Gunpowder Creek Watershed Plan

Final Report Gunpowder Creek Watershed Plan Prepared by the Gunpowder Creek Watershed Initiative October 2016 Grant Name, Number: FFY 2009 Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program; #C9994861-09 Application Title, Number: The Gunpowder Creek Watershed Initiative, #09-10 Grant Agreement Number: PO2 1000003483 Project Period: November 1, 2009 to May 31, 2016. Submitted by: Boone County Conservation District Final Report October 2016 The Energy and Environment Cabinet (EEC) and the Boone County Conservation District (BCCD) do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or disability. The EEC and BCCD will provide, on request, reasonable accommodations including auxiliary aids and services necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in all services, programs and activities. To request materials in an alternative format, contact the Kentucky Division of Water, 300 Sower Blvd, Frankfort, KY 40601 or call (502) 564- 3410, or contact the BCCD, 6028 Camp Ernst Rd, Burlington, KY 41005 or call (859) 586-7903. Funding for this project was provided in part by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) through the Kentucky Division of Water, Nonpoint Source Section, to the BCCD as authorized by the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987, §319(h) Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant #C9994861-09. Mention of trade names or commercial products, if any, does not constitute endorsement. This document was printed on recycled paper. Gunpowder Creek Watershed Initiative page 1 Final Report October 2016 Acknowledgements The Gunpowder Creek Watershed Initiative (GCWI) has been a collaborative effort guided by a Steering Committee of local agencies. The following list includes key organizations and personnel involved in the development of the Gunpowder Creek Watershed Plan. Boone County Conservation District – Mark Jacobs, Sheryl Vonbokern, Mary Katherine Dickerson Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern Kentucky – Matt Wooten, Jim Gibson, Mindy Scott, Elizabeth Fet, Chis Kaeff Northern Kentucky Health Department – Steve Divine Northern Kentucky University Center for Environmental Restoration - Scott Fennell City of Florence, Kentucky - Josh Hunt City of Union, Kentucky – Deanna Kline Boone County Fiscal Court – Scott Pennington Boone County Engineer – Greg Sketch Kentucky Transportation Cabinet - Stacee Hans Kenton County Airport Board - Donald Chapman Boone County Planning Commission - Kevin Costello Northern Kentucky Area Development District – Craig Bowman, Sara Jo Shipley, Crystal Cottrill Kentucky Division of Water - Lajuanda Haight-Maybrier, Chad Von Gruenigen, Stefanie Osterman, Alyson Jinks Licking River Watershed Watch – Yvonne Meichtry Thomas More College – Dr. Chris Lorentz Boone County Public Schools Boy Scouts of America Dan Beard Council YMCA Camp Ernst Strand Associates – Chris Rust Sustainable Streams – Bob Hawley, Katie MacMannis, Nora Korth, Kurt Cooper Gunpowder Creek Watershed Initiative page 2 Final Report October 2016 Table of Contents Title Page............................................................................................................................................... 0 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................... 8 Materials and Methods ..................................................................................................................... 10 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 16 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 60 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................... 64 Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 67 Figures: Figure 1: GCWI formed to preserve the Gunpowder Creek for future generations Figure 2: Stream Function Pyramid adapted from Harmon et al., 2012 Figure 3: One of several well-attended public meetings on the Gunpowder Creek Watershed Initiative Figure 4: Gunpowder Creek subwatersheds Figure 5: GCWI monitoring sites Figure 6: Erosive flows during 0.45-inch storm Figure 7: Water levels rise and fall more rapidly in developed watersheds Figure 8: Streams widen and destroy public infrastructure Figure 9: Channel enlargement is positively correlated to percent barren land Figure 10: Channel enlargement is positively correlated to percent riparian roads Figure 11: Channel widening is positively correlated to TSS Figure 12: Channel enlargement is negatively correlated to habitat score Figure 13: Physical/habitat case studies throughout the Gunpowder Creek Watershed Figure 14: Storm sewer infrastructure at Site SFG 5.3-DS compromised by erosive, urban flow regime Figure 15: Erosive flows incise bedrock (yellow) and cause tree loss from bank failure (red) Figure 16: SFG 5.3-DS coarsening bed material Figure 17: SFG 5.3-UNT 0.3 tension crack bank failure Figure 18: Erosive flows at GPC 17.1-UNT 0.1 transport large woody debris and damage tree Figure 19: Physical characteristics of the streambed strongly influence habitat conditions Figure 20: E.coli as a function of percent impervious Figure 21: E.coli sample concentrations during wet and dry weather conditions (green line represents water quality standard: LN(240 colonies/100mL)) Figure 22: TSS as a function of percent impervious Figure 23: TSS sample concentrations during wet and dry weather conditions (green line represents water quality benchmark: 7.25 mg/L) Figure 24: Average specific conductance concentrations are correlated to the number of KPDES permits per mile in each subwatershed Gunpowder Creek Watershed Initiative page 3 Final Report October 2016 Figure 25: Specific conductance sample measurements during wet and dry weather conditions (green line represents water quality benchmark: 522.5 µS/cm) Figure 26: E.coli load durations at developed site, GPC 17.1-UNT 0.1 (29% impervious) Figure 27: Ratios of projected loads to benchmark pollutant loads illustrate that bacteria and sediment are the greatest pollutants of concern in the Gunpowder Creek Watershed Figure 28: Evaluation of projected to benchmark load ratios at individual monitoring sites illustrates greater exceedances during high flows (wet weather conditions) Figure 29: Increased development, as measured by percent impervious, results in degraded MBI scores Figure 30: The percent clinger population is negatively associated with percent impervious Figure 31: Biological health is dependent upon all pieces of the pyramid Figure 32: Sampling sites classified by primary land use (developed, mixed, and rural) Figure 33: Water quality results in developed watersheds Figure 34: Water quality results in rural watersheds Figure 35: Water quality results in mixed watersheds Figure 36: Potential focus areas for agricultural BMP implementation Figure 37: Potential focus areas for riparian buffer and stormwater BMP implementation Figure 38: Potential focus areas for onsite wastewater treatment implementation Figure 39: Potential focus areas for pet waste program implementation Figure 40: Potential focus areas for detention basin retrofit implementation Tables: Table 1: Stream sections in the watershed on the Kentucky 303(d) List of Impaired Waters Table 2: Summary of existing and selected monitoring sites for Gunpowder Creek sampling Table 3: Summary of Gunpowder Creek sampling efforts and referenced methodologies Table 4: Average habitat scores from the 2011 and 2012 habitat assessments illustrate the lowest habitat score at the most unstable site – SFG 5.3 – UNT 0.3 Table 5: Percent exceedances above water quality benchmark/standard concentration Table 6: Estimates of percent load reductions necessary to meet water quality benchmarks at each monitoring location Table 7: Pollutant yields at each monitoring location Table 8: Summary of primary contributions of time, personnel, supplies, equipment, access, project planning, and implementation by regional stakeholders Table 9: Questions and dominant responses from 11 roundtable groups with approximately 70 participants Table 10: BMP list tailored to the water quality issues observed in the Gunpowder Creek Watershed Table 11: Prioritized BMP list including Action Items, potential funding mechanisms, responsible parties, and goals for implementation Table 12: Prioritized BMP list including unit costs and estimated load reductions in the priority watersheds Appendices: Appendix A – Financial and Administrative Closeout Appendix B – KDOW-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan Appendix C – Watershed Data Analysis Report Appendix D – KDOW-approved Watershed Plan Appendix E – GCWI Public Meeting Survey Results and Roundtable Discussion Summary Report Gunpowder Creek Watershed

Load more