Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy (NPS-IS) for Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03)

Prepared for:

Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District

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

Version 1.0 Approved: June 30, 2021

This page intentionally left blank.

Acknowledgements

Version 1.0 prepared and written by:

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

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

The Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) would like to acknowledge the collaboration of multiple partners in the preparation of this Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy (NPS-IS) for the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03). The Fayette SWCD appreciates those individuals and organizations that contributed background information, insight into objectives and projects for inclusion in this NPS-IS. Thank you to Rick Wilson, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency – Division of Surface Water, for guidance throughout the NPS-IS development process, as well as Jessica D’Ambrosio and the staff of The Nature Conservancy for providing modeling data generated by the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF).

This product or publication was financed in part or totally through a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency through an assistance agreement with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. The contents and views, including any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations, contained in this product or publication are those of the authors and have not been subject to any Ohio Environmental Protection Agency or United States Environmental Protection Agency peer or administrative review and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency or the United States Environmental Protection Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Cover photo: Paint Creek near Christman Park, photo courtesy of Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.

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

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

Numbers §319 Section 319 of the Clean Water Act

A ACPF Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework ALU Aquatic Life Use

B BMP Best Management Practice

C CAFF Confined Animal Feeding Facility CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation CDL Cropland Data Layer CRP Conservation Reserve Program CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

D DEM Digital Elevation Model DO Dissolved Oxygen

E E. coli Escherichia coli ECBP Eastern Corn Belt Plains ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online (database) EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera – sensitive macroinvertebrate species EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program EWH Exceptional Warmwater Habitat

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

G GIS Geographic Information Systems

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

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

I IBI Index of Biotic Integrity ICI Invertebrate Community Index

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

N NH3 Nitrogen (as ammonia) NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS Nonpoint Source NPS-IS Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

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

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

Q QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index

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

S SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District

T TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSS Total Suspended Solids

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

U USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey

V VRT Variable Rate Technology

W WAP Watershed Action Plan WPCLF Water Pollution Control Loan Fund WQS Water Quality Standards (Ohio Administrative Code 3745-1) WRP Wetlands Reserve Program WRRSP Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Program WWH Warmwater Habitat WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant

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

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements...... i Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... ii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Report Background ...... 1 1.2 Watershed Profile & History ...... 4 1.3 Public Participation and Involvement ...... 6 Chapter 2: HUC-12 Watershed Characterization and Assessment Summary ...... 8 2.1 Summary of HUC-12 Watershed Characterization ...... 8 2.2 Summary of HUC-12 Biological Trends ...... 15 2.3 Summary of HUC-12 Pollution Causes and Associated Sources ...... 18 2.4 Additional Information for Determining Critical Areas and Developing Implementation Strategies ...... 20 Chapter 3: Critical Area Conditions AND Restoration Strategies ...... 21 3.1 Overview of Critical Areas ...... 21 3.2 Critical Area #1: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Prioritized Agricultural Lands ...... 22 3.3 Critical Area #2: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Nutrient Reduction from Urban Lands ...... 30 3.4 Critical Area #3: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Streambank and Riparian Restoration ...... 35 Chapter 4: Projects and Implementation Strategy ...... 42 4.1 Critical Area #1 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table ...... 43 4.2 Critical Area #2 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table ...... 44 4.3 Critical Area #3 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table ...... 45 Chapter 5: Works Cited ...... 50

Table of Figures

Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Overview ...... 1 Paint Creek Watershed ...... 5 Location of the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 ...... 5 Soils by Particle Size ...... 9 Political Boundaries in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 ...... 10 Land Use ...... 11 Wetlands in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 ...... 13 Parks and Protected Lands ...... 13 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Critical Area Overview ...... 21 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Critical Area #1 ...... 22 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Critical Area #2 ...... 30 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Critical Area #3 ...... 36

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

Table of Tables

Nine Elements for Watershed Plans and Implementation Projects ...... 2 Sub-watersheds in the Headwaters Paint Creek HUC-10 ...... 6 NPDES-Permitted Facilities in the Town of Washington Court House- Paint Creek HUC-12 .. 10 Estimated Animal Counts in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 ..... 12 Land Use Classifications in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 ...... 12 Threatened and Endangered Species in Fayette County ...... 14 OpTIS Countywide Conservation Practice Averages for 2014-2018 for Fayette County in the Paint Creek Watershed ...... 14 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Contract Acreage by County ...... 15 Biological Indices Scores for Sites in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC- 12 ...... 16 Water Quality Standards for the Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) Ecoregion ...... 16 QHEI Matrix with WWH and MWH Attribute Totals for Sites in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 ...... 18 Causes and Sources of Impairments for Sampling Locations in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 ...... 19 Estimated Total Nitrogen Loadings from Contributing NPS Sources in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 ...... 20 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Critical Area Descriptions ...... 22 Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework Results ...... 23 Critical Area #1 - Fish Community and Habitat Data ...... 24 Critical Area #1 - Macroinvertebrate Community Data ...... 25 Estimated Annual Nutrient Load Reductions from Each Objective ...... 29 Critical Area #2 – Land Use Classifications ...... 31 Critical Area #2 - Fish Community and Habitat Data ...... 31 Critical Area #2 - Macroinvertebrate Community Data ...... 32 Critical Area #3 - Fish Community and Habitat Data ...... 37 Critical Area #2 - Macroinvertebrate Community Data ...... 38 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) — Critical Area #1 ...... 43 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) — Critical Area #2 ...... 44 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) — Critical Area #3 ...... 45 Critical Area #3 – Project #1 ...... 46 Critical Area #3 – Project #2 ...... 48

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

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)-12 (05060003 01 03) is a sub-watershed of the Paint Creek watershed, located wholly in central Fayette County. It contains an area of 27.22 square miles (Figure 1). The Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 contains a 19.5-mile segment of Paint Creek, from River Mile (RM) 88.55, to its confluence with East Fork Paint Creek in southern Washington Court House. The watershed is primarily agricultural (~65% cultivated crops and 11% pasture), but does have 17% urban land use, associated with the City of Washington Court House. The Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 has been identified as an area of focus within the Ohio River Basin (ORB) due to the estimated loading of total nitrogen that flows into the tributaries of the Ohio River, to the Mississippi River and its end-receiving waterbody, the Gulf of Mexico.

Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

82% and 83% of the nitrogen load and 69% and 66%, respectively, of the phosphorus load in these two watersheds is from NPS contributions (Ohio EPA, 2020c).

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

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

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

Removal of NPS impairments, reduction in overall sediment and nutrient loss and restoration of streambanks, floodplains and wetlands in Paint Creek and its tributaries within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint HUC-12 is crucial to the maintenance and attainment of aquatic life use (ALU) standards both within the Paint Creek watershed and on a greater scale within the context of the Ohio

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

River watershed, the Mississippi River and its end-receiving waterbody, the Gulf of Mexico. Within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12, six biological sample locations were established in Paint Creek during a sampling event conducted in 2006. One of these locations was found to be in Full Attainment of the Warmwater Habitat (WWH) designation, three were found to be in Partial Attainment due to sedimentation and dissolved oxygen (DO) issues related to agricultural crop and livestock operations and two were in Partial Attainment due to hydromodification (channelization), habitat alterations and nutrient/DO issues related to urban run-off.

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

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

The mainstem of Paint Creek flows through four HUC-10s: the Headwaters Paint Creek HUC-10, Indian Creek-Paint Creek HUC-10, Buckskin Creek-Paint Creek HUC-10 and Ralston Run-Paint Creek HUC-10. The Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 contains the downstream terminus of the Headwaters Paint Creek HUC-10. The Headwaters Paint Creek HUC-10 has a drainage area of ~120 square miles or 76,600 acres (Figure 3). Land use within the Headwaters Paint Creek HUC-10 is mainly agricultural and rural, with urban land use concentrated in the southern part of the watershed in Washington Court House, which is the largest municipality and county seat of Fayette County, supporting a population of over 14,000 (US Census Bureau, 2010). The Headwaters Paint Creek HUC-10 is divided into three HUC-12 watersheds (Table 2).

1 The Ohio Gazetteer of Streams (ODNR, 2001) lists Paint Creek as 94.7 miles in length; however, the River Mile Index (Ohio EPA, 2021b) shows Paint Creek with a length of 108.5 miles. Biological sampling stations utilize the river mile locations in the River Mile Index.

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

Paint Creek Watershed

Location of the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Sub-watersheds in the Headwaters Paint Creek HUC-10 Headwaters Paint Creek HUC-10 (05060003 01) HUC-12 Area (Square miles) Area (Acres) Headwaters Paint Creek HUC-12 (01) 40.51 25,929 East Fork Paint Creek HUC-12 (02) 51.90 33,214 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (03) 27.22 17,424 (Source: Ohio EPA, 2020a)

1.3 Public Participation and Involvement Watershed planning is best accomplished by collaboration and input from a diverse group of entities, including governmental agencies, private businesses, academia, non-profit groups, neighborhood organizations and the public at large. This planning effort is led by the Fayette SWCD, an agency dedicated to promoting wise stewardship of natural resources through cooperative partnerships, educational programs, and technical assistance in land and water management. The Fayette SWCD strives to be recognized as the lead local agency providing innovative tools to protect natural resources and enhance the quality of life for present and future generations. In 2006, the Fayette SWCD contributed to the Fayette County Comprehensive Plan and is listed as the agency with goals to 1) improve the health of the watersheds in the county by protecting them from the negative impacts of urban and agricultural runoff; 2) preserve and create wildlife habitats and increase the amount of forested and prairie areas in the county; and, 3) protect the county’s groundwater resources from aging septic systems (Fayette County, 2006).

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

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

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 6 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

solicited through hybrid virtual/in-person meetings held on February 23, 2021 and March 25, 2021 and targeted outreach mailings.

Input and feedback during the planning process was solicited from organizational stakeholders from the Fayette County Engineer’s Office, the Fayette County Health Department, Ohio State University (OSU) Extension, Master Gardeners, Tri County Trails, Pheasants Forever, City of Washington Court House, Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA)-Division of Soil and Water Conservation, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Township Trustees in Perry, Concord, Jasper and Union and the Ross, Pickaway, Highland and Fayette (RPHF) Solid Waste District. These stakeholders provided watershed background knowledge, conservation data and input on critical areas and potential projects within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12. Landowner involvement in meetings was promoted through targeted mailings to approximately 60 producers of larger operations and public announcements through Facebook and the newspaper. A watershed survey was also created and distributed by Fayette SWCD to solicit additional input and potential project locations. Site visits to potential project locations occurred on April 9, 2021. Stakeholder Meeting, February 23, 2021. Photo credit: Fayette SWCD.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 7 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

CHAPTER 2: HUC-12 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION AND ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

2.1 Summary of HUC-12 Watershed Characterization 2.1.1 Physical and Natural Features The Headwaters Paint Creek HUC-10 is comprised of three HUC-12 watersheds; this document focuses on the #03 hydrologic unit—the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12. The Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 contains a 19.5 mile-long segment of Paint Creek, from RM 88.55 to the confluence with East Fork Paint Creek along the southern edge of Washington Court House at RM 69.04. Paint Creek is a 108.5 mile-long stream flowing south from southwestern Madison County through Washington Court House and the Village of Greenfield to then head east to empty in the Scioto River at RM 63.50 in Chillicothe. Paint Creek has an average fall of 5.6 ft/mile and a total drainage area of 1,144 square miles (ODNR, 2001). The Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 contains 27.22 square miles (17,423.81 acres).

Paint Creek is designated as a WWH stream from its headwaters to RM 67.4, where it transitions to an Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH) stream. Paint Creek maintains this designation through the Paint Creek Reservoir (RM 46.5) to RM 3.8, where the stream transitions back to WWH until its entry into the Scioto River. Larger tributaries to Paint Creek include: Sugar Run, East Fork Paint Creek, Rattlesnake Creek and Buckskin Creek, though none of these flow to Paint Creek within the boundaries of the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12. In total, 35.80 miles (189,024 linear feet) of stream segments flow throughout the sub-watershed.

The majority of the Paint Creek watershed is located in the Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) ecoregion, including the area contained within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12. A small section in the southeast portion of the HUC-8 falls within the Western Allegheny Plain ecoregion, while a thin swath along the southern edge overlaps with the Interior Plateau ecoregion (Ohio EPA, 2012). The ECBP consists of a rolling till plain with local end moraines (USEPA, 2013). Wisconsinan glacial deposits are extensive across the ecoregion in thick deposits of silt, sand and gravel and these soils supported beech forests prior to settlement. North of Greenfield, the Paint Creek watershed lies in the Wisconsin till plain, exhibiting low relief and rich soils conducive to intensive rowcrop agriculture (Ohio EPA, 2008). The ecoregion today mostly supports corn, soybean and livestock production. Streams within the area have been highly channelized for agricultural drainage, which has negatively impacted stream chemistry and turbidity.

In the northwestern flank of the Paint Creek watershed, where the Town of Washington Court House- Paint Creek HUC-12 is located, soils are generally thinner. Soils in this area are finer-grained, clay-rich, less permeable and sit atop uniformly consolidated bedrock (Ohio EPA, 2008) (Figure 4). The majority of the soils within the Paint Creek watershed are considered to have a high erodability index (PCWP, 2002). Drift thicknesses vary between 30 and 100 feet (ODNR, 2021). As glaciers of the Wisconsinan dammed up river valleys and channels, many streams, including the Paint, were reversed or diverted to new drainage patterns (PCWP, 2002). Bedrock throughout the Paint Creek watershed is Silurian in age and

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 8 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

includes dolomites and shales found in the Salina Group, the Springfield Dolomite, Euphemia Dolomite, Massie Shale, Noland Formation, and Tymochtee Dolomite.

Soils by Particle Size

Washington Court House is the largest municipality and urban area in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (Figure 5). Three National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)- permitted facilities are located within the sub-watershed (Ohio EPA, 2021a). Of these facilities, two are related to the discharge of wastewater from treatment works, such as wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) or package plants, while one is associated with petroleum-related industrial activities (Table 3). The USEPA documents NPDES permit compliance through the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database (USEPA, 2021). Results discussed here cover the three year (12 quarters) compliance history from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. The Prairie Knolls Mobile Home

Park (MHP) recorded one exceedance of nitrogen as ammonia (NH3) amount in effluent, while the Washington Court House WWTP reported several exceedances over the three-year period, including exceedances for chlorine, Escherichia coli (E. coli), mercury, DO and total suspended solids (TSS) in effluent. Washington Court House signed a consent decree in 2007, and is working to be in compliance with that decree before 2028 (Trevas, 2014). The city received $65.5M in Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (WPCLF) monies in 2019 for WWTP construction and upgrades.

Beyond the municipality of Washington Court House, the remainder of the sub-watershed is unincorporated and split between Paint and Union Townships. In the rural landscape, residences and small businesses use HSTS, which are a potential source of NPS pollution for bacteria and nutrients.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 9 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Using National Small Flows Clearinghouse Data from 1992 and 1998, estimates cite 1,312 HSTS within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (Tetra Tech, 2017). Studies conducted by the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) across Ohio have shown an average HSTS failure rate of 31% (ODH, 2013). Fayette County has actively administered grant money offered through Ohio EPA’s HSTS Repair/Replacement Program (Ohio EPA, 2017). Though the amount of NPS pollution from HSTS in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 is smaller, repair or replacement of failing HSTS or connection to sanitary sewer lines reduces the potential for NPS pollution from this source.

Political Boundaries in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12

NPDES-Permitted Facilities in the Town of Washington Court House- Paint Creek HUC-12 Facility Name Permit Number Receiving Waterbody Washington Court House Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) 4PD00002*PD Paint Creek Prairie Knolls Mobile Home Park (MHP) 4PV00115*CD Paint Creek Blackhorse Energy LLC 4IN00171*ED Paint Creek (Source: Ohio EPA, 2021a)

NOTES NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 10 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Landmarks and points of interest within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 include: . Miami Trace Middle and High School . FMA Flying Field . Washington Court House Reservoir . Fayette County YMCA . Gardner Athletic Field . Roszmann Field . Washington Court House Parks: Eyman, Christman Memorial, Washington . Fayette County Fairgrounds (a portion) . The Greens, a golf course (a portion) . Southern State Community College . Tri County Triangle Trail

2.1.2 Land Use and Protection Land use within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 is dominated by agricultural land use (~65% cultivated cropland and 11% pasture lands)(Figure 6). The USDA Census of Agriculture (2017) lists soybeans as the largest field crop harvested in Fayette County (≥ 45%), while corn accounts for 35-44% of crops (USDA, 2019). In general, livestock operations are small, though Fayette County did realize a significant increase in inventory of hogs and pigs in 2017 (Table 4). No large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) or ODA-permitted Confined Animal Feeding Facilities (CAFFs) are located within the sub-watershed.

Land Use

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 11 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Estimated Animal Counts in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Livestock Type Animal Units Livestock Type Animal Units Beef 202 Horse 46 Dairy 201 Chicken 85 Swine 60 Turkey 0 Sheep 97 Duck 0 (Source: USDA Census of Agriculture, 2012, as presented in the STEPL Input Data Server (Tetra Tech, 2017)

Approximately 7.5% of land within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 is forested (Table 5). The forested stands form a sporadic riparian corridor around Paint Creek, mainly in the upper portion of the sub-watershed. As Paint Creek approaches the urban area of Washington Court House, it loses much of its sparse corridor. Within these forested stands, pockets of wetlands may be present, though wetland coverage is sparse, despite the presence of a high amount of hydric soils throughout the sub-watershed (PCWP, 2002) (Figure 7). Wetlands were once prominent in this area, known as the “Little Swamp”, prior to the formation of Fayette County (Fayette County, 2006).

Land Use Classifications in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Land Use (05060003 01 03) Area (mi2) Area (acres) % Watershed Area Commercial/Industrial/Transportation 1.06 679.88 3.78% Crop 16.92 11,259.61 65.20% Deciduous Forest 2.09 1,354.33 7.53% Open Water 0.84 54.99 0.28% Pasture 2.91 1,866.53 10.59% Residential 3.25 2,106.38 12.05% Urban/Recreational Grasses 0.15 102.09 0.57% Total 27.22 17,423.81 100.00% (Source: Homer et al., 2020)

Five parks/protected lands are identified in the sub-watershed in the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) (USGS, 2019). Three parks are owned and maintained by Washington Court House: Eyman Park, Washington Park and Christman Park, totaling 55 acres (Figure 8). All three parks are situated along Paint Creek and offer opportunities for riparian and in-stream restoration. In addition, the Fayette County Fairgrounds (79 acres) and a 77-acre golf course operated by the newly formed Fayette County Park District are also partially in the sub-watershed. The Tri County Triangle Trail, also known as the Paint Creek Recreation Trail, was created from railroad right- of-ways and traverses the southern portion of the sub-watershed. It is a ~34 mile paved trail from Washington Court House to Chillicothe.

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

Wetlands in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12

Parks and Protected Lands

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 13 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Very little area within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 is set aside as preserved habitat for the threatened and endangered species listed in Fayette County by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Table 6). A small conservation trail maintained by the Fayette SWCD is located along the city-owned YMCA lands in the northern section of Washington Court House. The Ohio Mussel Survey Protocol categorizes Paint Creek as a Group 1 stream, indicating that mussels may be present, but the Federally Listed Species (FLS) on USFWS’s listing are not expected to be found (ODNR, 2020).

Threatened and Endangered Species in Fayette County Species Status Habitat Characteristics Indiana bat Hibernates in caves and mines; forages in small stream Endangered (Myotis sodalis) corridors with developed riparian woods and 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 forests (Myotis septentrionalis) during late spring and summer Eastern massasauga Threatened Wetlands and adjacent uplands (Sistrurus catenatus) (Source: USFWS, 2018)

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

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

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 14 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

According to summary data provided by Ohio EPA regarding the use of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12, no conservation practices were certified between March 30, 2017 and mid-2019 (personal communication with Rick Wilson, June 13, 2019). Additional data provided by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) on current contracts within the counties of the Paint Creek watershed are found in Table 8.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Contract Acreage by County Fayette Practice Acres* Establishment of Permanent Introduced Grasses and Legumes 57.40 Shelterbelt Establishment 3.79 Establishment of Permanent Native Grasses 1,614.15 Filter Strips 2,111.97 Riparian Buffer 220.45 Wetland Restoration 29.14 Wetland Restoration, Non-Floodplain 664.56 Rare and Declining Habitat 42.00 Marginal Pastureland and Wildlife Habitat Buffer 443.72 Tree Planting 25.61 Marginal Pastureland Wetland Buffer 2.26 Upland Habitat Buffers 166.39 Weed Control in Tree/Shrub Plantings -- SAFE Habitat for Upland Birds -- Rare and Declining Habitat -- Permanent Wildlife Habitat for Pheasants 554.34 Hardwood Tree Planting 28.50 Pollinator Habitat 45.65 Permanent Wildlife Habitat, Noneasement 91.82 Field Windbreak Establishment, Noneasement -- Grassland Wildlife Plan 20.81 Grass Waterways, Noneasement 528.63 Shallow Water Areas for Wildlife 7.22 (Source: USDA-NRCS, 2018)

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

2.2 Summary of HUC-12 Biological Trends Ohio EPA sampled Paint Creek in 2006 as part of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study for the Paint Creek Watershed. TMDL targets were established for nutrients, habitat, sediment and bacteria within the Headwaters Paint Creek HUC-10. The TMDL study included seven sampling locations within the mainstem of Paint Creek within this headwaters section, six of which are located in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12. A summary of these sample locations are provided in Table 9. For reference, WQS for the ECBP ecoregion are presented in Table 10.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 15 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Biological Indices Scores for Sites in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) River Drainage Attainment IBI MIwba ICIb QHEI Location Mile2 Area (mi2) Status Paint Creek (WWH) 79.86W 54.0 39ns 6.6* 54 62.0 Partial Wildwood Road Bloomburg-New 75.33W 58.0 35* 7.4* 46 77.0 Partial Holland Road 73.28W 60.0 33* 6.6* 46 66.0 Partial Private Lane Perry Park (Eyman Park 71.16W 63.0 49 9.4 42 64.5 Full Drive) Elm Street (Upstream 69.52W 67.0 41 7.8 28* 38.0 Partial WCH WWTP) Downstream WCH 69.15W 67.0 42 8.2 24* 40.5 Partial WWTP (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008) NOTES WWH Warmwater Habitat IBI Index of Biotic Integrity a The Modified Index of Well Being (MIwb) is not applicable to headwater sites (drainage ≤20 mi2). ICI Invertebrate Community Index b Narrative evaluation used in lieu of ICI (E=Exceptional; G=Good; MG=Marginally Good; H Fair =High Fair; F=Fair; L Fair=Low Fair; P=Poor; VP=Very Poor). QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index W Wading site ns Nonsignificant departure from ecoregion biocriteria (≤4 IBI or ICI units, ≤5 MIwb units). * Significant departure from applicable biocriteria (>4 IBI or ICI units, or >0.5 MIwb units). Underlined scores are in the poor to very poor range.

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

2 River miles are as shown in the 2020 Ohio Integrated Report (Ohio EPA, 2020a) and vary slightly from what is reported in the Biological and Water Quality Study of the Paint Creek Watershed (Ohio EPA, 2008).

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 16 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

a QHEI is not criteria included in Ohio WQS; however, it has been shown to be highly correlated with the health of aquatic communities. In general, sites scoring 60 or above (or above 55 for headwater sites) support healthy aquatic assemblages indicative of WWH (Ohio EPA, 2013). Sites scoring 75 or above support EWH assemblages (Ohio EPA, 1999). N/A MIwb not applicable to headwater sampling locations with drainage areas ≤ 20 mi2.

Fishes (Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwb] & Index of Biotic Integrity [IBI]) In total, seven sampling locations were established in the headwaters section of Paint Creek during the 2006 sampling event, six of which were located within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12. Fish communities did not perform well throughout the agricultural reach of the sub- watershed. Only one of the agricultural sites met the IBI threshold (RM 79.86 @ Wildwood Road), although it was just marginally, falling within the nonsignificant departure range. Fish communities fared better in the urban part of the sub-watershed, meeting both IBI and MIwb expectations. In the upper part of the sub-watershed, underperforming communities were attributed to excessive sedimentation and nutrient enrichment from agricultural practices causing DO fluctuations and nuisance algae.

Macroinvertebrates (Invertebrate Community Index [ICI]) Within the headwaters section of Paint Creek, riparian canopy was present at most agricultural locations, except where open pasture was found (Ohio EPA, 2008). Groundwater recharge, along with this minimal canopy protection, contributed to very good to exceptional macroinvertebrate community performance at the upstream sampling locations. Moving downstream, relative density and numbers of tolerant organisms increased in response to municipal inputs and lack of riparian canopy in the urban section of the sub-watershed.

Habitat (via Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index [QHEI]) Ohio EPA sampling crews documented various water quality and habitat attributes during the QHEI assessment in the summer of 2006 (Table 11). Habitat in the agricultural reach of the sub-watershed scored relatively well, despite the presence of many moderate-influence MWH attributes, while channelization effects in the urban section of the sub-watershed caused habitat scores to drop substantially. Generally, streams that have QHEI scores of at least 60 are capable of supporting WWH assemblages. Strong correlations exist between habitat attributes and a stream’s ability to support healthy aquatic assemblages (Ohio EPA, 1999). The presence of certain attributes are shown to have a larger negative impact on fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Streams designated as WWH should exhibit no more than four total MWH attributes; additionally, no more than one of those four should be of high-influence (Ohio EPA, 2013). Within the boundaries of the Town of Washington Court House- Paint Creek HUC-12, Paint Creek habitat is dominated by moderate-influence MWH attributes in the agricultural section of the sub-watershed, despite the presence of many WWH attributes and exhibits high-influence MWH attributes in the urban section of the sub-watershed, with little WWH attributes exhibited.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 17 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

QHEI Matrix with WWH and MWH Attribute Totals for Sites in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) Key QHEI MWH Attributes WWH Attributes Components High Influence Moderate Influence

ery

No Riffle No River Mile QHEI Score QHEI No Sinuosity Low Sinuosity Gradient (ft/mi) Gradient Influence MWH AttributesInfluence No Fast Current WWH Attributes WWH Sparse/No Cover - Max Depth >40 cm Max Depth <40 cm Silt Substrates Free ermediate/Poor Pools Recovering Channel Fast Current/Eddies Silt/Muck Substrates Influence MWH Attributes Sand Substrate (Boat) - Only 1 2or Cover Types Fair/Poor Development Int Moderate/High Sinuosity Hardpan Substrate Origin Substrate Hardpan Channelized/No Recov Extensive/Moderate Cover Heavy/Moderate Silt Cover Low/Normal Embeddedness Good/Excellent Development Not Channelized Recovered or High/Moderate Embeddedness High ow/No Riffle/Run Embeddedness Boulder/Cobble/Gravel Substrate L High/Moderate Riffle Embeddedness Moderate

Paint Creek (WWH) 79.86W 62.0 2.49 • • • • • 5 0 • • • • • • • 7 75.33W 77.0 2.73 • • • • • • • 7 0 • • • • 4 73.28W 66.0 2.38 • • • • • • • 7 0 • • • • • 5 71.16W 63.0 2.38 • • • • • • • • • 9 0 • 1 69.52W 38.0 3.70 • • 2 • • 2 • • • • • • 6 69.15W 40.5 3.70 • • 2 • • 2 • • • • • • • 7 (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008) NOTES QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index WWH Warmwater Habitat MWH Modified Warmwater Habitat W Wading site

2.3 Summary of HUC-12 Pollution Causes and Associated Sources As shown in the 2006 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Paint Creek Watershed, one biological sampling site in Paint Creek within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 is meeting attainment of the WWH designation, while three are in Partial Attainment due to underperforming fish communities (Table 12). Near-field impairment at these locations is primarily driven by sedimentation and nutrient impacts caused by agricultural land use. Two locations are in Partial Attainment due to underperforming macroinvertebrate communities. Near-field impairment at these locations is attributed to habitat alterations from channelization and nutrients from urban run-off, with some effects from a nearby WWTP. Loss of sediment from the surrounding landscape also implies loss of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, as a fraction of these nutrients introduced to the landscape through fertilization techniques and other sources bind to soil particles. As soil particles are lost to local waterways, nutrients can become available for microorganism uptake, and in situations where nutrients concentrate and are

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 18 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

overabundant, eutrophication occurs and drives Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) and hypoxic zone formation. Nutrient enrichment noted within the agricultural section of the sub-watershed was seen in the development of filamentous algae downstream throughout the channelized sections of Washington Court House, where the channel was devoid of riparian cover and exposed to sunlight.

Causes and Sources of Impairments for Sampling Locations in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) River Attainment Primary Cause(s) Primary Source(s) Location Mile Status Paint Creek (WWH) Wildwood 79.86W Ag-row crop and livestock Sedimentation; dissolved oxygen Partial Road Bloomburg- 75.33W Ag-row crop and livestock Sedimentation; dissolved oxygen Partial New Holland Road 73.28W Ag-row crop and livestock Sedimentation; dissolved oxygen Partial Private Lane Perry Park 71.16W -- -- Full (Eyman Park Drive) Elm Street Hydromodification, nutrients, 69.52W Channelization, urban runoff Partial (Upstream dissolved oxygen WCH WWTP) Channelization, urban runoff, Downstream 69.15W Habitat alterations, nutrients Partial WWTP WCH WWTP (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008) NOTES WWH Warmwater Habitat W Wading site WCH Washington Court House WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

In addition to the near-field impairments that exist in this sub-watershed, the presence and persistence of the hypoxic zone within the Gulf of Mexico has shown the need for reduced NPS pollution, particularly in regards to nitrogen, and to a lesser extent phosphorus, throughout the entire MARB, of which the Ohio River is a main tributary. Nitrogen loss within the Town of Washington Court House- Paint Creek HUC-12 contributes to this far-field impairment. Ohio EPA has estimated nitrogen loadings from individual sub-watersheds in targeted areas of the ORB. These estimates include a breakdown of estimated loads from contributing sources of NPS pollutants, including agricultural lands/activities and developed/urban lands (Table 13). Efforts to reduce nutrients from each of these contributing sources will focus on reaching the 20% reduction goal by 2025, as outlined by the HTF in 2014.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 19 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Estimated Total Nitrogen Loadings from Contributing NPS Sources in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Agricultural Load (lbs/yr) Developed/Urban Load (lbs/yr) Current Estimates* 370,000 14,000 Target Loadings 296,000 11,200 (Source: personal communication with Rick Wilson, Ohio EPA, November 12, 2020)

NOTES *Estimated using two significant figures

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

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 20 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

CHAPTER 3: CRITICAL AREA CONDITIONS AND RESTORATION STRATEGIES

3.1 Overview of Critical Areas Overall, six sampling sites are located in Paint Creek within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12. One site is in Full Attainment of the WWH designation, while three sites are in Partial Attainment of the WWH designation, due to sedimentation and nutrient impacts caused by agricultural land use. Two locations are in Partial Attainment due to habitat alterations from channelization and nutrients from urban run-off, with some effects from a nearby WWTP. Three critical areas have been identified within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (Figure 9).

Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Critical Area Overview3

One critical area will address near-field impairment. Two critical areas will address far-field effects of nutrients and sediments flowing to the Ohio River, Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico, the end receiving waterbody of drainage from the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12. However, many BMP implementation activities nested within this sub-watershed also simultaneously benefit near-field effects in the mainstem of Paint Creek. Because many of these BMPs offer dual benefits of nutrient and sediment reduction and both agricultural and urban land prioritization is not substantially different for nutrient and sediment reduction within this sub-watershed, critical areas for

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

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

each of these land use categories address both near-field and far-field impacts (Table 14). Additional critical areas may be developed in subsequent versions of this NPS-IS.

Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Critical Area Descriptions Critical NPS Pollutant Area Critical Area Description Focus Area Addressed Number 1 Prioritized Agricultural Lands Sediment and nutrients Far-field (with near-field effects) 2 Prioritized Urban Lands Sediment and nutrients Far-field (with near-field effects) 3 Streambank and Riparian Sediment and nutrients Near-field Restoration

3.2 Critical Area #1: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Prioritized Agricultural Lands 3.2.1 Detailed Characterization

Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Critical Area #1

Ohio’s Nutrient Mass Balance Study (Ohio EPA, 2020c) estimated 82% of the nitrogen nutrient loading to the Ohio River via the Scioto River was primarily from nonpoint sources, related to land use activities, with only small contributions from failing HSTS and NPDES-permitted facilities. Given the dominance of agricultural land use throughout the greater Scioto River watershed, the use of BMPs are recommended for agricultural operations to minimize nutrient and associated sediment loss to local waterways and drainage ditches through surface and tile flow. While BMPs are encouraged on all agricultural lands,

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

certain lands are more prone to nutrient loss than others and are prioritized for BMP implementation. Lands maintained under conventional agricultural production or managed as pasture are prone to contribute excessive sediment and nutrient loadings to adjacent waterways that eventually flow to the ORB. Lands that are proximal to streams and ditches or do not currently implement specific BMPs are most vulnerable to excessive nutrient and sediment loss, and these lands are also prioritized as critical within this watershed. Critical Area #1 contains prioritized agricultural lands throughout the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (Figure 10).

An Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) database was assembled for the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 by TNC. The Geographic Information System (GIS)-based tool utilizes input data including a high resolution digital elevation model (DEM), the National Cropland Data Layer (CDL), parcel boundary details and detailed soil surveys to identify potential areas for conservation practices. Results from this tool informed the prioritization of critical lands and objective building (Table 15). The ACPF identified 2,476 acres of high-runoff risk fields, which accounts for approximately 19% of all agricultural lands within the sub-watershed. Ninety five percent (95%) of these are directly adjacent to the Paint Creek mainstem in the Town of Washington Court House HUC-12. The Fayette SWCD will utilize the ACPF outputs to focus conservation planning discussions for project development and BMP implementation in targeted areas.

Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework Results Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) Critical Runoff Risk (acres)* Very High High Moderate Low 938 1,538 2,913 9,117 Number of Best Management Practice Total Size Treated Acreage Potential Locations Grassed waterways 1 167 feet -- Drainage water management structures 55 -- 1,737 Bioreactors 95 -- 4,888 Saturated buffer 2 1,364 feet 21 154 acres (pool) Nutrient removal wetlands 25 13,245 295 acres (buffer) WASCOBs 15 -- 232 (Source: TNC, unpublished data provided by Alexis Sakas through personal communication on September 30, 2020)

NOTES * The ACPF model analyzes drainage area based upon high-resolution imagery. Watershed boundaries may be redrawn based upon drainage patterns and extend beyond current USGS HUC-12 boundaries; therefore, acreage may not be equal to acreage calculated for the USGS HUC-12s.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 23 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Of the 13,125 agricultural acres in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12, prioritized lands are operations that meet one or more of the following criteria:

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

3.2.2 Detailed Biological Conditions Fish community data for the three sampling locations within the agricultural section of the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 are summarized below (Table 16). Analysis of the abundance, diversity and pollution tolerance of existing fish species found by Ohio EPA at each sampling location, in relation to the corresponding QHEI score, aids in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. Generally, fish community performance increased along a downstream gradient from areas of agricultural land use to urban land use, likely a result of fluctuations in DO regimes and nutrient enrichment in the rural landscape. Habitat degradation was evident in the upper reaches of Paint Creek, with sediment entrained within the channel, covering substrates and smothering riffles (Ohio EPA, 2008). Pollution tolerant fish, such as the bluntnose minnow, green sunfish and western blacknose dace were found in these locations.

Critical Area #1 - Fish Community and Habitat Data Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) River Drainage Total Predominant Species Narrative QHEI IBI MIwba Mile Area (mi2) Species (Percent of Catch) Evaluation Paint Creek (WWH) Spotfin shiner (26%), green sunfish 79.86W 54.0 22 62.0 39ns 6.6* Good – Fair (19%), bluntnose minnow (13%) Western blacknose dace (33%), 75.33W 58.0 26 77.0 35* 7.4* bluntnose minnow (14%), sand shiner Fair (13%) Bluntnose minnow (44%), sand shiner 73.28W 60.0 25 66.0 33* 6.6* Fair (20%), greenside darter (18%) (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008)

NOTES IBI Index of Biotic Integrity a The Modified Index of Well Being (MIwb) is not applicable to headwater sites (drainage ≤20 mi2). QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index W Wading site ns Nonsignificant departure from ecoregion biocriteria (≤4 IBI or ICI units, ≤5 MIwb units). * Significant departure from applicable biocriteria (>4 IBI or ICI units, or >0.5 MIwb units). Underlined scores are in the poor to very poor range. WWH Warmwater Habitat

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 24 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Characteristics of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community for the Town of Washington Court House- Paint Creek HUC-12 are summarized below (Table 17). Analysis of the abundance, diversity, and pollution tolerance of existing aquatic macroinvertebrates found by Ohio EPA at these sampling locations, related to QHEI scores, can aid in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. The macroinvertebrate communities within the agricultural headwaters of Paint Creek performed well, despite localized eroding banks and open canopy conditions. Lower macroinvertebrate densities are found at RM 75.33 and 73.28 due to higher quality riparian and instream habitat in a more stable stream segment. The presence of a slight riparian corridor along extended segments of Paint Creek, coupled with cool groundwater recharge ameliorated negative localized impacts (Ohio EPA, 2008).

Critical Area #1 - Macroinvertebrate Community Data Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) River Mile ICI Score-Narrativea Notes (Density of Ql./Qt.) Predominant Species Paint Creek (WWH) 54 – Exceptional Moderate – high qualitative Riffle beetles (F,MI), Tanytarsini midges (MI), 79.86W 22 sensitive taxa density Asian clam (MI), netspinner caddisflies (F) 46 – Exceptional Moderate – low qualitative Riffle beetles (F, MI), minnow mayflies, Asian 75.33W 27 sensitive taxa density clam (MI) 46 – Exceptional Moderate – low qualitative Minnow mayflies (MI, F), netspinner 73.28W 23 sensitive taxa density caddisflies (F, MI) (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008)

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

3.2.3 Detailed Causes and Associated Sources Three sampling sites in the agricultural section of Paint Creek in the Town of Washington Court House- Paint Creek HUC-12 are currently in Partial Attainment of the WWH designation due to sedimentation and nutrient impacts caused by agricultural land use. The data summarized previously in Table 11 (p.18) reveal a direct link between the presence of attributes in the watershed that have influence on the aquatic communities throughout Paint Creek in Critical Area #1. These contributing attributes in Critical Area #1 include:

. Heavy/Moderate Silt Cover; . Hardpan Substrate; . High/Moderate Embeddedness; and, . High/Moderate Riffle Embeddedness.

Many of the negative habitat attributes found during the QHEI sampling event result from land use activities, including impacts from agricultural operations within the watershed. From a far-field

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 25 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

perspective, agricultural land use activities contribute to excessive nutrient loadings to the Ohio River, eventually reaching the Mississippi and then the Gulf of Mexico, contributing to its extensive hypoxic zone. The use of a variety of BMPs on private agricultural lands, at both in-field and edge-of-field locations can help reduce the amount and concentration of nutrient-laden surface runoff and tile drainage. Many BMPs can not only address reduction of nutrients in surface and drainage water, but they can also simultaneously address the loss of sediment from agricultural lands, which contributes to sediment-covered substrates in local waterways. In addition, a reduction of sediment loss to local waterways can also reduce nutrient loss to near-field and far-field waterbodies, as nutrients will also adsorb to sediment particles, potentially becoming dissolved at a later time. The implementation of BMPs on agricultural lands that are prone to sediment and nutrient loss serves as a benefit for both near-field and far-field waterbodies.

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

Goal 1. Reduce nitrogen loading contributions in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 to a level at or below 296,000 lbs/year (20% reduction). NOT ACHIEVED: Current estimated load contribution is 370,000 lbs/year.

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

Goal 2. Achieve IBI score at or above 40 at Wildwood Road in Paint Creek (RM 79.86). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 39.

Goal 3. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Wildwood Road in Paint Creek (RM 79.86). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 6.6.

Goal 4. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 at Wildwood Road in Paint Creek (RM 79.86). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 54.

Goal 5. Maintain QHEI score at or above 60 at Wildwood Road in Paint Creek (RM 79.86). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 62.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 26 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Goal 6. Achieve IBI score at or above 40 at Bloomburg-New Holland Road in Paint Creek (RM 75.33). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 35.

Goal 7. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Bloomburg-New Holland Road in Paint Creek (RM 75.33). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 7.4.

Goal 8. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 at Bloomburg-New Holland Road in Paint Creek (RM 75.33). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 46.

Goal 9. Maintain QHEI score at or above 60 at Bloomburg-New Holland Road in Paint Creek (RM 75.33). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 77.

Goal 10. Achieve IBI score at or above 40 at Private Lane in Paint Creek (RM 73.28). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 33.

Goal 11. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Private Lane in Paint Creek (RM 73.28). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 6.6.

Goal 12. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 at Private Lane in Paint Creek (RM 73.28). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 46.

Goal 13. Maintain QHEI score at or above 60 at Private Lane in Paint Creek (RM 73.28). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 66.

Objectives In order to make substantive progress toward the achievement of the nitrogen load reduction goal of 74,000 lbs for the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12, efforts must commence on more widespread implementation, according to the following objectives within Critical Area #1. Additionally, actions taken to address nutrient reduction will also help reduce stressors on aquatic communities within Paint Creek.

Objective 1: Implement nutrient management (planning and implementation through soil testing and Variable Rate Technology (VRT)) on at least at least 3,200 additional acres.

Objective 2: Plant cover crops on at least 2,000 additional acres annually.4

4 Cover crop usage is estimated to occur on approximately 125 acres, based upon OpTIS data (Dagan, 2019). Cover crop plantings may be implemented in the absence of grant funding.

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

Objective 3: Implement conservation tillage (of at least 30% residue) on at least 2,000 additional acres5.

Objective 4: Reduce nutrient loss from subsurface tile drainage through the installation of drainage water management structures that drain at least 300 acres.

Objective 5: Reduce nutrient loss from subsurface tile drainage through the installation of blind inlets that drain at least 50 acres.

Objective 6: Reduce erosion and nutrient loss through the installation of filter strips/buffers (of at least a 50 ft setback) that receive/treat surface water from at least 1,500 acres.

Objective 7: Reduce erosion and nutrient loss through the installation of forested riparian buffers (of at least a 100 ft setback) that receive/treat surface water from at least 30 acres.

Objective 8: Install nitrogen bioreactors to treat subsurface drainage water from at least 70 acres.

Objective 9: Install water and sediment control basins (WASCOBs) to treat drainage water from at least 30 acres.

Objective 10: Create, enhance and/or restore at least 50 acres of wetlands and/or water retention basins for treatment of agricultural runoff and/or nutrient reduction purposes from 1,250 total agricultural acres.

Objective 11: Reduce erosion from agricultural streambanks and drainage conveyances through natural channel design or two-stage ditch design stabilization techniques to at least 8,700 linear feet (1.65 miles).

Objective 12: Increase the retirement of marginal and highly vulnerable lands by enrolling at least 40 acres into programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).

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

5 Current estimates indicate reduced tillage occurs on approximately 6,800 acres, based upon OpTis data (Dagan, 2019).

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 28 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Estimated Annual Nutrient Load Reductions from Each Objective Total Estimated Annual Objective Best Management Practice Acreage Nitrogen Load Number Treated Reduction (lbs) Nutrient Management (Planning and Implementation 1 3,200 13,320 through Soil Testing and VRT)a 2 Cover Crops 2,000 10,830 3 Conservation Tillage ( at least 30% residue) 2,000 9,040 4 Drainage Water Management Structures 300 3,150 5 Blind Inletsb 50 610 6 Filter Strips/Buffers (of at least 35 ft)c 1,500 14,630 7 Forested Buffers (of at least 100 ft) 30 410 8 Bioreactors 70 860 9 WASCOBSd 30 660 10 Wetlandse and/or Water Retention Basins 1,250f 8,060 11 Stream Stabilization and/or Two-Stage Ditch 800g 11,590 12 Land Retirement 40 1,010 TOTAL 11,270 74,170 (Source Model: Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL), Version 4.4, (USEPA, 2018)) NOTES a Nutrient Management consists of “managing the amount (rate), source, placement (method of application) and timing of plant nutrients and soil amendments to budget, supply and conserve nutrients for plant production; to minimize agricultural nonpoint source pollution of surface and groundwater resources; to properly utilize manure or organic byproducts as a plant nutrient source; to protect air quality by reducing odors, nitrogen emissions (ammonia, oxides of nitrogen) and the formation of atmospheric particulates; and/or to maintain or improve the physical, chemical and biological condition of soil,” as defined by the STEPL guidance documents (Tetra Tech, 2018). b Blind inlet nitrogen reduction efficiency estimated from values listed in Gonzalez, Smith and Livingston, 2016. c Concentrated flow must be distributed so the area can slow, filter, and/or soak in runoff. Design specifications will be Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) 393 Filter strips/area, and/or CRP CP-11 or CP2 Filter recharge areas. Conservation Cover (FOTG 327 and CRP CP-21) would not be designed to treat contributing runoff. d WASCOB nitrogen efficiency estimated from values listed in Fiener, Auerswald and Weigand, 2005 and Schoonover, 2019. e Nitrogen load reduction for wetlands was calculated using the estimated 5-year average cropland nutrient yield in the Scioto River watershed from 2013-2017 (12.9 lbs/acre nitrogen), provided by Heidelberg University National Center for Water Quality Research. f If drainage water is routed through restored/created wetlands, it is assumed a 50% reduction in nitrogen from total nutrient yield for the drainage area, with a 25:1 ratio of drainage area to receiving wetland (Hoffmann et al., 2012; Woltemade, 2000). For this objective of 50 wetland acres, total drainage area is 1,250 acres. g One linear foot of stream is estimated to drain 0.092 acres in this sub-watershed.

Water quality monitoring is an integral part of the project implementation process. Both project-specific and routinely scheduled monitoring will be conducted to determine progress towards meeting the goals (i.e., water quality standards and nutrient reduction targets). Through an adaptive management process, the aforementioned objectives will be reevaluated and modified as necessary. Objectives may

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 29 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

be added to make further progress towards attainment or reduction goals, or altered, as a systems approach of multiple BMPs can accelerate the improvement of water quality conditions. The Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update (Ohio EPA, 2020b) will be utilized as a reevaluation tool for its listing of all eligible NPS management strategies to consider including: . Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies; . Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies; . Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies; and, . High Quality Waters Protection Strategies.

3.3 Critical Area #2: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Nutrient Reduction from Urban Lands 3.3.1 Detailed Characterization In urban environments, NPS contributions to stormwater runoff can come from a variety of sources, including fertilizers, detergents, leaves and detritus, wild and domesticated animal excrement, lubricants, sediment erosion, and organic and inorganic decomposition processes (Carpenter et. al, 1998; Burton and Pitt, 2001). Urbanization and development often leads to increased pollutant availability, increased runoff, increased peak flows and stream “flashiness”, stream instability, decreased stream function, decreased storage and retention capabilities and decreased pollutant assimilation in soils (ODNR, 2006). Many of these effects have a direct impact on aquatic life. Even in areas of low amounts of urbanization (5-10% imperviousness), stream ecosystems can rapidly decline (Schueler, 1994).

Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Critical Area #2

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 30 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Critical Area #2 contains the northern portion of the City of Washington Court House. Washington Court House is approximately 8.99 square miles (5,794 acres) in size, of which approximately 42% (~2,443 acres) lies within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (Figure 11). Washington Court House supports a population of over 14,000 people (US Census Bureau, 2010), and the majority of land contained within Critical Area #2 is dedicated to residential, commercial, industrial or transportation uses (Table 19). Critical Area #2 contains a ~4.9 mile segment of Paint Creek (RM 73.9 – 69.0).

Critical Area #2 – Land Use Classifications Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Land Use (05060003 01 03) Area (mi2) Area (acres) % Critical Area Commercial/Industrial/Transportation 0.51 324.66 13.30% Crop 0.93 592.40 24.18% Deciduous Forest 0.37 242.88 9.96% Open Water 0.06 40.46 1.65% Pasture 0.20 127.02 5.21% Residential 1.68 1,077.58 44.17% Urban/Recreational Grasses 0.06 37.67 1.53% Total 3.81 2442.67 100.00% (Source: Homer et al., 2020)

3.3.2 Detailed Biological Conditions Fish community data for the three sampling locations within the urban portion of the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 are summarized below (Table 20). Analysis of the abundance, diversity and pollution tolerance of existing fish species found by Ohio EPA at each sampling location, in relation to the corresponding QHEI score, aids in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. Habitat scores decreased as Paint Creek transitioned from the agricultural to rural landscape. Generally, fish community performance increased along a downstream gradient in Paint Creek from the agricultural sampling locations to the urban sampling locations. While fish community performance was of higher quality, pollution tolerant fish (i.e., gizzard shad, bluntnose minnow, etc.) were still present in abundant quantities.

Critical Area #2 - Fish Community and Habitat Data Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) River Drainage Total Predominant Species Narrative QHEI IBI MIwba Mile Area (mi2) Species (Percent of Catch) Evaluation Paint Creek (WWH) Longear sunfish (23%), orangespotted Very Good - 71.16W 63.0 29 64.5 49 9.4 sunfish (9%), central stoneroller (8%) Exceptional Longear sunfish (35%), bluegill sunfish Good – Marginally 69.52W 67.0 24 38.0 41 7.8 (20%), gizzard shad (8%) Good

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 31 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) River Drainage Total Predominant Species Narrative QHEI IBI MIwba Mile Area (mi2) Species (Percent of Catch) Evaluation Longear sunfish (21%), northern hog Good – Marginally 69.15W 67.0 26 40.5 42 8.2 sucker (12%), bluntnose minnow (11%) Good (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008)

NOTES IBI Index of Biotic Integrity a The Modified Index of Well Being (MIwb) is not applicable to headwater sites (drainage ≤20 mi2). QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index W Wading site WWH Warmwater Habitat

Characteristics of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community for the Town of Washington Court House- Paint Creek HUC-12 are summarized below (Table 21). Analysis of the abundance, diversity, and pollution tolerance of existing aquatic macroinvertebrates found by Ohio EPA at these sampling locations, related to QHEI scores, can aid in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. Upstream of Washington Court House, sediment exported from the headwaters of Paint Creek is entrained in the channel, smothering the substrate and riffle environments (Ohio EPA, 2008). In the urban, channelized section of Paint Creek, macroinvertebrate communities declined, as the minimal riparian canopy maintained throughout the headwaters disappears, stagnant, backwater conditions appear and urban inputs increase.

Critical Area #2 - Macroinvertebrate Community Data Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) River Mile ICI Score-Narrativea Notes (Density of Ql./Qt.) Predominant Species Paint Creek (WWH) Netspinner caddisflies (F), riffle beetles (F), 42 – Very Good Moderate – high qualitative 71.16W Tanytarsini midges (MI), Polypedilum flavum 18 sensitive taxa density midges (F) 28* – Fair High – moderate qualitative Tanytarsini midges (MI), Polypedilum flavum 69.52W 16 sensitive taxa density midges (F) 24* – Fair High – low qualitative 69.15W Scuds (F), flatworms (F) 8 sensitive taxa density (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008)

NOTES W Wading site a Narrative evaluation used in lieu of ICI (E=Exceptional; G=Good; MG=Marginally Good; H Fair =High Fair; F=Fair; L Fair=Low Fair; P=Poor; VP=Very Poor). * Significant departure from applicable biocriteria (>4 IBI or ICI units, or >0.5 MIwb units). Underlined scores are in the poor to very poor range. Tolerance Categories: VT=Very Tolerant, T=Tolerant, MT=Moderately Tolerant, F=Facultative, MI=Moderately Intolerant, I=Intolerant.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 32 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

3.3.3 Detailed Causes and Associated Sources One sampling site in the urbanized section of Paint Creek in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 is currently in Full Attainment of the WWH designation, while two sites are in Partial Attainment of the WWH designation due to hydromodification, nutrient effects, DO levels and habitat alterations caused by channelization and urban runoff. The data summarized previously in Table 11 (p.18) reveal a direct link between the presence of attributes in the watershed that have influence on the aquatic communities throughout Paint Creek in Critical Area #2. These contributing attributes in Critical Area #2 include:

. Recovering Channel; . Heavy/Moderate Silt Cover; . Fair/Poor Development; . Low Sinuosity; . Lack of Fast Current; . High/Moderate Embeddedness; and, . Lack of Riffle.

Many of the negative habitat attributes found during the QHEI sampling event result from land use activities, including impacts from urban development within the watershed. From a far-field perspective, urban land use activities contribute to excessive nutrient loadings to the Ohio River, eventually reaching the Mississippi and then the Gulf of Mexico, contributing to its extensive hypoxic zone. Reductions in nutrients in urban areas and management of stormwater inputs can help decrease overall NPS pollution and improve aquatic communities. Reductions in nutrients in urban areas through the use of green infrastructure for the retention, detention and filtration of urban pollutants can help decrease overall NPS pollution and improve aquatic communities. Compared with natural land cover, shallow and deep infiltration and evapotranspiration decreases while surface runoff increases in urban lands (USEPA, 2003). When watersheds have as little as 10% impervious surface, studies have shown that not only does runoff increase substantially, Residential stormwater routed to Paint but pollutant loads also increase (CWP, 1998). Creek.

3.3.4 Outline Goals and Objectives for the Critical Area The overarching goal of any NPS-IS is to improve water quality scores in order to remove a waterbody’s impairment status or protect quality areas to maintain attainment status. Urban land use activities in Critical Area #2 contribute to not only near-field impairment and stressed aquatic communities in Paint Creek, but also far-field impairment through excessive nutrient loss to local waterways that flow to the Ohio River. The Ohio EPA has estimated nutrient loadings associated with various land uses and sources within targeted HUC-12s in the ORB, and has set nitrogen reduction goals for agricultural and urban sources. To achieve the desired nitrogen reduction from urban land use in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12, the following goal has been established:

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 33 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Goal 1. Reduce nitrogen loading contributions in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 to a level at or below 11,200 lbs/year (20% reduction). NOT ACHIEVED: Current estimated load contribution is 14,000 lbs/year.

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

Goal 2. Maintain IBI score at or above 40 at Perry Park in Paint Creek (RM 71.16). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 49.

Goal 3. Maintain MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Perry Park in Paint Creek (RM 71.16). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 9.4.

Goal 4. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 at Perry Park in Paint Creek (RM 71.16). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 42.

Goal 5. Maintain QHEI score at or above 60 at Perry Park in Paint Creek (RM 71.16). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 64.5.

Goal 6. Maintain IBI score at or above 40 at Elm Street in Paint Creek (RM 69.52). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 41.

Goal 7. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Elm Street in Paint Creek (RM 69.52). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 7.8.

Goal 8. Achieve ICI score at or above 36 at Elm Street in Paint Creek (RM 69.52). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 28.

Goal 9. Achieve QHEI score at or above 60 upstream at Elm Street in Paint Creek (RM 69.52). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 38.

Goal 10. Maintain IBI score at or above 40 downstream of the Washington Court House WWTP in Paint Creek (RM 69.15). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 42.

Goal 11. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 downstream of the Washington Court House WWTP in Paint Creek (RM 69.15). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 8.2.

Goal 12. Achieve CI score at or above 36 downstream of the Washington Court House WWTP in Paint Creek (RM 69.15). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 24.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 34 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Goal 13. Achieve QHEI score at or above 60 downstream of the Washington Court House WWTP in Paint Creek (RM 69.15). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 40.5.

Objectives In order to make substantive progress toward the achievement of the urban nitrogen load reduction goal of 2,800 lbs for the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12, efforts must commence on more widespread implementation, according to the following objectives within Critical Area #2. Additionally, actions taken to address nutrient reduction will also help reduce stressors on aquatic communities within Paint Creek.

Objective 1: Reduce stormwater inputs and impacts in the sub-watershed by implementing green infrastructure projects within Critical Area #2 that retain, detain, and/or treat runoff from at least 950 acres of urbanized impermeable surfaces (i.e., parking lots, roads, etc.).

Objective 2: Reduce stormwater inputs and impacts in the sub-watershed by restoring and/or creating floodplain and wetland detention/storage basins to retain, detain and/or treat urban drainage from at least 100 acres.

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

3.4 Critical Area #3: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Streambank and Riparian Restoration 3.4.1 Detailed Characterization As suggested in the 2006 TMDL study for the Paint Creek watershed, riparian, floodplain and streambank stabilization and restoration is needed throughout the Town of Washington Court House- Paint Creek HUC-12 in areas where land use has resulted in bare/denuded banks susceptible to erosion and perennial streams have been disconnected from their floodplains (Figure 12). Specific actions suggested for this sub-watershed include restoring streambanks by planting native grasses, trees and shrubs throughout riparian areas and reconnecting wetlands to streams and constructing and restoring

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 35 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

wetlands (Ohio EPA, 2012). In addition, two lowhead dams within Paint Creek create backwater and stagnant conditions along long stretches of the stream, and channelization has caused the over- widening of the stream in many places, exacerbating shear stress on exposed banks.

Using the rationale described in the Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (USEPA, 2008)(Section 10.3.4): “In general, management practices are implemented immediately adjacent to the waterbody or upland to address the sources of pollutant loads”, Critical Area #3 includes approximately 105,600 linear feet (20.0 miles) of stream length and a 100-foot buffer width on each side. The potential for restoration of approximately 485 acres of riparian corridor and floodplain wetlands exists in Critical Area #3.

Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 Critical Area #3

3.4.2 Detailed Biological Conditions Fish community data for the six sampling locations within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 are summarized below (Table 22). Analysis of the abundance, diversity and pollution tolerance of existing fish species found by Ohio EPA at each sampling location, in relation to the corresponding QHEI score, aids in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. Generally, fish community performance increased along a downstream gradient from areas of agricultural land use to urban land use, likely a result of fluctuations in DO regimes and nutrient enrichment in the rural landscape. Sediment was entrained within the channel, covering substrates and smothering riffles throughout the stream (Ohio EPA, 2008). While a minimal riparian corridor is present along segments of Paint Creek, which helps to ameliorate negative habitat effects, the absence of this corridor reveals near vertical, scoured banks in many places, particularly along the urban segments of the stream.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 36 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Critical Area #3 - Fish Community and Habitat Data Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) River Drainage Total Predominant Species Narrative QHEI IBI MIwba Mile Area (mi2) Species (Percent of Catch) Evaluation Paint Creek (WWH) Spotfin shiner (26%), green sunfish 79.86W 54.0 22 62.0 39ns 6.6* Good – Fair (19%), bluntnose minnow (13%) Western blacknose dace (33%), 75.33W 58.0 26 77.0 35* 7.4* bluntnose minnow (14%), sand shiner Fair (13%) Bluntnose minnow (44%), sand shiner 73.28W 60.0 25 66.0 33* 6.6* Fair (20%), greenside darter (18%) Longear sunfish (23%), orangespotted Very Good - 71.16W 63.0 29 64.5 49 9.4 sunfish (9%), central stoneroller (8%) Exceptional Longear sunfish (35%), bluegill sunfish Good – Marginally 69.52W 67.0 24 38.0 41 7.8 (20%), gizzard shad (8%) Good Longear sunfish (21%), northern hog Good – Marginally 69.15W 67.0 26 40.5 42 8.2 sucker (12%), bluntnose minnow (11%) Good (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008)

NOTES IBI Index of Biotic Integrity a The Modified Index of Well Being (MIwb) is not applicable to headwater sites (drainage ≤20 mi2). QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index W Wading site ns Nonsignificant departure from ecoregion biocriteria (≤4 IBI or ICI units, ≤5 MIwb units). * Significant departure from applicable biocriteria (>4 IBI or ICI units, or >0.5 MIwb units). Underlined scores are in the poor to very poor range. WWH Warmwater Habitat

Characteristics of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community for the Town of Washington Court House- Paint Creek HUC-12 are summarized below (Table 23). Analysis of the abundance, diversity, and pollution tolerance of existing aquatic macroinvertebrates found by Ohio EPA at these sampling locations, related to QHEI scores, can aid in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. The macroinvertebrate communities within the agricultural headwaters of Paint Creek performed well, despite localized eroding banks and open canopy conditions. Lower macroinvertebrate densities are found at RM 75.33 and 73.28 due to higher quality riparian and instream habitat in a more stable stream segment. The presence of a slight riparian corridor along extended segments of Paint Creek, coupled with cool groundwater recharge ameliorated negative localized impacts (Ohio EPA, 2008). In the urban, channelized section of Paint Creek, macroinvertebrate communities declined, as the minimal riparian canopy maintained throughout the headwaters disappears, stagnant, backwater conditions appear Vertical banks in Paint Creek between and urban inputs increase. two lowhead dams.

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

Critical Area #2 - Macroinvertebrate Community Data Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) River Mile ICI Score-Narrativea Notes (Density of Ql./Qt.) Predominant Species Paint Creek (WWH) 54 – Exceptional Moderate – high qualitative Riffle beetles (F,MI), Tanytarsini midges (MI), 79.86W 22 sensitive taxa density Asian clam (MI), netspinner caddisflies (F) 46 – Exceptional Moderate – low qualitative Riffle beetles (F, MI), minnow mayflies, Asian 75.33W 27 sensitive taxa density clam (MI) 46 – Exceptional Moderate – low qualitative Minnow mayflies (MI, F), netspinner 73.28W 23 sensitive taxa density caddisflies (F, MI) Netspinner caddisflies (F), riffle beetles (F), 42 – Very Good Moderate – high qualitative 71.16W Tanytarsini midges (MI), Polypedilum flavum 18 sensitive taxa density midges (F) 28* – Fair High – moderate qualitative Tanytarsini midges (MI), Polypedilum flavum 69.52W 16 sensitive taxa density midges (F) 24* – Fair High – low qualitative 69.15W Scuds (F), flatworms (F) 8 sensitive taxa density (Source: Ohio EPA, 2008)

NOTES W Wading site a Narrative evaluation used in lieu of ICI (E=Exceptional; G=Good; MG=Marginally Good; H Fair =High Fair; F=Fair; L Fair=Low Fair; P=Poor; VP=Very Poor). * Significant departure from applicable biocriteria (>4 IBI or ICI units, or >0.5 MIwb units). Underlined scores are in the poor to very poor range. Tolerance Categories: VT=Very Tolerant, T=Tolerant, MT=Moderately Tolerant, F=Facultative, MI=Moderately Intolerant, I=Intolerant.

3.4.3 Detailed Causes and Associated Sources One sampling site in Paint Creek in the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 is currently in Full Attainment of the WWH designation. Three sampling sites within Paint Creek are in Partial Attainment of the WWH designation due to sedimentation and DO fluctuations caused by agricultural activities. Two sites within Paint Creek are in Partial Attainment of the WWH designation due to hydromodification, nutrients, DO fluctuations and habitat alterations from channelization and urban runoff, with minor effects from WWTP operations. The data summarized previously in Table 11 (p.18) reveal a direct link between the presence of attributes in the watershed that have influence on the aquatic communities throughout Paint Creek in Critical Area #3. These contributing attributes in Critical Area #3 include:

. Channelization (urban sites); . Sparse/No Cover (urban sites); . Heavy/Moderate Silt Cover (agricultural and urban sites); . Fair/Poor Development (agricultural and urban sites); and, . High/Moderate Embeddedness (agricultural and urban sites).

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

Habitat, as scored by the QHEI, is not a WQS; however, habitat is highly correlated with the performance of aquatic communities. In general, sites that score at least 60 (or 55 for headwater streams) are successful at supporting WWH aquatic assemblages. Projects that address the above described habitat- related attributes (e.g., channelization, embeddedness, etc.) through in-stream and riparian restoration will have a positive effect in the QHEI scoring index. As the habitat score (QHEI) becomes better, IBI, MIwb and ICI index scores are also expected to improve.

3.4.4 Outline Goals and Objectives for the Critical Area The overarching goal of any NPS-IS is to improve water quality scores or meet nutrient reduction goals in order to remove a waterbody’s impairment status. For Critical Area #3, addressing streambank and riparian habitat conditions within Paint Creek and its contributing tributaries will help ameliorate stresses from land use and boost index values for aquatic communities.

The remaining goals for Critical Area #3 of the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 are to reduce sedimentation and channelization effects to improve the aquatic scores through stabilizing streambanks and restoring floodplains and riparian corridors. These goals are to specifically:

Goal 1. Achieve IBI score at or above 40 at Wildwood Road in Paint Creek (RM 79.86). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 39.

Goal 2. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Wildwood Road in Paint Creek (RM 79.86). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 6.6.

Goal 3. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 at Wildwood Road in Paint Creek (RM 79.86). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 54.

Goal 4. Maintain QHEI score at or above 60 at Wildwood Road in Paint Creek (RM 79.86). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 62.

Goal 5. Achieve IBI score at or above 40 at Bloomburg-New Holland Road in Paint Creek (RM 75.33). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 35.

Goal 6. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Bloomburg-New Holland Road in Paint Creek (RM 75.33). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 7.4. Goal 7. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 at Bloomburg-New Holland Road in Paint Creek (RM 75.33). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 46.

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

Goal 8. Maintain QHEI score at or above 60 at Bloomburg-New Holland Road in Paint Creek (RM 75.33). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 77.

Goal 9. Achieve IBI score at or above 40 at Private Lane in Paint Creek (RM 73.28). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 33.

Goal 10. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Private Lane in Paint Creek (RM 73.28). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 6.6.

Goal 11. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 at Private Lane in Paint Creek (RM 73.28). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 46.

Goal 12. Maintain QHEI score at or above 60 at Private Lane in Paint Creek (RM 73.28). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 66.

Goal 13. Maintain IBI score at or above 40 at Perry Park in Paint Creek (RM 71.16). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 49.

Goal 14. Maintain MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Perry Park in Paint Creek (RM 71.16). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 9.4.

Goal 15. Maintain ICI score at or above 36 at Perry Park in Paint Creek (RM 71.16). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 42.

Goal 16. Maintain QHEI score at or above 60 at Perry Park in Paint Creek (RM 71.16). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 64.5.

Goal 17. Maintain IBI score at or above 40 at Elm Street in Paint Creek (RM 69.52). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 41.

Goal 18. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 at Elm Street in Paint Creek (RM 69.52). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 7.8.

Goal 19. Achieve ICI score at or above 36 at Elm Street in Paint Creek (RM 69.52). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 28.

Goal 20. Achieve QHEI score at or above 60 upstream at Elm Street in Paint Creek (RM 69.52). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 38.

Goal 21. Maintain IBI score at or above 40 downstream of the Washington Court House WWTP in Paint Creek (RM 69.15). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 42.

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

Goal 22. Achieve MIwb score at or above 8.3 downstream of the Washington Court House WWTP in Paint Creek (RM 69.15). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 8.2.

Goal 23. Achieve CI score at or above 36 downstream of the Washington Court House WWTP in Paint Creek (RM 69.15). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 24.

Goal 24. Achieve QHEI score at or above 60 downstream of the Washington Court House WWTP in Paint Creek (RM 69.15). NOT ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 40.5.

Objectives The implementation of these objectives, partnered with implementation throughout other identified critical areas will help ameliorate negative impacts from current and former channelization within the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12, and positive gains will be made towards removing both near-field and far-field impairments. In order to achieve the overall NPS restoration goals of reaching Full Attainment at all sites within Paint Creek, the following objectives need to be achieved within Critical Area #3.

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

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

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

Objective 4: Remove at least one lowhead dam in Paint Creek.

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

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

CHAPTER 4: PROJECTS AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Projects and evaluation needs identified for the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 are based upon identified causes and associated sources of NPS pollution. Over time, these critical areas will need to be reevaluated to determine progress towards meeting restoration, attainment and nutrient reduction goals. Time is an important variable in measuring project success and overall status when using biological indices as a measurement tool. Some biological systems may show fairly quick response (i.e., one season), while others may take several seasons or years to show progress towards recovery. In addition, reasons for the impairment other than those associated with NPS sources may arise. Those issues will need to be addressed under different initiatives, authorities or programs that may or may not be accomplished by the same implementers addressing the NPS issues.

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

For the Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 there are three Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Tables (subsection 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3). 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 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12.

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

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

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

4.1 Critical Area #1 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) — Critical Area #1 Lead Project Title Time Frame Estimated Cost Potential/Actual Funding Source Goal Objective Project # Organization (EPA Criteria g) (EPA Criteria f) (EPA Criteria d) (EPA Criteria d) (EPA criteria d) Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies

Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies

Agricultural Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies

High Quality Waters Protection Strategies

Other NPS Causes and Associated Sources of Impairment

At this time, no short-term projects have been identified for Critical Area #1; therefore, no Project Summary Sheets are included.

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

4.2 Critical Area #2 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) — Critical Area #2 Lead Project Title Time Frame Estimated Cost Potential/Actual Funding Source Goal Objective Project # Organization (EPA Criteria g) (EPA Criteria f) (EPA Criteria d) (EPA Criteria d) (EPA criteria d) Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies Residential Stormwater Fayette SWCD; 1,6-9 1,2 TBD Treatment Wetland near Washington TBD TBD Ohio EPA §319 Christman Park Court House Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies

Agricultural Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies

High Quality Waters Protection Strategies

Other NPS Causes and Associated Sources of Impairment

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

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

4.3 Critical Area #3 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12 (05060003 01 03) — Critical Area #3 Lead Project Title Time Frame Estimated Cost Potential/Actual Funding Source Goal Objective Project # Organization (EPA Criteria g) (EPA Criteria f) (EPA Criteria d) (EPA Criteria d) (EPA criteria d) Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies

Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies Fayette SWCD; Short 9-12 3 1 YMCA Wetland Washington $335,670 Ohio EPA §319 (1-3 years) Court House Fayette SWCD; Short 13-20 1-4 2 Eyman Park Dam Removal Washington $2,083,705 Ohio EPA §319, WRRSP (1-3 years) Court House Fayette SWCD; Christman Park Paint Creek 13-20 1-3 TBD Washington TBD TBD Ohio EPA §319, WRRSP Stream Restoration Court House Agricultural Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies

High Quality Waters Protection Strategies

Other NPS Causes and Associated Sources of Impairment

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

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

Critical Area #3 – Project #1 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria n/a Title YMCA Wetland criteria d Project Lead Organization & Partners Fayette SWCD; Washington Court House criteria c HUC-12 and Critical Area Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12; Critical Area #3 criteria c Location of Project YMCA Grounds; 39.556289; -83.463973 n/a Which strategy is being addressed by Altered Stream and Habitat this project? criteria f Time Frame Short (1-3 years) criteria g Short Description Restore five (5)-acre wetland along Paint Creek criteria g Project Narrative Washington Court House owns land along Paint Creek that is currently leased to the YMCA for its site and to local producers for agricultural production. The proposed project will restore approximately 13 acres of current agricultural lands to approximately 5 acres of riparian/floodplain wetlands and 8 acres of associated upland habitat. The site will be regraded to provide a spillway for Paint Creek during high flows and micro-depressions for increased water storage and wetland habitat. Wetland and floodplain habitats will be planted with native grasses and trees. The interaction of Paint Creek with the floodplain wetland will promote sediment and nutrient attenuation directly upstream of the Private Lane sampling location. criteria d Estimated Total cost $335,670 criteria d Possible Funding Source Ohio EPA §319 criteria a Identified Causes and Sources Cause: Ag- row crop and livestock Source: Sedimentation; dissolved oxygen criteria b & h Part 1: How much improvement is Current data shows that the QHEI score in Paint Creek at the closest downstream sampling location is needed to remove the NPS 66; however, the TMDL indicates improvement of 7.5 points can be made in the substrate category, impairment for the whole Critical 6.5 points in the channel category and 6 points in the riparian category. The IBI score at this sampling Area? location is currently 33 (7 points below the attainment index score of 40) and the MIwb score is 6.6 (1.7 points below the attainment score of 8.3).

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 46 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Critical Area #3 – Project #1 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria Part 2: How much of the needed With respect to the Goals in Critical Area #3, the main driver is QHEI at the Private Lane (Paint Creek, improvement for the whole Critical RM 73.28) site. It is expected that this project will cause an incremental increase in the QHEI scoring Area is estimated to be accomplished by 2 points in the substrate category and 3 points in the riparian category, with similar incremental by this project? gains in IBI and MIwb. Part 3: Load Reduced? Estimated annual reduction: 57.5 #N/year; 11.6 #P/year; 4.5 tons sediment/year criteria i How will the effectiveness of this Staff from the Ohio EPA-Division of Surface Water Ecological Assessment Unit will perform both pre- project in addressing the NPS and post-project monitoring. The Private Lane (RM 73.28) sampling site will be monitored as part of impairment be measured? the State of Ohio’s ongoing surface water monitoring program cycle to determine progress from Partial Attainment to Full Attainment. criteria e Information and Education A walking trail to the south of the proposed project site offers an overlook vantage point where signage about the restoration will be placed. The Fayette SWCD will promote the project through press releases, social media interactions, and announcements in newsletters, at Annual Meetings and Field Days and on the SWCD website.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 47 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Critical Area #3 – Project #2 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria n/a Title Eyman Park Dam Removal criteria d Project Lead Organization & Partners Fayette SWCD; Washington Court House criteria c HUC-12 and Critical Area Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek HUC-12; Critical Area #3 criteria c Location of Project Eyman Park; 39.539717; -83.444818 n/a Which strategy is being addressed by Altered Stream and Habitat this project? criteria f Time Frame Short (1-3 years) criteria g Short Description Lowhead dam removal and stream restoration in Eyman Park criteria g Project Narrative The proposed project will remove a lowhead dam (8 ft high by 75 ft wide) located at Eyman Park and stabilize stream banks along a portion of Paint Creek located in Eyman and Washington Parks and on private residences. The restoration efforts will focus on approximately 2,400 linear feet of Paint Creek between Millikan Avenue on the eastern end, Eyman Park Drive as a center project crossing reference, and the toe of the reservoir on the western end. Approximately 1,000 linear feet of 50-foot wide constructed riffle habitat will stabilize stream channel substrate, aerate water, provide and maintain grade control. Soil geolifts and live brush layering will protect both stream banks, which are near vertical currently. The six acre riparian corridor (50 feet on either side of stream channel) will be planted with 15,000 live stakes, woody vegetation (2,700 bare tree roots), and native seed. criteria d Estimated Total cost $2,083,705 criteria d Possible Funding Source Ohio EPA §319, WRRSP criteria a Identified Causes and Sources Cause: Channelization; urban run-off Source: Hydromodification; habitat alterations; nutrients criteria b & h Part 1: How much improvement is Current data shows that the QHEI score in Paint Creek at the closest downstream sampling location is needed to remove the NPS 38 (22 points below the recommended attainment threshold of 60). The ICI score at this sampling impairment for the whole Critical location is currently 28 (8 points below the attainment index score of 36). Area? Part 2: How much of the needed With respect to the Goals in Critical Area #3, the main driver is QHEI at the Elm Street (Paint Creek, improvement for the whole Critical RM 69.52) site. It is expected that this project will cause an incremental increase in the QHEI scoring Area is estimated to be accomplished of this segment by 10 points, with similar incremental gains in ICI. by this project? Part 3: Load Reduced? Estimated annual reduction: 787 #N/year; 303 #P/year; 427.5 tons sediment/year

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 48 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Critical Area #3 – Project #2 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria criteria i How will the effectiveness of this Staff from the Ohio EPA-Division of Surface Water Ecological Assessment Unit will perform both pre- project in addressing the NPS and post-project monitoring. The Elm Street (RM 69.20) sampling site will be monitored as part of impairment be measured? the State of Ohio’s ongoing surface water monitoring program cycle to determine progress from Partial Attainment to Full Attainment. criteria e Information and Education The project location is in a highly frequented park within the City of Washington Court House limits. Project signage will be placed within the park at the dam removal site and at various locations along the pathway that follows the stream through the park. The Fayette SWCD will promote the project through press releases, social media interactions, and announcements in newsletters, at Annual Meetings and Field Days and on the SWCD website.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 49 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

CHAPTER 5: WORKS CITED

Burton, G.A. Jr., and R. Pitt. 2001. Stormwater Effects Handbook: A Tool Box for Watershed Managers, Scientists, and Engineers. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.

Carpenter, S.R., N.F. Caraco, D.L. Correll, R.W. Howarth, A.N. Sharpley and V.N. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint Pollution of Surface Waters with Phosphorus and Nitrogen. Ecology Applications, vol. 8, p.559.

Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1998. Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook. Ellicott City, Md.

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

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

Fiener, P., K. Auerswald and S. Weigand. 2005. Managing erosion and water quality in agricultural watersheds by small detention ponds. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 110, p. 132-142.

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

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

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

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

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

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 50 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

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

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

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2006. Rainwater and Land Development: Ohio’s Standards for Stormwater management, Land Development and Urban Stream Protection, 3rd Edition. http://oilandgas.ohiodnr.gov/portals/oilgas/pdf/stormwater/RLD_11-6-14All.pdf. Accessed February 19, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 51 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 2021b. River Miles Index Interactive Map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4f93b8e37d4640a6ab3ac43d2914d25e. Accessed January 5, 2021.

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

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

Schueler, T. 1994. The Importance of Imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques. 1(3):100-111.

Schoonover, J. 2019. Water and Sediment Control Basins (WASCoBs) Influence on Crop Yields and Water Quality near Atterberry, Illinois. Illinois NREC Final Report Summary Sheet. http://www.illinoisnrec.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2019-Final-Report-2019-4-206333-25-SIU- Wascobs-influence-on-yield-and-water-quality-Schoonover.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2021.

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

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 52 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

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.

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

Trevas, D. Washington Court House in Contempt of Court for Not Paying Ohio EPA Fines. Court News Ohio. http://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2014/COA/0902/2014-OH-3557.asp#.YHNRY-hKhPY. Accessed April 11, 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. Protecting Water Quality from Urban Runoff. https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/nps_urban-facts_final.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2020.

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

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

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 53 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

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

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

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO). https://echo.epa.gov/. Accessed March 1, 2021.

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

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

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

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 54 Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 303-378 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy