DOCSLIB.ORG

Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Paint Creek Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Paint Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily July 2012 Loads for the Paint Creek Watershed Final Report July 19, 2012 John R. Kasich, Governor Mary Taylor, Lt. Governor Scott J. Nally, Director Photo caption: Paint Creek at State Route 753 upstream of Greenfield in Fayette County, Ohio. Ohio EPA received financial assistance for this work from U.S. EPA and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Paint Creek Watershed TMDLs Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Clean Water Act Requirement to Address Impaired Waters .................................. 1 1.2 Public Involvement ....................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Organization of Report ................................................................................................. 7 2 Characteristics and Expectations of the Watershed ....................................................... 8 2.1 Watershed Characteristics ........................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Population ........................................................................................................ 8 2.1.2 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Point Source Discharges .................................................................................. 9 2.1.4 Public Drinking Water Supplies .......................................................................11 2.2 Water Quality Standards .............................................................................................11 2.2.1 Aquatic Life Use ..............................................................................................12 2.2.2 Recreation Use ...............................................................................................13 2.2.3 Public Drinking Water Supply Use ...................................................................14 2.2.4 Human Health (Fish Contaminants) Use .........................................................14 3 Water Quality Conditions in the Watershed ....................................................................16 3.1 Headwaters Paint Creek (05060003 01) .....................................................................25 3.1.1 Town of Washington Court House-Paint Creek (05060003 01 03) ..................28 3.2 Sugar Creek (05060003 02) ........................................................................................30 3.2.1 Headwaters Sugar Creek (05060003 02 01) ...................................................32 3.3 Headwaters Rattlesnake Creek (05060003 03) ...........................................................33 3.3.1 Wilson Creek (05060003 03 01) ......................................................................35 3.4 Lees Creek-Rattlesnake Creek (05060003 04) ...........................................................36 3.5 Rocky Fork (05060003 05) ..........................................................................................39 3.5.1 Clear Creek (05060003 05 02) ........................................................................41 3.6 Indian Creek-Paint Creek (05060003 06) ....................................................................42 3.7 Buckskin Creek-Paint Creek (05060003 07) ...............................................................45 3.8 Headwaters North Fork Paint Creek (05060003 08) ....................................................48 3.9 Little Creek-North Fork Paint Creek (05060003 09) ....................................................50 3.10 Ralston Run-Paint Creek (05060003 10) ....................................................................53 3.11 Large River Assessment Unit - Paint Creek ................................................................56 4 Methods to Calculate Load Reductions ...........................................................................57 4.1 Loading Simulation Program in C++ (LSPC) ...............................................................69 4.1.1 Justification .....................................................................................................69 4.1.2 Sources of Data ..............................................................................................71 4.1.3 Target(s) .........................................................................................................73 4.1.4 Calibration and Validation ...............................................................................74 4.1.5 Allowance for Future Growth ...........................................................................77 4.1.6 Seasonality and Critical Conditions .................................................................78 4.1.7 Allocations to Regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) ............................79 4.2 Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)................................................................81 4.2.1 Justification .....................................................................................................81 4.2.2 Sources of Data ..............................................................................................81 i Paint Creek Watershed TMDLs 4.2.3 Targets............................................................................................................82 4.2.4 Calibration and Validation ...............................................................................83 4.2.5 Allowance for Future Growth ...........................................................................84 4.2.6 Seasonality and Critical Conditions .................................................................84 4.3 Load Duration Curve Analysis .....................................................................................84 4.3.1 Justification .....................................................................................................87 4.3.2 Sources of Data ..............................................................................................88 4.3.3 Target(s) .........................................................................................................88 4.3.4 Calibration and Validation ...............................................................................88 4.3.5 Allowance for Future Growth ...........................................................................88 4.3.6 Seasonality and Critical Conditions .................................................................89 4.3.7 Allocations to Regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) ............................................................................................................89 4.4 Margin of Safety ..........................................................................................................90 4.4.1 E. coli Margin of Safety ...................................................................................90 4.4.2 Total Phosphorus Margin of Safety .................................................................90 4.4.3 Habitat and Sediment Margin of Safety ...........................................................91 4.5 Summary of surrogate parameters used to develop TMDLs .......................................91 5 Load Reduction Results ...................................................................................................93 5.1 Paint Creek (headwaters to below East Fork) (05060003 01) .....................................93 5.1.1 E. coli TMDLs ..................................................................................................93 5.1.2 Total Phosphorus TMDLs ...............................................................................95 5.1.3 Habitat and Sediment TMDLs .........................................................................98 5.2 Sugar Creek (05060003 02) ...................................................................................... 104 5.2.1 E. coli TMDLs ................................................................................................ 104 5.2.2 Total Phosphorus TMDLs ............................................................................. 105 5.2.3 Habitat and Sediment TMDLs ....................................................................... 106 5.3 Rattlesnake Creek (headwaters to above Lees Creek) (05060003 03) ..................... 108 5.3.1 E. coli TMDLs ................................................................................................ 108 5.3.2 Habitat and Sediment TMDLs ....................................................................... 110 5.4 Rattlesnake Creek (above Lees Creek to Paint Cr.) (05060003 04) .......................... 115 5.4.1 E. coli TMDLs ................................................................................................ 115 5.4.2 Habitat and Sediment TMDLs ....................................................................... 116 5.5 Rocky Fork (05060003 05) ........................................................................................ 118 5.5.1 E. coli TMDLs ................................................................................................ 118 5.5.2 Habitat and Sediment TMDLs ....................................................................... 120 5.6 Paint Creek (below East Fork [except Sugar Creek] to above Rocky Fork (05060003
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Waddle Ditch Rattlesnake Creek
    Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy (NPS-IS) for Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05) Prepared for: Fayette Soil and Water Conservation District Prepared by: Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Toledo, Ohio Version 1.0 Approved: June 29, 2021 This page intentionally left blank. Acknowledgements Version 1.0 prepared and written by: Deanna Bobak Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4841 Monroe Street, Suite 103 Toledo, OH 43623 Brigitte Hisey Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District 1415 US 22 SW, Suite 500 Washington Court House, OH 43160 The Fayette Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) would like to acknowledge the collaboration of multiple partners in the preparation of this Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy (NPS-IS) for the Waddle Ditch-Rattlesnake Creek HUC-12 (05060003 03 05). The Fayette SWCD appreciates those individuals and organizations that contributed background information, insight into objectives and projects for inclusion in this NPS-IS. Thank you to Rick Wilson, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency – Division of Surface Water, for guidance throughout the NPS-IS development process, as well as Jessica D’Ambrosio and the staff of The Nature Conservancy for providing modeling data generated by the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF). This product or publication was financed in part or totally through a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency through an assistance agreement with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. The contents and views, including any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations, contained in this product or publication are those of the authors and have not been subject to any Ohio Environmental Protection Agency or United States Environmental Protection Agency peer or administrative review and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency or the United States Environmental Protection Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological and Water Quality Study of the Paint Creek Watershed 2006
    State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Biological and Water Quality Study of the Paint Creek Watershed 2006 Hydrologic Units 05060003 010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070, 080, 090, 100. Clinton, Fayette, Greene, Highland, Madison, and Ross Counties OHIO EPA Technical Report EAS/2008-1-2 August 29, 2008 Ted Strickland, Governor, State of Ohio Chris Korleski, Director DSW/EAS/2008-1-2 Paint Creek TSD August 29, 2008 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Paint Creek Watershed 2006 Clinton, Fayette, Greene, Highland, Madison, and Ross Counties August 29, 2008 OHIO EPA Technical Report EAS/2008-1-2 Prepared by: State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Mailing Address: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Lazarus Government Center P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Ted Strickland Governor, State of Ohio Chris Korleski Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency i DSW/EAS/2008-1-2 Paint Creek TSD August 29, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notice To Users .............................................................................................................................xv Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................... xvii Foreword.................................................................................................................................... xviii Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Isotopic and Chemical Composition of Inorganic and Organic Water-Quality Samples from the Mississippi River Basin, 1997–98
    Isotopic and Chemical Composition of Inorganic and Organic Water-Quality Samples from the Mississippi River Basin, 1997–98 By William A. Battaglin, Carol Kendall, Cecily C.Y.Chang, Steve R. Silva, and Donald H. Campbell U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4095 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GULF OF MEXICO PROGRAM Denver, Colorado 2001 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Box 25046, Mail Stop 415 Box 25286 Denver Federal Center Federal Center Denver, CO 80225-0046 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Abstract.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Problem........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Objectives and Hypotheses.........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Place Names Directory: Southern Ohio
    STATE OF OHIO Richard F. Celeste, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Joseph J. Sommer, Director DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Horace R. Collins, Chief Information Circular No. 53 Florida Bureau ot Geo gy Ubt~ 903 w. Tennessee Street l'a\\a~' Florida 323041 ·-.. PLACE NAMES DIRECTORY: SOUTHERN OHIO compiled by Madge R. Fitak Columbus 1986 ... OD~ SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL STAFF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ADMINISTRATION Horace R. Collins, MS, Stal.e Geologist and Division Chf,ef Robert G. Van Horn, MS, Geologist and Assistant Chf,ef Barbara J. Adams, Administrative Secretary James M. Miller, BA, Fiscal Administrator REGIONAL GEOLOGY GEOCHEMISTRY LABORATORY Dennis N. Hull, MS, Goo/,ogist and Section Head David A Stith, MS, Geologist and Section Head Michael P. Angle, MS, Goo/,ogist George Botoman, MS, Geologist C. Scott Brockman, MS, Geologist Norman F. Knapp, PhD, Chemist Richard W. Carlton, PhD, Geologist Michael R. Caudill, BS, Goo/,ogist Douglas L. Crowell, MS, Geologist LAKE ERIE Kim E. Daniels, BS, Geologist Richard M. DeLong, MS, Geologist Rene L. Fernandez, MS, Geologist Jonathan A Fuller, MS, Geologist Michael C. Hansen, MS, Geologist Donald E. Guy, Jr., MS, Goologi,st Glenn E. Larsen, MS, Geologist Carl L. Hopfinger, MS, Geology Technician Jack A Leow, BS, Geologist Dale L. Liebenthal, Research Vessel Operator Richard R. Pavey, MS, Geologist Mary Lou McGurk, Typist Katherine M. Peterson, BS, Geologist Ronald G. Rea, BS, Geologist Clark Scheerens, L. MS, Geologist TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS Gregory A Schumacher, MS, Geologist Douglas L. Shrake, BS, Geologist Ernie R. Slucher, BA, Geologist Philip J. Celnar, BFA, Cartographer and Secti.on Head Edward Mac Swinford, MS, Geologist Cartography Joel D.
    [Show full text]
  • Paint Creek Scenic River Designation Study
    Paint Creek State Scenic River Designation Study June 2021 Paint Creek State Scenic River Designation Study A Study of Paint Creek and its Tributaries for Inclusion in Ohio’s Scenic Rivers System Prepared By John Ritter Professor of Geology and Environmental Science Wittenberg University June 2021 Table of Contents List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................................ v Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Description of the Paint Creek Watershed ............................................................................................................... 5 General Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Cultural History of the Paint Creek Watershed ................................................................................................... 11 Land Use ....................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Brush Creek
    County Stream Group Revised: 12-12-2013 Adams Beasley Fork (Ohio Brush Creek) 1 Adams Cedar Fork (Scioto Brush Creek) 1 Adams Cherry Fork 1 Adams Crooked Creek (Ohio Brush Creek) 1 Adams East Fork Eagle Creek (Eagle Creek) 1 Adams Lick Fork (Ohio Brush Creek) 1 Adams Middle Branch (Mill Creek) 1 Adams Middle Fork (Ohio Brush Creek) 1 Adams Ohio Brush Creek 1 Adams Ohio River 4 Adams Rogers Run 1 Adams Scioto Brush Creek 2 Adams South Fork Scioto Brush Creek 2 Adams West Fork Ohio Brush Creek 1 Allen Auglaize River 1 Allen Buck Run 1 Allen Camp Creek 1 Allen Hog Creek 1 Allen Jennings Creek 1 Allen Little Hog Creek 1 Allen Miami-Erie Canal 1 Allen Ottawa River 1 Allen Riley Creek 1 Ashland Black Fork Mohican River 1 Ashland Buck Creek 1 Ashland Clear Fork Mohican River 1 Ashland Jamison Creek 1 Ashland Jerome Fork 1 Ashland Mohican River 1 Ashland Muddy Fork Mohican River 1 Ashland Vermilion River 1 Ashland West Fork (East Branch Black River) 1 Ashtabula Ashtabula River 1 Ashtabula Coffee Creek 1 Ashtabula Conneaut Creek 1 Ashtabula Cowles Creek 1 Ashtabula Grand River 2 Ashtabula Lake Erie 1 Ashtabula Mill Creek 1 Ashtabula Phelps Creek 1 Ashtabula Pymatuning Creek 2 Ashtabula Rock Creek 1 Ashtabula West Branch Ashtabula River 1 Athens East Branch Shade River 1 Athens Federal Creek 1 Athens Hocking River 1 Athens Long Run 1 Athens Margaret Creek 1 Athens McDougall Branch 1 Athens Middle Branch Shade River 1 Athens Mud Fork 1 Athens Ohio River 4 Athens Sharps Fork 1 Athens Strouds Run 1 Athens Sugar Creek 1 Athens Sunday Creek 1 Auglaize Auglaize River 1 Auglaize Clear Creek 1 Auglaize Koop Creek (aka Kopp Creek) 1 Auglaize Miami-Erie Canal 1 Auglaize St.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Ohio Streams
    A Guide to Ohio Streams Edited by Randall E. Sanders, ODNR, Division of Wildlife Information and Graphic Design, Ronald J. Zimmerman, Information Design Group Published by Streams Committee, Ohio Chapter of the American Fisheries Society in Partnership with Ohio Environmental Education Fund Ohio Department of Natural Resources Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Columbus, Ohio 2001 © 2000 Information Design Group for OCAFS. 09.15.00 Title LT © 2000 Information Design Group for OCAFS. 09.15.00 Title RT A guide to Ohio Streams Table of Contents and guide to what, where, and how to find things in this book. Chapter and Section Number This book is divided into 10 chapters and 1.0 Streams 6.0 Wildlife Diversity Chapter Section chapter sections. 1.1 Natural and Human Changes 6.1 Aquatic Insects All information This number pertaining to a identifies the 1.2 Principal Streams 6.2 Mollusks chapter section chapter and and Watersheds 6.3 Stream Fishes will be contained section you are in the white area in. It also serves 1.3 Uses, Benefits, and Values 6.4 Reptiles and Amphibians Section Heading of the page. as a double page 1.4 Stream Trivia number. 2.0 Geology and Geography 7.0 Recreation 2.1 Bedrock, Ground Water, 7.1 Gone Fishin’ Section and Glacial Deposits 7.2 More Sport Fishes Introduction 2.2 Climate and Water Cycle 7.3 Recreational Opportunities 2.3 Precipitation 2.4 Relief and Land Use 3.0 Habitat Quality and Threats 8.0 Stream Laws 3.1 Quality and Size 8.1 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Application Deadline – July 20, 2020
    Mike DeWine, Governor Jon Husted, Lt. Governor Laurie A. Stevenson, Director June 16, 2020 Request for Proposals - Assistance Grants for Developing 9‐Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategies in the Ohio River Basin Watershed Project Application Deadline – July 20, 2020 Dear Nonpoint Source Management Partner: The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) is soliciting proposals for small grants to develop 9-element nonpoint source implementation strategies (9-Element NPS-IS) for high priority watersheds within the Ohio River Basin. These grants may cover 100% of the cost associated with developing the plans. 9-Element NPS-IS plans must address causes and sources of localized impairment of water resources at the HUC-12 watershed scale and contribute to far-field impairment in the Ohio River Basin and the Gulf of Mexico that are impaired by nutrients, sediments and other nonpoint sources of pollution. The plan created and implementation projects and strategies they contain ensure that appropriate projects are conceived to reduce impairment and make incremental progress toward reducing nutrients loads. Watershed areas that develop these plans are eligible for receiving 319 and other funding made available under Federal NPS Program Guidelines (April 2013)1. Subgrants may be awarded to soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs), local government and/or others (e.g., park districts, regional councils of government, nonprofit watershed groups) who coordinate with local SWCD and stakeholders to develop one or more 9-Element NPS-IS plans for 12-digit HUC watersheds within the Ohio River Basin. Priority watersheds are the following watersheds: Upper Scioto River, Great Miami River, Upper Paint Creek, And Upper Little Miami River.
    [Show full text]
  • 3745-1-09 Scioto River Drainage Basin. (A) the Water Bodies Listed in Table 9-1 of This Rule Are Ordered from Downstream to Upst
    3745-1-09 Scioto river drainage basin. (A) The water bodies listed in table 9-1 of this rule are ordered from downstream to upstream. Tributaries of a water body are indented. The aquatic life habitat, water supply and recreation use designations are defined in rule 3745-1-07 of the Administrative Code. The state resource water use designation is defined in rule 3745-1-05 of the Administrative Code. The most stringent criteria associated with any one of the use designations assigned to a water body will apply to that water body. (B) Figure 1 of the appendix to this rule is a generalized map of the Scioto river drainage basin. A generalized map of Ohio outlining the twenty-three major drainage basins and listing associated rule numbers in this chapter is in figure 1 of the appendix to rule 3745-1-08 of the Administrative Code. (C) RM, as used in this rule, stands for river mile and refers to the method used by the Ohio environmental protection agency to identify locations along a water body. Mileage is defined as the lineal distance from the downstream terminus (i.e., mouth) and moving in an upstream direction. (D) The following symbols are used throughout this rule: * Designated use based on the 1978 water quality standards. + Designated use based on the results of a biological field assessment performed by the Ohio environmental protection agency. o Designated use based on justification other than the results of a biological field assessment performed by the Ohio environmental protection agency. 3745-1-09 2 Table 9-1.
    [Show full text]