing 1,668.46 square miles (1,067,815.32 acres) in northwest Ohio and eastern Indiana (NRCS, 2009). While many smaller tributaries flow to the Auglaize River, its largest tributaries include the Blanchard River and the Ottawa River. A grouping of these smaller tributaries can be found within the Two Mile Creek-Auglaize River HUC-10 (04100007 02), a series of subbasins with waterways flowing to a 36.3 mile-long section of the Auglaize River (OEPA, 2019).

The Two Mile Creek-Auglaize River HUC-10 has a drainage area of 100.4 square miles, or 64,255.39 acres (Figure 3). The Two Mile Creek-Auglaize River HUC-10 contains a section of the Auglaize River from RM 83.3, where Pusheta Creek empties, to the mouth of the Jennings Creek at RM 47.0. Land use within the Two Mile Creek-Auglaize River HUC-10 is mainly agricultural with the largest community being Wapakoneta, Ohio, which is residence to approximately 9,867 people (US Census Bureau, 2010). Other larger villages in the watershed include Spencerville and Buckland, which each hold between 230 and 2,225 residents (US Census Bureau, 2010).

The Two Mile Creek-Auglaize River HUC-10 is further divided into four HUC-12 watersheds, which contain smaller tributaries to the Auglaize River, one of which is the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. The Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 wholly contains three of these smaller tributaries: Sims Run, Buck

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Run and the Goecke Tributary. Like the greater HUC-10 watershed, the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 supports largely agricultural land use (~68%).

Figure 2: Western Lake Erie Basin Watershed

Figure 3: Location of the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

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, agricultural landowners, producers and service providers, as well as the public at large.

The Allen SWCD is dedicated to promoting the wise use, improvement and maintenance of the soil, water and other natural resources in Allen County. The Allen SWCD has a comprehensive plan for conserving and protecting soil and water resources within the county, which involves defining existing problems, finding appropriate solutions, and coordinating activities to solve problems. The staff of the Allen SWCD provide resource management information and technical assistance for installing and maintaining a broad range of conservation practices. In addition, the Allen SWCD is committed to improving water quality in the greater Auglaize River watershed and actively participates in the Ottawa River Coalition (ORC), a local watershed group consisting of 45 member and partner organizations working together to understand and protect water quality within the greater Ottawa River watershed.

Chapters 1, 2 and 3 were primarily prepared using the Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Upper Auglaize River Watershed (OEPA, 2004) and the 2018 Ohio Integrated Report (OEPA, 2018a). Project information for Chapter 4 was compiled by collaborative meetings with organizational stakeholders, community partners and local landowners.

The Allen SWCD engaged local stakeholder organizations through a meeting on October 9, 2019. Additionally, a presentation about the planning process within the Ottawa River watershed, including efforts in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12, was given to the ORC membership on September 26, 2019. Stakeholder input was solicited individually also from local organizations, including the Allen County Office of the Engineer, Allen County Health Department, Auglaize SWCD, Johnny Appleseed Park District, Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Commission, Marion Township Trustees, Washington Township Trustees, and the Amanda Township Trustees, as well as those working across the region, such as Ohio State University Extension, Black Swamp Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy, West Central Land Conservancy, Maumee Watershed Conservancy District and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR).

A public meeting was held in Spencerville, Ohio on December 17, 2019, and landowners within the watersheds were invited with targeted announcements. Approximately 15 landowners and interested parties were in attendance and/or submitted input. Allen SWCD frequently works one-on-one with landowners throughout the county, including those within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12, and will continue to engage landowners in discussions concerning natural resource conservation and best management practice (BMP) implementation.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 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 Two Mile Creek-Auglaize River HUC-10 is comprised of four HUC-12 watersheds; this document focuses on the #03 hydrologic unit—the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. The Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 contains 28.80 square miles (18,429.54 acres) and approximately 8.6 miles of the 101.9 mile- long Auglaize River, from RM 72, where Two Mile Creek empties to RM 63.4 (OEPA, 2019). The Auglaize River flows southwesterly from its headwaters in Allen County to Auglaize County, where it turns north in Wapakoneta to flow back through Allen, Putnam, Paulding and Defiance counties to empty in the Maumee River in Defiance, Ohio. The Auglaize River receives surface water from 2,342 square miles throughout northwest Ohio, which also includes the entire watershed of the Blanchard HUC-8, and 107 square miles in eastern Indiana (OEPA, 1992). It has an average fall of 3.2 ft/mile (ODNR, 2001).

Sims Run is the largest tributary to the Auglaize River within this subwatershed, meeting the river at RM 71.6. Sims Run is approximately nine miles long and drains an area of 8.48 square miles (USGS, 2019). Buck Run is an intermittent stream that is approximately 3.6 miles in length and meets the Auglaize River at RM 67.78. It has an average fall of 18.6 ft/mile and drains an area of 4.15 square miles. Goecke Tributary is approximately 4.3 miles in length, meeting the Auglaize River at RM 63.54. It drains an area of 2.19 square miles (USGS, 2019). Approximately 46 miles of additional unnamed tributary waterways flow throughout the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. Like many tributaries throughout the Two Mile Creek-Auglaize River HUC-10, these tributaries shows abundant evidence of past channel modification from which there has been little recovery (OEPA, 2004).

Soils within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 are mainly fine-grained and are predominantly of the Blount, Pewamo, Glywood and Millgrove series (Figure 4). These soils are derived mainly from glacial till plains and lake plains, consisting of clayey silts and sand and are typically poorly drained (OEPA, 2004). Soils overlay Silurian limestone and dolomite, and in some areas, more than two hundred feet of glaciated drift material (ODNR, 2004; ODNR, 2006).

The Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 is entirely contained within the Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) Ecoregion2. The ECBP Ecoregion is primarily a rolling till plain with local end moraines, extensively covered by glacial deposits of the Wisconsinan age (USEPA, 2013). Pre-Wisconsinan till is restricted to the southern part of the ecoregion. Originally, beech forests were found on Wisconsinan soils, while elm-ash swamp forests were interspersed with the beech forests in the wetter pre-Wisconsinan soils. Today, the ECBP is characterized by extensive corn, soybean, and livestock production. Stream habitat and water quality have degraded due to channelization and agricultural activities. These activities have also left little remaining wetland areas in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (Figure 5).

2 The Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Upper Auglaize River (OEPA, 2004) lists the Goecke Tributary within the Huron-Erie Lake Plains Ecoregion; however, when compared to the USEPA Ecoregion shapefiles, the entire subwatershed lies within the ECBP Ecoregion.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 6 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Figure 4: Soils Classified by Particle Size

Figure 5: Wetlands within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 7 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Currently, no National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)-permitted facilities are located within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. Also, no Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA)-permitted Confined Animal Feeding Facilities (CAFFs) are sited within the watershed; however, smaller livestock operations are scattered throughout the subwatershed (Table 1). Manure management within the subwatershed is a concern, particularly in storage capacity and application practices.

Table 1: Estimated Animal Counts in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Livestock Type Animal Units Beef 807 Dairy 129 Swine 17,748 Sheep 92 Horse 91 Chicken 8,900 Turkey 11 Duck 16 (Source: USDA Census of Agriculture, 2012, as presented in the STEPL Input Data Server (Tetra Tech, 2017))

No major population centers are located within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. The population is scattered throughout the subwatershed, estimated at 1,693, with 648 housing units in unsewered areas (TMACOG, 2018). A study conducted by the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG) in 2018 identified one Critical Sewage Area (CSA), an area of high density of HSTS that would allow for efficient connection to sanitary sewer infrastructure or HSTS replacement efforts within the Auglaize County portion of the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. Estimates place the failure rate of HSTS within the WLEB as high as 39%, and efforts to replace or repair faulty HSTS outside of CSAs are likely best accomplished on an individualized, case-by-case basis.

Specific landmarks and features within this watershed include: ▪ Three cemeteries ▪ Buckland Park ▪ Dave Rice Airport ▪ Fort Amanda Park and Memorial ▪ Lake Amanda ▪ Oaks Golf Club ▪ Two canoe liveries

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 8 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

2.1.2 Land Use and Protection Land use within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 is fairly homogenous (Figure 6). The dominant land use activity within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 is cultivated crop production (68%), with deciduous forest covering the next largest portion of the watershed (12%) (Table 2).

Figure 6: Land Use in the Two Mile Creek-Auglaize River HUC-10

Table 2: Land Use Classifications in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Land Use (04100007 02 03) Area (mi2) Area (acres) % Watershed Area Bare/Mines 0.04 26.37 0.14% Commercial/Industrial/Transportation 0.01 3.29 0.02% Crop 19.49 12,466.60 67.64% Deciduous Forest 3.37 2,157.75 11.71% Evergreen Forest 0.04 25.98 0.14% Open Water 0.43 275.99 1.50% Pasture 2.61 1,671.83 9.07% Residential 2.29 1,468.73 7.97% Urban/Recreational Grasses 0.18 115.28 0.63% Woody Wetlands 0.34 217.72 1.18% Total 28.80 18,429.54 100.00% (Source: Homer, 2015)

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 9 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

One public park, Buckland Park, is listed for this subwatershed in the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US). It is managed by the city of Buckland, and approximately half of its eight acres falls within the boundaries of the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. The PAD-US also references Oaks Golf Club, a public golf course totaling 115 acres, of which approximately half lies within the subwatershed borders. Additionally, Fort Amanda Park is located wholly within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. The park, managed by the Johnny Appleseed Metropolitan Park District (JAMPD), contains 11 acres located along the Auglaize River. The park contains a memorial to Ft. Amanda, an important point in the supply chain during the War of 1812.

Two threatened or endangered species are listed for both Allen and Auglaize Counties by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Table 3). In addition, the Auglaize River is designated as a State Resource Water (SRW) due to the presence of populations of the greater redhorse (Moxostoma valenciennesi). The Auglaize River is only one of two rivers within Ohio to support this fish species (OEPA, 1992). The Auglaize River and Buck Run are currently listed in Appendix A of the Ohio Mussel Survey Protocol as Group 1 streams, indicating that mussels may be present, but the Federally Listed Species (FLS) on USFWS’s listing are not expected to be found (ODNR, 2018). Sims Run and the Goecke Tributary are not likely to support FLS due to the small size of their drainage areas (<10 square miles) and are not listed in Appendix A.

Table 3: Threatened and Endangered Species in Allen and Auglaize Counties Species Status Habitat Characteristics Hibernates in caves and mines and forages in small stream Indiana bat Endangered corridors with well-developed riparian woods, as well as (Myotis sodalis) upland forests. Hibernates in caves and mines and swarms in surrounding Northern long-eared bat Threatened wooded areas in autumn; roosts and forages in upland (Myotis septentrionalis) forests during late spring and summer. (Source: USFWS, 2018)

Most land within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 is privately owned; therefore, knowledge of conservation practices may be limited. Summary data provided by the OEPA regarding the use of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 indicated one new certification for two acres of brush management occurred since March 30, 2017 (R. Wilson, personal communication, June 13, 2019). Conservation program activity within the Sims Run- Auglaize River HUC-12 has been limited in the recent past; however, future nutrient reduction projects implemented through this NPS-IS and available state and federal programming will be compiled to track progress made towards nutrient reduction and

conservation goals across the Sims Run-Auglaize River Most land is privately owned and HUC-12 and the greater WLEB watershed. Allen SWCD in agricultural land use.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 10 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

recognizes the important need for focusing on landowner education and conservation opportunities within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12.

2.2 Summary of HUC-12 Biological Trends The OEPA sampled within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 most recently during the summer of 2019; however, these data will not be readily available for inclusion in this NPS-IS version. Data presented in this NPS-IS were obtained by the OEPA in 2000, as documented in the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for the Upper Auglaize River Watershed (OEPA, 2004). A Technical Support Document (TSD) was not prepared for the TMDL study, so little summary information is available regarding individual sampling sites or general trends. All locations sampled were verified as WWH3, except RM 4.4 within Sims Run. This site was recommended for the LRW designation due to the extent of channel alterations so that no appreciable aquatic community can be supported (OEPA, 2004).

A summary of the sample locations and their biological status in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 is provided in Table 4. For reference, water quality standards (WQS) for the ECBP Ecoregion are presented in Table 5.

Table 4: Biological Indices Scores for Sites in Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03) Drainage Attainment RM IBI MIwba ICIb QHEI Location Area (mi2) Status Auglaize River (WWH) 72.0w 197.0 54 10.1 44 75.5 Full Main St 67.1W/67.2R 209.0 55 10.0 48 66.5 Full State Route 117 Auglaize River (MWH-I) Bresler Reservoir 64.8B 215.0 48 8.9 26 45.5 Fullc (impounded) Sims Run (LRW) 4.4H 4.2 22 N/A P 25.0 Full Conant Rd Sims Run (WWH) 0.8H 7.8 36ns N/A MGns 36.5 Full National Rd Buck Run (WWH) 0.6H 4.0 32* N/A P* 43.0 Non Sunderland Rd Auglaize Tributary at RM 63.54 (Goecke Tributary) (WWH) 0.5H 2.5 38ns N/A P* 39.0 Non Defiance Trail (Source: OEPA, 2004)

3 The 2004 TMDL report identifies the Auglaize River at RM 64.8 as WWH; however, its impounded status classifies the river as MWH-I at this location. For the purposes of this NPS-IS, it is classified as such.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 11 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

NOTES 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 (Good; MG=Marginally Good; High Fair; F=Fair; Low Fair; P=Poor; VP=Very Poor). QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index * Significant departure from applicable biocriteria. Underlined scores are in the poor to very poor range. ns Nonsignificant departure from biocriterion (< 4 IBI or ICI units; < 0.5 MIwb units). c Impounded site; attainment status based solely on fish assemblages. B Boat site H Headwater site R Ecological reference site W Wading site N/A Not applicable

Table 5: Water Quality Standards for the Eastern Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion ECBP WWH WQS MWH WQSa LRW WQS Ecoregion Wading Headwater Boat Wading Headwater Boat Wading Headwater Boat IBI 40 40 42 24 24 24/30 18 18 18 MIwb 8.3 N/A 8.5 6.2 N/A 5.8/6.6 4.0 N/A 4.0 ICI 36 36 36 22 22 22/-- 8 8 8 QHEIb 60 60 60 43.5 43.5 43.5 ------(Source: OEPA, 2004; OEPA, 2013b)

NOTES WWH Warmwater Habitat MWH Modified Warmwater Habitat LRW Limited Resource Waterway WQS Water Quality Standards a Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH) standards are dependent on type of MWH. MWH-C (due to channelization) is listed first; MWH-I (due to impoundment) is listed second. b 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 support healthy aquatic assemblages indicative of WWH. For MWH, OEPA suggests a score of 43.5 for the support of tolerant aquatic assemblages (OEPA, 2013b). N/A MIwb not applicable to headwaters sampling locations with drainage areas ≤ 20 mi2. -- Biocriterion not promulgated.

Fishes (Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwb] & Index of Biotic Integrity [IBI]) At the time of sampling in 2000, there was a significant increase in the number of pollution intolerant, substrate dependent fish species compared to sampling conducted in 1991 in the mainstem of the Auglaize River and many segments of the river moved to Full Attainment status (OEPA, 2004). This is a direct result of improvements in the implementation of agricultural BMPs and shows the substantial impact that BMPs can make in a short period of time. Fish communities within the tributaries to the Auglaize River ranged from Poor to Marginally Good, and were mostly limited by habitat alterations and high sedimentation.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 12 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Macroinvertebrates (Invertebrate Community Index [ICI]) In 2000, ICI scores ranged qualitatively from Poor to Exceptional within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. Within the Auglaize River mainstem, macroinvertebrate community performance improved with increasing drainage area, except within the impounded section of the river. The macroinvertebrate communities within Sims Run met the prescribed biocriteria for the LRW and WWH segments; however, communities within Buck Run and the Goecke Tributary underperformed for their WWH designations. Communities within Buck Run were dominated by pollution tolerant taxa, with very low organism density, while those collected within the Goecke Tributary were reflective of the limited habitat resulting from past channelization, sedimentation and riparian encroachment (OEPA, 2004). Tributaries are channelized and have no riparian corridor

Habitat (via Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index [QHEI]) The OEPA sampling crews documented various water quality and habitat attributes during the QHEI assessment in the summer of 2000 (Table 6). QHEI was measured at a total of nine sampling locations throughout the waterways located in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. Habitat within the Auglaize River mainstem was of relatively high quality, except within the impounded segment near RM 64.8.The high quality of the habitat here was reflected in high aquatic community performance. The tributaries within this subwatershed show abundant evidence of past channel modifications, riparian encroachment and heavy sedimentation. In some areas, such as the upper six miles of Sims Run, artificial channels have persisted over time with no recovery, prompting the recommendation for the LRW designation.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 13 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 6: QHEI Matrix with WWH and MWH Attribute Totals for Sites in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03) Key QHEI MWH Attributes WWH Attributes

Components High Influence Moderate Influence

MWMAttributes

Development

NoRiffle

RiverMile

QHEIScore

NoSinuosity

LowSinuosity

No Fast Current

Gradient (ft/mi)

Influence

WWHAttributes

Sparse/NoCover

MaxDepth cm >40 MaxDepth cm <40

Silt FreeSubstrates Silt

Fast Current/Eddies Fast RecoveringChannel

Silt/Muck Substrates

SandSubstrate (Boat)

Only 1 1 orOnly 2 CoverTypes

Fair/PoorDevelopment

InfluenceModified Attributes

Intermediate/PoorPools

Moderate/HighSinuosity

HardpanSubstrate Origin

Channelized/NoRecovery

Extensive/ModerateCover

Heavy/Moderate Cover Silt

/ModerateEmbeddedness Riffle

Low/NormalEmbeddedness Low/NormalEmbeddedness

Good/Excellent

Not Channelizedor Recovered

gh gh

High/ModerateEmbeddedness

Boulder/Cobble/GravelSubstrate

High Moderate

Auglaize River (WWH) 72.0 75.5 4.50 • • • • • • • • • 9 0 • • • 3 67.1 67.5 0.73 • • • • • • • 7 0 • • • • • • 6 Auglaize River (MWH-I) 64.8 45.5 0.73 • • • • 4 • 1 • • • • • 5 Sims Run (LRW) 4.4 25.0 4.72 • 1 • • • 3 • • • • • • • 7 Sims Run (WWH) 0.8 37.5 6.10 • • 2 • • • 3 • • • • • • • • 8 Buck Run (WWH) 0.6 44.0 9.80 • 1 • 1 • • • • • • • • • • 10 Auglaize Tributary at RM 63.54 (Goecke Tributary) (WWH) 0.5 39.0 9.62 • 1 • • • 3 • • • • • • • • • 9 (Source: OEPA, 2004)

NOTES QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index WWH Warmwater Habitat MWH Modified Warmwater Habitat

Strong correlations exist between habitat attributes and a stream’s ability to support healthy aquatic assemblages (OEPA, 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 MWH attributes; additionally, no more than one of those four should be of high- influence (OEPA, 2013b). Only one location (Auglaize River at RM 72.0) met this target within the subwatershed. In the WWH tributaries, total MWH attributes ranged from 11-12. Within streams

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 14 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

designated as MWH, no more than six total MWH attributes should be exhibited, of which no more than two should be of high-influence. The Auglaize River at RM 64.8 met this criteria.

2.3 Summary of HUC-12 Pollution Causes and Associated Sources As listed in the 2004 Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Upper Auglaize River Watershed, the OEPA has determined that the biological impairments in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 are mainly from habitat and flow alterations, as well as siltation, caused by agricultural hydromodification and channelization (Table 7).

Table 7: Causes and Sources of Impairments for Sampling Locations in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03) Attainment RM Primary Cause(s) Primary Source(s) Location Status Auglaize River (WWH) 72.0w -- -- Full Main St 67.1W/67.2R -- -- Full State Route 117 Auglaize River (MWH-I) Bresler Reservoir 64.8B -- -- Fulla (impounded) Sims Run (LRW) 4.4H -- -- Full Conant Rd. Sims Run (WWH) 0.8H -- -- Full National Rd. Buck Run (WWH) Unknown, Flow 0.6 Unknown, agricultural modification Non Sunderland Rd. alteration Auglaize Tributary at RM 63.54 (Goecke Tributary) (WWH) Siltation, Channelization, non-irrigated cropland, habitat 0.5H agricultural hydromodification, riparian Non Defiance Trail alteration, flow removal alteration (Source: OEPA, 2004)

NOTES B Boat site H Headwater site R Ecological reference site W Wading site a Impounded site; attainment status based solely on fish assemblages.

In addition to the near-field impairments that currently exist in this watershed, the presence and persistence of HABs within Lake Erie has shown the need for reduced NPS pollution, particularly in regards to phosphorus, throughout the entire WLEB watershed. Phosphorus loss within the Sims Run-

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 15 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Auglaize River HUC-12 contributes to this far-field impairment. The OEPA has estimated spring phosphorus loadings from individual subwatersheds throughout the greater WLEB watershed. These estimates also include a breakdown of estimated loads from contributing sources of NPS pollutants, such as agricultural lands/activities, developed/urban lands, failing HSTS and natural sources (Table 8). Efforts to reduce nutrients from each of these contributing sources will focus on reaching the 40% reduction goal outlined by Annex 4 of the GLWQA and the Ohio DAP.

Table 8: Estimated Spring Nutrient Loadings from Contributing NPS Sources in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Agricultural Load Developed/Urban Natural Load HSTS Load NPS Total

(lbs) Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) Current Estimates* 14,000 490 210 430 15,000 Target Loadings* 8,400 290 210 260 9,100 (Source: OLEC, 2020)

NOTES *Estimated using two significant figures

2.4 Additional Information for Determining Critical Areas and Developing Implementation Strategies Assessment data from the 2004 TMDL sampling event and the 2018 Integrated Report were used in the development of this NPS-IS (OEPA, 2004; OEPA, 2018a). 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. 16 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

CHAPTER 3: CRITICAL AREA CONDITIONS & RESTORATION STRATEGIES

3.1 Overview of Critical Areas Overall, seven sampling sites are located in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. Biological attainment was met in the WWH and MWH-I segments of the Auglaize River and in the LRW and WWH segments of Sims Run. Buck Run is in Non-Attainment due to a poorly performing macroinvertebrate community and marginal fish community, while the Goecke Tributary is in Non-Attainment due to poorly performing macroinvertebrate communities. Failure to meet WWH standards at these locations are attributed to flow and habitat alterations and siltation associated with agricultural hydromodification, channelization and non-irrigated crop production (OEPA, 2004). Siltation and sedimentation may be decreased (along with nutrients) by the implementation of agricultural BMPs that help stabilize soil and nutrient loss from row crop fields. Actions implemented to address far-field impairment effects have a positive impact on near-field aquatic communities and may help boost macroinvertebrate and associated habitat scores within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12.

Two critical areas have been identified to address far-field effects of nutrients in Lake Erie, the end receiving waterbody of drainage from the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (Figure 7). Implementation of BMPs to address sediment and nutrient loss within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 would help address impairment caused by both on near-field and far-field scales. As outlined by the OEPA, nutrient reduction targets have been set for contributing sources of phosphorus. At this time, nutrient reduction strategies and projects have been identified for two critical areas contributing to far-field impairment (Table 9). Additional critical areas may be developed in subsequent versions of this NPS-IS.

Figure 7: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Critical Area Overview

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 17 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 9: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Critical Area Descriptions Critical Area Critical Area Description Impairments Addressed Number 1 Nutrient Reduction in Prioritized Far-field (Lake Erie), with possible near-field Agricultural Lands impacts in Buck Run and the Goecke Tributary 2 Nutrient Reduction in Unsewered Areas Far-field (Lake Erie)

3.2 Critical Area #1: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Nutrient Reduction in Prioritized Agricultural Lands 3.2.1 Detailed Characterization Ohio’s Nutrient Mass Balance Study (OEPA, 2018b) estimated 88% of the nutrient loadings to Lake Erie via the Maumee River were primarily from nonpoint sources, related to land use activities, with only small contributions from failing HSTS and NPDES permitted facilities. This estimate is consistent with several other studies. Given the dominance of agricultural land use throughout the greater WLEB watershed, the use of BMPs are recommended for agricultural operations to minimize nutrient loss to local waterways and drainage ditches through 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. Critical Area #1 contains prioritized agricultural lands throughout the entire Sims Run- Auglaize River HUC-12 (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Critical Area #1

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 18 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Of the 12,467 crop acres in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12, prioritized lands are operations that meet one or more of the following criteria: ▪ Lands directly adjacent to streams or drainage waterways; ▪ Lands without a current (<3 years) nutrient management plan or soil test; ▪ Lands with high soil phosphorus levels (>40 ppm Mehlich); ▪ Lands within a corn-soybean rotation; and, ▪ Lands with recurrent gully erosion.

3.2.2 Detailed Biological Conditions Fish community data for the seven sampling locations within Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 are summarized below (Table 10). Analysis of the abundance, diversity and pollution tolerance of existing fish species found by OEPA at each sampling location, in relation to the corresponding QHEI score, aids in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. In general, fish assemblages met their respective biocriteria, with the exception of Buck Run. While the percentage of pollution intolerant species has improved within the Auglaize River mainstem since sampling in 1991, assemblages in the tributaries are dominated with pollution tolerant species such as creek chub and bluntnose minnow.

Table 10: Critical Area #1 – Fish Community and Habitat Data Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03) Drainage Total Predominant Species Narrative RM QHEI IBI MIwba Area (mi2) Species (Percent of Catch)1 Evaluation Auglaize River (WWH) Greenside darter (12%), longear sunfish (11%), Exceptiona 72.0w 197.0 31 75.5 54 10.1 bluntnose minnow (11%) l Spotfin shiner (19%), greenside darter (11%), Exceptiona 67.1W/67.2R 209 28 66.5 55 10.0 golden redhorse (10%) l Auglaize River (MWH-I) Golden redhorse (27%), spotfin shiner (26%), 64.8B 215.0 19 45.5 48 8.9 Very Good spotted sucker (17%) Sims Run (LRW) Creek chub (36%), fathead minnow (31%), 4.4H 4.2 6 25.0 22 N/A Poor bluntnose minnow (18%) Sims Run (WWH) 36n Bluntnose minnow (24%), white sucker (20%), Marginally 0.8H 7.8 20 36.5 N/A s central stoneroller (11%) Good Buck Run (WWH) Creek chub (33%), central stoneroller (23%), 0.6H 4.0 13 43.0 32* N/A Fair bluntnose minnow (19%) Auglaize Tributary at RM 63.4 (Goecke Trib.) (WWH) 38n Bluntnose minnow (25%), creek chub (17%), Marginally 0.5H 2.5 19 39.0 N/A s central stoneroller (14%) Good (Source: OEPA, 2004)

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 19 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

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 * Significant departure from applicable biocriteria. Underlined scores are in the poor to very poor range. ns Nonsignificant departure from biocriterion (< 4 IBI or ICI units; < 0.5 MIwb units). B Boat site H Headwater site R Ecological reference site W Wading site N/A Not applicable 1 Percent of catch from first sampling pass in 2000.

Characteristics of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community for the sampling locations in Critical Area #1 are summarized below (Table 11). Again, analysis of the abundance, diversity, and pollution tolerance of existing aquatic macroinvertebrates (bugs) found by the OEPA at these sampling locations, related to QHEI scores, can aid in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. Quantitative scores were only tabulated within the Auglaize River mainstem. Generally, macroinvertebrate performance was in attainment of the respective stream designation, except in Buck Run and the Goecke Tributary. Habitat attributes, such as substrate embeddedness, heavy/moderate silt cover and lack of riffle within these tributaries is contributing to the limitations of the macroinvertebrate communities.

Table 11: Critical Area #1 – Macroinvertebrate Community Data Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03) RM ICI Score-Narrativea Predominant Species (Tolerance Categories) Auglaize River (WWH) 44 – Very Good 72.0w Stenacron sp (F), Cheumatopsyche sp (F), Rheotanytarsus sp (F) 18 sensitive taxa 48 – Exceptional Cheumatopsyche sp (F), Turbellaria (F), Polypedilum 67.1W/67.2R 28 sensitive taxa (Uresipedilum) flavum (F) Auglaize River (MWH-I) 26 – Fair Glyptotendipes (G.) sp (MT), Dicrotendipes Lucifer (MT), 64.8B 5 sensitive taxa Dicrotendipes neomodestus (F) Sims Run (LRW) N/A – Poor 4.4H -- 0 sensitive taxa Sims Run (WWH) N/A – Marginally Goodns 0.8H -- 0 sensitive taxa Buck Run (WWH) N/A – Poor* 0.6H -- 0 sensitive taxa Auglaize Tributary at RM 63.4 (Goecke Tributary) (WWH) N/A – Poor* 0.5H -- 0 sensitive taxa (Source: OEPA, 2004)

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 20 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

NOTES * Significant departure from ecoregion biocriteria; poor and very poor results are underlined. ns Nonsignificant departure from biocriterion (< 4 IBI or ICI units; < 0.5 MIwb units). B Boat site H Headwater site R Ecological reference site W Wading site Tolerance Categories: VT=Very Tolerant, T=Tolerant, MT=Moderately Tolerant, F=Facultative, MI=Moderately Intolerant, I=Intolerant. N/A Quantitative scores not assigned -- Quantitative data not available

3.2.3 Detailed Causes and Associated Sources Two of the seven sampling locations within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 are in Non-Attainment of their WWH designation, with three locations within the Auglaize River and two locations within Sims Run reaching Full Attainment status for their respective ALU designations. The macroinvertebrate and fish communities in Buck Run and the macroinvertebrate communities within the Goecke Tributary failed to meet expectations for the WWH designation. Biological impairment within the subwatershed and critical area from excessive sediment and nutrient loadings is a concern at the near-field scale, as well as the far-field scale. In addition, an analysis of the QHEI scoring shows a substantial presence of high- and moderate-influence MWH attributes in Buck Run and the Goecke Tributary. Many of these habitat attributes (i.e., heavy/moderate silt cover, high embeddedness, etc.) are likely a result of land use activities, which are mainly agricultural operations within the watershed.

From a far-field perspective, agricultural land use activities contribute to excessive nutrient loadings to Lake Erie that result in eutrophication and the formation of HABs. 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 or meet nutrient reduction goals in order to remove a waterbody’s impairment status. Agricultural land use activities in Critical Area #1 contribute to both near-field and far-field impairment through excessive sedimentation and nutrient loss (phosphorus) to local waterways that flow to Lake Erie. Through the GLWQA Annex 4 and the subsequent DAP for the State of Ohio, nutrient target loads have been set for the Maumee River, which is the largest contributing waterbody to the WLEB. These phosphorus target loads have been set at levels that are 40% lower than the current estimated loadings. Ohio’s Nutrient Mass Balance Study has

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 21 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

also shown that a large portion of the nutrient load to Lake Erie occurs during springtime rains (OEPA, 2018b).

Many objectives within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 align with the priorities of the H2Ohio Initiative, a water quality initiative with a focus on phosphorus reduction. This program will provide economic incentives to producers who develop nutrient management plans for their fields and implement effective and cost-efficient BMPs that include: soil testing, variable rate fertilization, subsurface nutrient application, manure incorporation, conservation crop rotation, cover crops, drainage water management structures, two-stage ditch construction, edge of field buffers and headwaters and coastal wetlands that reduce agricultural runoff (H2Ohio, 2019).

Goals The OEPA has modeled nutrient loadings associated with various land uses and sources within each HUC-12 in the Maumee River Basin, and has set phosphorus reduction goals for each associated source, based upon springtime load estimates. To achieve the desired phosphorus reduction from agricultural land use, as well as make progress towards the removal of in-stream impairments in the Sims Run- Auglaize River HUC-12, the following goals have been established:

Goal 1. Reduce springtime phosphorus loading contributions in Critical Area #1 to a level at or below 8,400 lbs/year (40% reduction). NOT ACHIEVED: Current estimated load contribution is 14,000 lbs/year.

Goal 2. Achieve an IBI score at or above 40 at Sunderland Rd in Buck Run (RM 0.6). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 32.

Goal 3. Achieve an ICI score at or above Good at Sunderland Rd in Buck Run (RM 0.6). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of Poor.

Goal 4. Achieve a QHEI score at or above 60 at Sunderland Rd in Buck Run (RM 0.6). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 43.0.

Goal 5. Achieve an IBI score at or above 40 at Defiance Trail in the Goecke Tributary (RM 0.5). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 38.

Goal 6. Achieve an ICI score at or above Good at Defiance Trail in the Goecke Tributary (RM 0.5). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of Poor.

Goal 7. Achieve a QHEI score at or above 60 at Defiance Trail in the Goecke Tributary (RM 0.5). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 39.0.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 22 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Objectives In order to make substantive progress toward the achievement of the springtime phosphorus load reduction goal of 5,600 lbs for the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12, effort must commence on more widespread implementation, according to the following objectives within Critical Area #1.

Objective 1: Implement nutrient management (planning and implementation through soil testing and variable rate technology (VRT)) on at least 9,200 acres4.

Objective 2: Encourage the use of conservation crop rotation (i.e., wheat, malting barley, alfalfa, oats, radishes, etc.) through the planting of cover crops on at least 9,000 additional acres annually.5

Objective 3: Reduce nutrient loss from subsurface tile drainage through the installation of drainage water management structures that drain at least 1,600 acres.

Objective 4: Reduce erosion and nutrient loss through the installation of grassed waterways that receive/treat surface water from at least 1,300 acres.

Objective 5: Reduce nutrient loss through the installation of erosion control structures over at least 300 acres.

Objective 6: Reduce erosion and nutrient loss through the installation of filter strips/buffers/floodplain management areas (of at least a 35 ft setback, up to 2,000 feet for floodplain management areas) that receive/treat surface water from least 700 acres.

Objective 7: Create, enhance and/or restore at least 130 acres of wetlands or water retention basins/areas for treatment of agricultural runoff and/or nutrient reduction purposes from 3,250 total agricultural acres.

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

4 No data are available for estimating current nutrient management planning and variable rate fertilization usage within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. 5 Cover crops are estimated to be currently planted on 5% of acres in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12. Cover crop plantings may be implemented in the absence of grant funding.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 23 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 12: Estimated Nutrient Loading Reductions from Each Objective Estimated Annual Estimated Spring Objective Total Acreage Best Management Practice Phosphorus Load Phosphorus Load Number Treated Reduction (lbs) Reduction (lbs) Nutrient Management (Planning and 1 9,200 4,180 2,720 Implementation)a 2 Cover Crops 9,000 1,010 660 Drainage Water Management 3 1,600 520 340 Structures 4 Grassed Waterwaysb 1,300 550 360 5 Erosion Control Structuresc 300 240 150 6 Filter Strips/Buffers (of at least 35 ft.)d 700 460 300 Wetlands and/or Water Retention 7 3,250f 1,710 1,110 Basinse TOTAL 25,350* 8,670 5,640 (Source Model: Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL), Version 4.4 (USEPA, 2019))

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 Grassed Waterways phosphorus reduction efficiency estimated from values listed in OSUE, 2018. c Erosion control structure phosphorus efficiency estimated from values in Minks et al., 2015. d Concentrated flow must be distributed so the area can slow, filter, and/or soak in runoff. Design specifications will be FOTG 393 Filter strips/area, and/or CREP CP-11 or CP2 Filter recharge areas. Conservation Cover (FOTG327 and CREP CP-21) would not be designed to treat contributing runoff. e Phosphorus load reduction for wetlands was calculated using the estimated 5-year average cropland nutrient yield in the Maumee River watershed from 2013-2017 (1.05 lbs/acre phosphorus), 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 phosphorus from total nutrient yield for the drainage area, with a 25:1 ratio of drainage area to receiving wetland. For this objective of 130 wetland acres, total drainage area is 3,250 acres. * Total acreage treated exceeds number of agricultural land acres. More than one BMP may be implemented within fields.

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 (OEPA, 2013a) 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;

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 24 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

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

3.3 Critical Area #2: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Nutrient Reduction from HSTS 3.3.1 Detailed Characterization Ohio’s Nutrient Mass Balance Study (OEPA, 2018b) estimated a small percentage (4%) of the nutrient loadings to Lake Erie via the Maumee River were from contributions from failing HSTS. This estimate is consistent with estimates from several other studies. The OEPA has modeled nutrient loadings associated with various land uses and sources within each HUC-12 in the Maumee River Basin, and has set phosphorus reduction goals for each associated source, including failing or inefficient HSTS, based upon springtime load estimates. Critical Area #2 contains the unsewered area west of Wapakoneta, Ohio containing a cluster of homes along Bay Road (CR 101) and Glynwood Road (CR 158) and approximately 123 unmapped, unsewered households with compromised HSTS across the Sims Run- Auglaize River HUC-12 (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 Critical Area #2

The cluster of homes near CR 101 and CR 158 was identified as a CSA in TMACOG’s 2018 HSTS study. The CSA covers approximately 186 acres of residential properties, extending slightly to the south of the HUC- 12 boundary. The headwaters of Sixmile Creek (that drains to the St. Marys River) starts in the southern portion of this CSA, and Sims Run begins its rise in the northern section of the CSA. TMACOG estimates

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 25 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

that at least 40 residences and a businesses are unsewered within this area. The CSA’s proximity to the City of Wapakoneta may increase the feasibility of connection to public utilities.

Approximately 608 additional unsewered homes are estimated to be scattered throughout the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (TMACOG, 2018). Using current estimates for HSTS failure rate in the WLEB, approximately 238 of these homes are individually contributing to phosphorus loading within this subwatershed. These households are unmapped, and HSTS improvement efforts would best be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

3.3.2 Detailed Biological Conditions Biological data do not exist for this critical area, as no OEPA assessment sites are located in streams or open ditches in the mapped portion of Critical Area #2.

3.3.3 Detailed Causes and Associated Sources In 2018, TMACOG identified the area of Bay Road (CR 101) and Glynwood Road (CR 158) as a CSA, a cluster of homes within an expanding community west of Wapakoneta, Ohio. Sanitary sewer improvements or efforts undertaken to repair failing or inefficient HSTS within CSAs will not only prevent the distribution of human waste into the environment, but would also help contribute to progress on meeting overall WLEB nutrient reduction goals set by the GLWQA and Ohio’s DAP.

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. Elimination of HSTS nutrient contributions should be addressed to reduce the amount of fecal materials and nutrients introduced to the environment and local waterways. In order to meet the 40% overall nutrient reduction goals of the Ohio DAP, reductions in nutrient contributions from failing HSTS should also be considered. Using current estimates from the OEPA Division of Surface Water, springtime phosphorus load contributions from HSTS should be no more than 260 lbs. Current estimates are 430 lbs, resulting in the need of an overall reduction by 170 lbs.

Goals The OEPA has modeled nutrient loadings associated with various land uses and sources within each HUC-12 in the Maumee River Basin, and has set phosphorus reduction goals for each associated source, based upon springtime load estimates. To achieve the desired phosphorus reduction from HSTS in the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12, the following goal has been established:

Goal 1. Reduce springtime phosphorus loading contributions in Critical Area #2 to a level at or below 260 lbs/year (40% reduction). NOT ACHIEVED: Current estimated springtime load contribution is 430 lbs/year.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 26 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

TMACOG’s HSTS study (2018) estimated the annual phosphorus load from the entire Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 to be 0.47 metric tons per annum (MTA), with a total household count of 648. Using these numbers, an average household’s yearly total phosphorus contribution in this watershed is 0.00073 MTA, equivalent to 1.61 lbs per year within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12.

Using TMACOG’s estimate of at least 40 households clustered near CR 101 and CR 158, phosphorus loads could be reduced by 64 lbs annually, equivalent to a springtime phosphorus load reduction of 42 lbs. An additional 123 homes throughout the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 would need to have a failing HSTS replaced or be connected to sanitary sewer service in order to meet the 40% springtime reduction goal for HSTS-related phosphorus contributions. Given no other clusters of homes were identified as a CSA within the Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12, these improvements would likely be accomplished on a case-by-case basis.

Objectives In order to make progress towards the springtime phosphorus load reduction goal for the Sims Run- Auglaize River HUC-12, the following objectives need to be achieved within Critical Area #2.

Objective 1: Reduce HSTS contributions through replacement efforts or connection to sanitary sewer infrastructure for at least 40 households in the area of Bay Road (CR 101) and Glynwood Road (CR 158).

Objective 2: Reduce HSTS contributions through replacement efforts or connection to sanitary sewer infrastructure for at least 123 unmapped, unclustered households on an individualized, case-by-case basis.

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 (OEPA, 2013a) will be utilized as a reevaluation tool, as well as other state and federal agency resources for its listing of all eligible NPS management and nutrient reduction 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. 27 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

CHAPTER 4: PROJECTS AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Projects and evaluation needs identified for the Sims Run-Auglaize River 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 plan will also contribute to nutrient load reduction (specifically the 40% reduction in phosphorus load) to protect and restore use attainment in Lake Erie. Nutrient load reduction efforts are consistent with the Lake Erie Collaborative Agreement through the International Joint Commission (IJC) and Ohio’s DAP (OLEC, 2018).

For the Sims Run-Auglaize River 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 Sims Run-Auglaize River 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. 28 Allen Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

4.1 Critical Area #1 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table Table 13: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03) — Critical Area #1 Project Title Lead Organization Time Frame Estimated Cost Potential/Actual Funding Source Goal Objective Project # (EPA Criteria g) (EPA criteria d) (EPA Criteria f) (EPA Criteria d) (EPA Criteria d) Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies

Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies

Agricultural Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies Agricultural BMPs – Nutrient Short GLRI, H2Ohio, GLC, FSA-CREP, 1-7 1 1 Management Planning and Allen SWCD $35,000 (1-3 yrs) NRCS-EQIP Implementation Agricultural BMPs – Short $17,000- H2Ohio, GLC, FSA-CREP, NRCS- 1-7 2 2 Conservation Crop Allen SWCD (1-3 yrs) $24,000 EQIP Rotation/Cover Crops Agricultural BMPs – Drainage OEPA §319, H2Ohio (drainage Short 1-7 3,4 3 Water Management and Allen SWCD $43,000 mgmt. only), GLRI, GLC, FSA- (1-3 yrs) Grassed Waterways CREP, NRCS-EQIP

High Quality Waters Protection Strategies

Other NPS Causes and Associated Sources of Impairment

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 29 Allen Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 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 in the Sims Run-Auglaize River 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.

Table 14: Critical Area #1 – Project #1 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria n/a Title Agricultural BMPs – Nutrient Management (Plan Development, Soil Testing and VRT Implementation) criteria d Project Lead Organization & Allen Soil and Water Conservation District Partners criteria c HUC-12 and Critical Area Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03) – Critical Area #1 criteria c Location of Project Private landowners – exact location not disclosed n/a Which strategy is being addressed Agricultural Nonpoint Source Reduction by this project? criteria f Time Frame Short (1-3 years) criteria g Short Description Cost-share program to implement nutrient management plan development, soil testing and VRT criteria g Project Narrative Allen SWCD will administer a cost-share program to local landowners in prioritized agricultural lands for nutrient management plan development, implementation of soil testing and VRT. This project has a goal to development nutrient management plans for at least 600 acres and enroll at least 600 acres for soil testing and VRT application. Cost share for nutrient management plan development will be up to $2,000 per plan (estimated 150-200 acres). Soil testing will pay $10 per acre (paid out over 4 years in H2Ohio) and VRT cost-share will be $8 per acre (four years management).

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 30 Allen Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 14: Critical Area #1 – Project #1 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria 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 spring phosphorus loads. Current needed to remove the NPS estimates indicate 14,000 lbs of phosphorus in the spring load is attributed to agricultural land use impairment for the whole Critical activities. In order to meet the GLWQA nutrient reduction goals, spring loadings must be reduced Area? by 40%, or 5,600 lbs. Part 2: How much of the needed It is expected that this project will cause a decrease in spring phosphorus loadings by 177 lbs, or improvement for the whole Critical 3.2%, made through incremental progress on the objective shown below: Area is estimated to be accomplished by this project? Objective #1: Implement nutrient management (planning and implementation through soil testing and VRT) on at least 600 of 9,200 acres (7%). Part 3: Load Reduced? Estimated: 468 #N/year; 272 #P/year; sediment reduction not applicable criteria i How will the effectiveness of this Allen SWCD will be responsible for nutrient management plan development and will conduct project in addressing the NPS follow-up activities, as deemed necessary, to document implementation of soil testing and VRT impairment be measured? application. It is generally unrealistic to monitor load reduction from individual agricultural practices; however, ambient monitoring is conducted throughout the WLEB by organizations such as OEPA, NOAA, and Heidelberg University. These entities will continue long term monitoring on various tributaries in the Maumee basin to track load reduction trends. criteria e Information and Education Project information will be shared at the Allen SWCD annual meeting and at applicable field days. Project highlights will also be shared on social media and/or Allen SWCD’s website, in print or online newsletters and in regular updates at watershed meetings throughout the county and region. Appropriate signage will announce project information and accomplishments.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 31 Allen Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 15: Critical Area #1 – Project #2 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria n/a Title Agricultural BMPs – Cover Crops criteria d Project Lead Organization & Allen Soil and Water Conservation District Partners criteria c HUC-12 and Critical Area Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03) – Critical Area #1 criteria c Location of Project Private landowners – exact locations not disclosed n/a Which strategy is being addressed Agricultural Nonpoint Source Reduction by this project? criteria f Time Frame Short (1-3 years) criteria g Short Description Cost-share program for cover crop plantings criteria g Project Narrative Allen SWCD will administer a cost-share program to local landowners in prioritized agricultural lands to encourage conservation crop rotation and the planting of cover crops on at least 600 acres annually. The maximum amount enrolled by one operation will not exceed 200 acres. Cost-share will pay out at $25-35 per acre, depending on species, or at a set cost-share rate, dependent upon funding source (particularly in the case of H2Ohio funding).

This project summary sheet may be combined with other project summary sheets to form a singular project, which could be delivered as a program, according to funding source, timing considerations and identification of landowner needs. BMP specifications for installation and cost- share will be comparable to those listed for H2Ohio, unless otherwise stipulated by funding source. H2Ohio funding will be sought first for applicable practices. criteria d Estimated Total cost $17,000-$24,000 criteria d Possible Funding Source H2Ohio, GLC, FSA-CREP, NRCS-EQIP 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 spring phosphorus loads. Current needed to remove the NPS estimates indicate 14,000 lbs of phosphorus in the spring load is attributed to agricultural land use impairment for the whole Critical activities. In order to meet the GLWQA nutrient reduction goals, spring loadings must be reduced Area? by 40%, or 5,600 lbs. Part 2: How much of the needed It is expected that this project will cause a decrease in spring phosphorus loadings by 44 lbs, or improvement for the whole Critical 0.8%, made through incremental progress on the objective shown below: Area is estimated to be accomplished by this project? Objective# 2: Encourage the use of conservation crop rotation (i.e., wheat, malting barley, alfalfa, oats, radishes, etc.) through the planting of cover crops on at least 600 acres of 9,000 additional acres annually (7%).

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 32 Allen Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 15: Critical Area #1 – Project #2 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria Part 3: Load Reduced? Estimated: 660 #N/year; 67 #P/year; 20.2 tons sediment/year criteria i How will the effectiveness of this Allen SWCD will verify cover crop planting and conservation crop rotation. It is generally unrealistic project in addressing the NPS to monitor load reduction from individual agricultural practices; however, ambient monitoring is impairment be measured? conducted throughout the WLEB by organizations such as OEPA, NOAA, and Heidelberg University. These entities will continue long term monitoring on various tributaries in the Maumee basin to track load reduction trends. criteria e Information and Education Project information will be shared at the Allen SWCD annual meeting and at applicable field days. Project highlights will also be shared on social media and/or Allen SWCD’s website, in print or online newsletters and in regular updates at watershed meetings throughout the county and region. Appropriate signage will announce project information and accomplishments.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 33 Allen Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 16: Critical Area #1 – Project #3 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria n/a Title Agricultural BMPs –Drainage Water Management Structures and Grassed Waterways criteria d Project Lead Organization & Allen Soil and Water Conservation District Partners criteria c HUC-12 and Critical Area Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03) – Critical Area #1 criteria c Location of Project Private landowners – exact locations not disclosed n/a Which strategy is being addressed Agricultural Nonpoint Source Reduction by this project? criteria f Time Frame Short (1-3 years) criteria g Short Description Cost-share program to install drainage water management structures and grassed waterways criteria g Project Narrative Allen SWCD will administer a cost-share program to enroll local landowners in prioritized agricultural lands for the installation of drainage water management structures in fields that drain at least 15 acres and the installation of new grassed waterways or the rehabilitation of failing grassed waterways in areas where recurrent surface erosion occurs. The goal of this project is to install at least five drainage water management structures and one grassed waterway to treat surface water drainage from at least 75 acres. Cost-share amounts of $1,500 per drainage water management structure, $4,000 per collector main (if needed) and $200/year for 4 years of management, and up to $7,000 per grassed waterway installation will be available.

This project summary sheet may be combined with other project summary sheets to form a singular project, which could be delivered as a program, according to funding source, timing considerations and identification of landowner needs. BMP specifications for installation and cost-share will be comparable to those listed for H2Ohio, unless otherwise stipulated by funding source. H2Ohio funding will be sought first for applicable practices. criteria d Estimated Total cost $43,000 criteria d Possible Funding Source OEPA §319, H2Ohio (drainage mgmt. only), GLRI, GLC, FSA-CREP, NRCS-EQIP 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 spring phosphorus loads. Current needed to remove the NPS estimates indicate 14,000 lbs of phosphorus in the spring load is attributed to agricultural land use impairment for the whole Critical activities. In order to meet the GLWQA nutrient reduction goals, spring loadings must be reduced by Area? 40%, or 5,600 lbs.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 34 Allen Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 16: Critical Area #1 – Project #3 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria Part 2: How much of the needed It is expected that this project will cause a decrease in spring phosphorus loadings by 35 lbs, or 0.6%, improvement for the whole Critical made through incremental progress on the objective shown below: Area is estimated to be accomplished by this project? Objective #3: Reduce nutrient loss from subsurface tile drainage through the installation of drainage water management structures that drain at least 75 of 1,600 acres (5%).

Objective #4: Reduce erosion and nutrient loss through the installation of grassed waterways or grassed surface drains that receive/treat surface water from at least 75 of 1,300 acres (6%). Part 3: Load Reduced? Estimated: 238 #N/year; 54 #P/year; 16.4 tons sediment/year criteria i How will the effectiveness of this Allen SWCD will design and verify installation of the drainage water management structures and project in addressing the NPS grassed waterways. It is generally unrealistic to monitor load reduction from individual agricultural impairment be measured? practices; however, ambient monitoring is conducted throughout the WLEB by organizations such as OEPA, NOAA, and Heidelberg University. These entities will continue long term monitoring on various tributaries in the Maumee basin to track load reduction trends. criteria e Information and Education Project information will be shared at the Allen SWCD annual meeting and at applicable field days. Project highlights will also be shared on social media and/or Allen SWCD’s website, in print or online newsletters and in regular updates at watershed meetings throughout the county and region. Appropriate signage will announce project information and accomplishments.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 35 Allen Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

4.2 Critical Area #2 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table Table 17: Sims Run-Auglaize River HUC-12 (04100007 02 03) — Critical Area #2 Project Title Lead Organization Time Frame Estimated Cost Potential/Actual Funding Source Goal Objective Project # (EPA Criteria g) (EPA criteria d) (EPA Criteria f) (EPA Criteria d) (EPA Criteria d) Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies

Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies

High Quality Waters Protection Strategies

Other NPS Causes and Associated Sources of Impairment HSTS Replacement and/or 1 1 - TBD TBD TBD TBD Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure

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. 36 Allen Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

CHAPTER 5: WORKS CITED

H2Ohio Initiative (H2Ohio). 2019. http://h2.ohio.gov/governor-dewine-announces-h2ohio-water- quality-plan/. Accessed January 9, 2020.

Homer, C.G. et al. 2015. Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States- Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5, p. 345 – 354.

International Joint Commission (IJC). 2012. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Nutrients (Annex 4). https://binational.net/annexes/a4/. Accessed August 27, 2019.

Minks, K.R., M.D. Ruark, B. Lowery, F.W. Madison, D. Frame, T.D. Stuntebeck, M.J. Komiskey and G.J. Kraft. 2015. At-Grade Stabilization Structure Impact on Surface Water Quality of Agricultural Watershed. Journal of Environmental Management. v.153, p.50-59.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. Auglaize Watershed (OH) HUC: 04100007 Rapid Watershed Assessment. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_028995.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2019.

Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). 2018. Distressed Watershed Designation Analysis Selected Western Lake Erie Basin Watersheds. https://agri.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/oda/divisions/soil-and- water-conservation/forms/lewshdindistressanalysis. Accessed August 21, 2019.

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 July 26, 2019.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2004. Accessed July 26, 2019. Shaded Drift-Thickness Map of Ohio. http://geosurvey.ohiodnr.gov/portals/geosurvey/PDFs/Misc_State_Maps&Pubs/sg3-2017- TwoPage.pdf. Accessed September 3, 2019.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2006. Bedrock Geologic Map of Ohio. http://geosurvey.ohiodnr.gov/portals/geosurvey/PDFs/BedrockGeology/BG-1_8.5x11.pdf. Accessed September 3, 2019.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2018. Ohio Mussel Survey Protocol, updated April 2018. https://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/portals/wildlife/pdfs/licenses%20&%20permits/OH%20Mussel%20Survey% 20Protocol.pdf. Accessed August 27, 2019.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 37 Allen Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 1992. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Auglaize River and Selected Tributaries. https://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/Auglaize1992.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2019.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 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 (OEPA). 2004. Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Upper Auglaize River Watershed. https://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/tmdl/UpperAuglaizeFinalTMDL.pdf. Accessed August 27, 2019.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2013a. Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update (FY2014-2019). http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/nps/nps_mgmt_plan.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2019.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2013b. 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 (OEPA). 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 2, 2019.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2018a. 2018 Ohio Integrated Report. https://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/OhioIntegratedReport#123145148-2018. Accessed June 1, 2019.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2018b. Nutrient Mass Balance Study for Ohio’s Major Rivers. https://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/documents/Nutrient%20Mass%20Balance%20Study%202018_ Final.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2019.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2019. River Miles Index Interactive Map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4f93b8e37d4640a6ab3ac43d2914d25e. Accessed August 23, 2019.

Ohio Lake Erie Commission (OLEC). 2018. State of Ohio’s Domestic Action Plan 1.1. https://lakeerie.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Ohio%20DAP/DAP%201-1%20FINAL%202018-08-27.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2019.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 38 Allen Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Ohio Lake Erie Commission (OLEC). 2020. Promoting Clean and Safe Water in Lake Erie: Ohio’s Domestic Action Plan 2020 to Address Nutrients - DRAFT. https://lakeerie.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Ohio%20DAP/Ohio%20DAP%202020%20DRAFT%202020-01- 28.pdf?ver=2020-01-28-123210-883. Accessed January 29, 2020.

Ohio State University Extension (OSUE). 2018. A Field Guide to Identifying Critical Resource Concerns and Best Management Practices for Implementation. Bulletin 969. College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load (STEPL) Input Data Server. http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/steplweb/steplweb.html. Accessed November 30, 2019.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2018. BMP Descriptions for STEPL and Region 5 Models. http://it.tetratech- ffx.com/steplweb/models$docs.htm. Accessed November 22, 2019.

Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments. 2018. Water Quality §604(b) Work Program, 208 Plan Maintenance and Targeted Water Quality Planning Final Report, FFY16 Allotment. http://www.tmacog.org/WQ/Wastewater/604b_2018/Nutrient_Source_Inventory_Final_Report.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2019.

United States Census Bureau. 2010. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk. Accessed August 17, 2019.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2012. Census of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/. Accessed December 2, 2019.

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 September 15, 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/level-iii-and-iv- ecoregions-continental-united-states. Accessed August 17, 2019.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load (STEPL), Version 4.4. http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/steplweb/. Accessed July 18, 2019.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US). https://maps.usgs.gov/padus/. Accessed September 15, 2019.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 39 Allen Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. 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 September 15, 2019.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 40 Allen Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 185-440 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy