Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategy (NPS-IS) for Tea Run- HUC-12 (05040003 06 07)

Prepared for:

Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District

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

Version 1.0: April 29, 2020 Approved: May 1, 2020 This page intentionally left blank.

Acknowledgements

Version 1.0 prepared and written by:

Karen Gotter Killbuck Creek Watershed Coordinator Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District 62 W. Clinton Street Millersburg, Ohio 44654

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

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

Cover photo: Rush Run, on private property, west of Killbuck Creek. Courtesy of Karen Gotter, Holmes SWCD.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. i Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

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

Numbers §319 Section 319 of the Clean Water Act

A ALU Aquatic Life Use

C CAFF Confined Animal Feeding Facility cfu Colony-Forming Unit

E E. coli Escherichia coli EOLP Erie/Ontario Lake Plain EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera – sensitive macroinvertebrate species

F FLS Federally Listed Species FRPP Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program

H HSTS Home Sewage Treatment System HTF Hypoxia Task Force HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

I IBI Index of Biotic Integrity ICI Invertebrate Community Index

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

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

O ODA Ohio Department of Agriculture ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources OEPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

P PAD-US Protected Areas Database of the

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. ii Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Q QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index

R RM River Mile

S SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District

T TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSD Technical Support Document

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

W WAP Watershed Action Plan WRRSP Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Program WQS Water Quality Standards (Ohio Administrative Code 3745-1) WWH Warmwater Habitat

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. iii Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 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 ...... 2 1.3 Public Participation and Involvement ...... 4 Chapter 2: HUC-12 Watershed Characterization and Assessment Summary ...... 6 2.1 Summary of HUC-12 Watershed Characterization ...... 6 2.2 Summary of HUC-12 Biological Trends ...... 12 2.3 Summary of HUC-12 Pollution Causes and Associated Sources ...... 14 2.4 Additional Information for Determining Critical Areas and Developing Implementation Strategies ...... 15 Chapter 3: Critical Area Conditions & Restoration Strategies ...... 16 3.1 Overview of Critical Areas ...... 16 3.2 Critical Area #1: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Streambank and Riparian Restoration ...... 17 Chapter 4: Projects and Implementation Strategy ...... 22 4.1 Critical Area #1 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table ...... 23 Chapter 5: Works Cited ...... 27

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Tea-Run Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Overview ...... 1 Figure 2: Muskingum Watershed ...... 3 Figure 3: Location of the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 ...... 4 Figure 4: Soils Classified by Particle Size ...... 7 Figure 5: Wetlands within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 ...... 8 Figure 6: Land Use in the Apple Creek-Killbuck Creek HUC-10 ...... 9 Figure 7: Parks and Protected Lands ...... 11 Figure 8: Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Critical Area Overview ...... 16 Figure 9: Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Critical Area #1 ...... 17

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. iv Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table of Tables

Table 1: Subwatersheds in the Apple Creek-Killbuck Creek HUC-10 ...... 3 Table 2: Tributary Characteristics in the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 ...... 6 Table 3: Estimated Animal Counts in the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 ...... 8 Table 4: Land Use Classifications ...... 10 Table 5: Parks and Protected Lands ...... 11 Table 6: Threatened and Endangered Species in Holmes and Wayne Counties ...... 11 Table 7: Biological Indices Scores for Killbuck Creek Downstream from the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 ...... 12 Table 8: Water Quality Standards for the Erie/Ontario Lake Plain (EOLP) Ecoregion ...... 12 Table 9: QHEI Matrix with WWH and MWH Attribute Totals for a Site Downstream of the Tea Run- Killbuck Creek HUC-12 ...... 14 Table 10: Causes and Sources of Impairments for Sampling Locations Downstream from the Tea Run- Killbuck Creek HUC-12 ...... 14 Table 11: Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Critical Area Descriptions ...... 17 Table 12: Critical Area #1 – Fish Community and Habitat Data ...... 18 Table 13: Critical Area #1 – Macroinvertebrate Community Data...... 19 Table 14: Estimated Nutrient Loadings for the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 ...... 20 Table 15: Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 (05040003 06 07) — Critical Area #1 ...... 23 Table 16: Critical Area #1 – Project #1 ...... 24

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. v Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Tea Run-Killbuck Creek Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)-12 (05040003 06 07) is located in northern Holmes County, Ohio and southern Wayne County, Ohio. It contains a watershed of 18.28 square miles (Figure 1). The Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 contains a 3.1 mile segment of Killbuck Creek, which flows southeasterly though the subwatershed and separates it into two lobes. The northeastern lobe is predominantly in Wayne County and contains Savage Run and Tea Run, while the southwestern lobe is predominantly in Holmes County and contains Rush Run and an unnamed tributary. Killbuck Creek eventually flows to the in Coshocton County to the south. The watershed is primarily rural, and land use is almost equally split between forested stands (~31%), row crop fields (~30%), and grass/pasture areas (~30%). The Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 has been identified as an area of focus within the greater Killbuck Creek watershed due to severe bank instability that is causing increased sediment loading upstream of the Killbuck Marsh Wildlife Area, Ohio’s largest contiguous marshland outside of the Lake Erie region (ODNR, 2012).

Figure 1: Tea-Run Killbuck 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. 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.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) has historically supported watershed-based planning in many forms (OEPA, 2016). In 1997, OEPA issued guidance for the development of Watershed Action Plans (WAPs), which typically covered larger watersheds (HUC-10 to HUC-8 size). The WAPs included an outline and checklist to ensure USEPA’s nine elements were included within each plan. The USEPA issued new guidance in 2013 and concluded Ohio’s interpretation for WAP development did not adequately address critical areas, nor did it include an approach that detailed the nine elements at the project level (OEPA, 2016). In response, the OEPA developed a new template for watershed planning in the form of a 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).

Organized efforts focused on water quality improvement within the greater Killbuck Creek watershed began in 2018 with the award of an Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) Watershed Program Grant. The Killbuck Creek Watershed Coordinator, based out of the Holmes SWCD, brings together regional partners to implement projects focused on watershed planning, nutrient management, riparian restoration, livestock exclusion and stormwater management throughout the watershed (ODA, 2018). This is the first NPS-IS plan under development within the greater Killbuck Creek watershed.

Removal of NPS impairments, reduction in overall sediment and nutrient loss and restoration of streambanks, floodplains and wetlands within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 is crucial to the attainment of aquatic life use (ALU) standards both within the Killbuck Creek watershed and on a greater scale within the context of the watershed, the and its end-receiving waterbody, the Gulf of Mexico. Within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12, no biological sample locations have been established; however, one sampling site is located in Killbuck Creek, just downstream of the subwatershed terminus. While Killbuck Creek is currently in Full Attainment of its Warmwater Habitat (WWH) designation at this location, water chemistry analysis indicates that excessive nutrient and sediment inputs from upstream sources could undermine this status if not proactively addressed. This NPS-IS will be used to strategically identify and outline key projects that should be implemented within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 to address management of NPS issues for the protection and maintenance of the Full Attainment status within Killbuck Creek and the reduction of nutrients and sediments that may contribute to far-field impacts.

1.2 Watershed Profile & History The lands in the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 are a part of the larger watershed. The Muskingum River watershed is located in the eastern region of Ohio and covers approximately 20% of the state, draining a total of 8,051 square miles. The Muskingum River is a tributary to the Ohio River and is approximately 111 miles in length. The Muskingum River watershed is broken into several subbasins at the HUC-8 level, including the Licking, Mohican, Muskingum, Tuscarawas, Wills, and Walhonding watersheds (Figure 2). The Walhonding HUC-8 (05040003) wholly contains Killbuck Creek

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

(81.7 miles) from its headwaters in Wayne County, Ohio to its with the Walhonding River in Coshocton County, Ohio. The Walhonding HUC-8 is the third largest watershed in the Muskingum River watershed, containing 1,251 square miles.

Figure 2: Muskingum Watershed

The Walhonding watershed can be further divided into several smaller subwatersheds at the HUC-10 level, one of which is the Apple Creek-Killbuck Creek HUC-10 (05040003 06). The Apple Creek-Killbuck Creek HUC-10 has a drainage area of 171 square miles or 109,508 acres (Figure 3). Land use within the Apple Creek-Killbuck Creek HUC-10 is mainly agricultural and rural, with the largest concentration of urban land use surrounding the city of Wooster, a community of approximately 26,000 people (US Census Bureau, 2010). The Apple Creek-Killbuck Creek HUC-10 is further divided into seven HUC-12 watersheds (Table 1). The Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 contains approximately three miles of Killbuck Creek, from river mile (RM) 40.69, where Shreve Creek meets Killbuck Creek to RM 37.58, where Salt Creek enters. The Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 is similar in land use setting and characteristics as the overall larger HUC-10 watershed, supporting mostly forest, row crops, and grass/pasture land use.

Table 1: Subwatersheds in the Apple Creek-Killbuck Creek HUC-10 Apple Creek-Killbuck Creek HUC-10 (5040003 06) HUC-12 Area (Square miles) Area (Acres) Little Apple Creek HUC-12 (01) 12.83 8,210 Apple Creek HUC-12 (02) 38.89 24,890 Shreve Creek HUC-12 (03) 15.98 10,225

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Apple Creek-Killbuck Creek HUC-10 (5040003 06) Jennings Ditch-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 (04) 41.59 26,615 North Branch Salt HUC-12 (06) 16.45 10,527 Salt Creek HUC-12 (06) 27.17 17,389 Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 (07) 18.28 11,698 (Source: OEPA, 2018)

Figure 3: Location of the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12

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. The development of this NPS-IS is led by the Killbuck Creek Watershed Coordinator and the Holmes SWCD. The Holmes SWCD is dedicated to conserving Holmes County’s natural resources by working with farmers and landowners to implement practices to keep the soil healthy and improve water quality (Holmes SWCD, 2020). The Holmes SWCD works with the citizens of Holmes County, state and local agencies and private organizations to promote responsible land-use decisions. Services offered by the Holmes SWCD include providing information, technical guidance and cost-share assistance to home owners, farmers and educators.

Chapters 1, 2 and 3 were primarily prepared using the Biological and Water Quality Study of the Killbuck Creek Watershed, 2009, Technical Report EAS/2011-1-4 (OEPA, 2011) and the 2018 Ohio Integrated

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Report (OEPA, 2018). Project information for Chapter 4 was compiled by collaborative outreach with organizational stakeholders, community partners and local landowners, when possible. The Tea Run- Killbuck Creek NPS-IS was developed during the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, preventing in-person meetings and gatherings. Organizational stakeholder input was solicited and received through interpersonal electronic communications. Input was solicited from the Wayne SWCD, Wayne County Engineers Office, Holmes County Engineers Office, Holmes County Emergency Management Agency, Holmes County Health District, Holmes County Floodplain Administrator, the Farm Bureau, the Nature Conservancy, the Killbuck Watershed Land Trust, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) and The Wilderness Center. A large portion of the general public within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 belongs to the Amish community, and electronic communication is often not a feasible or widespread way to garner input and feedback on the watershed planning process. A targeted paper survey is under development and results from this survey will be included in future updates to this NPS-IS for critical area insights and future project development.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 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 Apple Creek-Killbuck Creek HUC-10 is comprised of seven HUC-12 watersheds; this document focuses on the #07 hydrologic unit—the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12. The largest waterbody within this subwatershed is Killbuck Creek, an 81.7 mile-long stream flowing south through Wayne and Holmes Counties to discharge to the Walholding River at RM 7.32. In total, Killbuck Creek drains a watershed of 609 square miles. The Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 contains a 3.1 mile segment of Killbuck Creek, truncating the portion between RM 40.69, where Shreve Creek meets Killbuck Creek at its upstream terminus to RM 37.58, where Salt Creek enters at the downstream terminus of the subwatershed. This subwatershed contains 18.28 square miles (11,698.11 acres). Killbuck Creek splits the subwatershed into two lobes: the northeastern lobe lies predominantly in Wayne County and contains Savage Run and Tea Run, while the southwestern lobe is predominantly in Holmes County and contains Rush Run and an unnamed tributary (Table 2).

Table 2: Tributary Characteristics in the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Drainage Area Stream Length (miles) Gradient (ft/mile) (Square miles) Rush Run 4.5 6.06 66.7 Savage Run 4.3 6.10 65 Tea Run 3.1 3.56 109 Unnamed Tributary 2.1 0.12 95.1 (Source: ODNR, 2001; OEPA, 2020; USGS, 2020)

The Killbuck Creek watershed traverses two ecoregions. The northern half of the watershed, including the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12, is contained within the Low Lime Drift sub- ecoregion of the Erie/Ontario Lake Plain (EOLP). The EOLP is characterized by low lime drift and lacustrine deposits that overlie rolling to level terrain (USEPA, 2013). The Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 has a rolling landscape of low rounded hills among scattered end moraines and kettles. The underlying geology of the area consists of sedimentary rocks of the Allegheny and Pottsville Formations of Pennsylvanian age and the Logan and Cuyahoga Formations of the Mississippian age (NRCS, 1988). Glacial material Tributary in the Erie/Ontario Lake overlies the bedrock in most of the northern area of Holmes Plain Ecoregion County and throughout Wayne County.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 6 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Killbuck Creek lies in a long, south to north oriented valley of pre-Pleistocene origin (OEPA, 2011). The drainage was reversed in the wake of the Illinoian and Wisconsin ice sheets and the valley flattened and filled with silty-clay sediments, giving rise to the low-gradient, wetland-flanked stream of today. Post settlement, the area was systematically ditched and drained to support farming. While modified, many of these ditches are not actively maintained, and therefore, have passively recovered many stream habitat attributes to support WWH aquatic communities.

Soils within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 are mainly composed of silt loams of the Amanda- Wooster, Wooster-Riddles, Canfield and Centerburg series (NRCS, 2019) (Figure 4). Soil within the Low Lime Drift sub-ecoregion are generally less fertile than those in surrounding ecoregions (USEPA, 2013). The deranged stream drainage pattern of the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 lends itself to the formation of lakes, wetlands and swampy areas in flat and clayey areas (Figure 5).

Figure 4: Soils Classified by Particle Size

Currently, no National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)-permitted facilities or ODA- permitted Confined Animal Feeding Facilities (CAFFs) are located within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12. Livestock farms within the subwatershed are generally smaller in size, and most animals are in pasture, rather than confined facilities (Table 3). Pasture management within the watershed does negatively impact streams within the watershed, particularly in areas where fields are overgrazed and where livestock are allowed open access to streams.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 7 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 3: Estimated Animal Counts in the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Livestock Type Animal Units Livestock Type Animal Units Beef 2,619 Horse 380 Dairy 1,452 Chicken 197,377 Swine 3,308 Turkey 68 Sheep 329 Duck 8 (Source: USDA Census of Agriculture, 2012, as presented in the STEPL Input Data Server (Tetra Tech, 2017))

Figure 5: Wetlands within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12

No major population centers are found within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12; therefore, household wastewater is treated through home sewage treatment systems (HSTS). In a recent inquiry, the Holmes County General Health District identified eight clusters of households located within the drainage areas for Rush Run and Tea Run (J. Phillips, personal communication, April 16, 2020). The average age of HSTS in these clusters was 29 years old. Twenty-six systems were without age records, indicating installations may predate the 1970s, when the Health District began keeping HSTS records. Twenty-eight systems were identified as discharging. As these systems exceed their lifespan and become compromised, replacement is required to conform to current regulations.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 8 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Specific landmarks and features within this watershed include: . Timothy’s Farmstead Rustic Cabin Lodging . American Legion . Kaufman’s Country Market . Miller Logging Inc. - Land Clearing . Ohio Floor Company . ODNR Headquarters for the Killbuck Marsh Wildife Area

2.1.2 Land Use and Protection Land use within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 is fairly distributed (Figure 6). Forested lands (~37%), cultivated crop lands (~36%) and pasture lands (~22%) cover most of the land within the subwatershed (Table 4).

Figure 6: Land Use in the Apple Creek-Killbuck Creek HUC-10

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 9 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 4: Land Use Classifications Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Land Use (05040003 06 07) Area (mi2) Area (acres) % Watershed Area Crop 6.59 4,218.20 36.05% Deciduous Forest 6.72 4,299.74 36.86% Evergreen Forest 0.02 12.07 0.01% Herbaceous Wetlands 0.21 127.82 1.15% Open Water 0.01 7.15 0.06% Pasture 4.07 2,608.36 22.26% Woody Wetlands 0.66 424.77 3.61% Total 18.28 11,698.11 100.00% (Source: Homer et al., 2020)

Land protection within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 is prevalent, particularly along the mainstem Killbuck Creek and Savage Run (Figure 7). The United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) lists over 1,600 acres of land within this subwatershed under public management or private conservation easements (Table 5). The Killbuck Marsh Wildlife Area extends along the Killbuck Creek mainstem throughout the entirety of the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC- 12. Killbuck Creek was traditionally channelized and dredged for agricultural purposes. The ODNR began to purchase lands to protect this area in 1969, and it is now Ohio’s largest wetland complex outside of the Lake Erie region. ODNR is committed to maintenance and protection of existing woodlots, establishing regular crop rotations, improving open fields for wildlife nesting and establishing food patches for general wildlife use throughout this State Conservation Area (ODNR, 2012). These protected lands may serve as habitat for the four threatened or endangered species listed between Holmes and Wayne Counties by the United States Fish and Over 1,600 acres of land is protected within the Tea Run- Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Table 6). Killbuck Creek HUC-12

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 10 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Figure 7: Parks and Protected Lands

Table 5: Parks and Protected Lands Name Acreage Description Killbuck Marsh Wildlife State Conservation Area, managed by Ohio Department of 1,260 Area Natural Resources (ODNR) Private lands 289 Two parcels (160 acres and 129 acres) under easements Easement under the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program Private lands 75 (FRPP) (Source: USGS, 2019)

Table 6: Threatened and Endangered Species in Holmes and Wayne Counties Species Status Habitat Characteristics Hibernates in caves and mines and forages in small Indiana bat Endangered stream corridors with well-developed riparian woods, as (Myotis sodalis) well as upland forests Hibernates in caves and mines and swarms in Northern long-eared bat Threatened surrounding wooded areas in autumn; roosts and (Myotis septentrionalis) forages in upland forests during late spring and summer Eastern massasauga Threatened Wetlands and adjacent uplands (Sistrurus catenatus) Eastern prairie fringed orchid Threatened Mesic to wet prairies and meadows (Platanthera leucophaea) (Source: USFWS, 2018)

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 11 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

2.2 Summary of HUC-12 Biological Trends The OEPA sampled the greater Killbuck Creek watershed in 2009, as documented in the Biological and Water Quality Study of the Killbuck Creek Watershed, 2009, Technical Report EAS/2011-1-4. This report serves as the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) study that has not yet been released. No biological sampling locations were established within the Tea Run- Killbuck Creek HUC-12; however, one sampling point was located in Killbuck Creek immediately downstream of the downstream terminus of the subwatershed.

A summary of this sample location and its biological status in relation to the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 is provided in Table 7. For reference, water quality standards (WQS) for the EOLP ecoregion are presented in Table 8.

Table 7: Biological Indices Scores for Killbuck Creek Downstream from the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 (05040003 06 07) Drainage Attainment River Mile IBI MIwba ICI QHEI Location Area (mi2) Status Killbuck Creek (WWH) 37.1B 313.0 46 8.7 36 62.5 Full Holmesville @ County Rd 320 (Source: OEPA, 2011)

NOTES IBI Index of Biotic Integrity a The Modified Index of Well Being (MIwb) is not applicable to headwater sites (drainage ≤20 mi2). ICI Invertebrate Community Index QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index B Boat site

Table 8: Water Quality Standards for the Erie/Ontario Lake Plain (EOLP) Ecoregion EOLP MWH WQS WWH WQS Ecoregion Wading Headwater Boat Wading Headwater Boat IBI 24 24 24 38 40 40 MIwb 6.2 N/A 5.8 7.9 N/A 8.7 ICI 22 22 22 34 34 34 QHEIa 43.5 43.5 43.5 60 60 60 (Source: OEPA, 2011; OEPA, 2013b)

NOTES WWH Warmwater Habitat MWH Modified Warmwater Habitat WQS Water Quality Standards a QHEI is not criteria included in Ohio WQS; however, it has been shown to be highly correlated with the health of aquatic communities. In general, sites scoring 60 or above support healthy aquatic assemblages indicative of WWH. For MWH, OEPA suggests a score of 43.5 for the support of tolerant aquatic assemblages (OEPA, 2013b).

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 12 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

N/A MIwb not applicable to headwaters sampling locations with drainage areas ≤ 20 mi2.

Fishes (Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwb] & Index of Biotic Integrity [IBI]) Fish communities within Killbuck Creek met WWH expectations for all sites sampled in 2009 except two, located considerably upstream from the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12. In general, Killbuck Creek has seen a marked improvement in water quality since sampling conducted in 1983 and 1993, presumably from better wastewater and NPS management (OEPA, 2011). A large improvement was seen in the range expansion of pollution sensitive species within the lower 40 miles of Killbuck Creek, including river redhorse, black redhorse, hornyhead chub, rosyface shiner, silver shiner and eastern sand darter. Bigeye chub and dusky darter, also pollution sensitive species, were noted to have re-invaded the Killbuck Creek system in 2009.

Macroinvertebrates (Invertebrate Community Index [ICI]) Macroinvertebrate species generally performed well in the Killbuck Creek mainstem in 2009. While Killbuck Creek is listed as a Group 1 stream within the Ohio Mussel Survey Protocol, indicating Federally Listed Species (FLS) are not expected to be found, Improvements to NPS management have boosted samples of Cyclonaias tuberculate (purple aquatic community performance wartyback), a state species of concern, and Ligumia recta (black sandshell), a state-listed threatened species, were found in 2009 (ODNR, 2018; OEPA, 2011). The 2009 study in the Killbuck Creek watershed yielded an unusually high number of uncommonly collected sensitive taxa and state-listed species, underscoring exceptional resource quality.

Habitat (via Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index [QHEI]) The OEPA sampling crews documented various water quality and habitat attributes during the QHEI assessment in the summer of 2009 (Table 9). Habitat along the length of Killbuck Creek was generally of higher quality, with scores ranging from 50.0 to 75.5 (n=17), indicating a substantial degree of recovery from historical channelization and dredging activities. Generally, streams that have QHEI scores of at least 60 are capable of supporting WWH assemblages. The OEPA noted that streams within the greater Killbuck Creek watershed are recovering, although it may be at differing rates (OEPA, 2011). Strong correlations exist between habitat attributes and a stream’s ability to support healthy aquatic assemblages (OEPA, 1999). The presence of certain attributes are shown to have a larger negative impact on fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Streams designated as WWH should exhibit no more than four total Modified Warmwater Habitat (MWH) attributes; additionally, no more than one of those four should be of high-influence (OEPA, 2013b). While Killbuck Creek has recovered, remnants of anthropogenic influence are still apparent (OEPA, 2011).

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 13 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 9: QHEI Matrix with WWH and MWH Attribute Totals for a Site Downstream of the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 (05040003 06 07) Key QHEI MWH Attributes WWH Attributes Components High Influence Moderate Influence

es

Attributes

Attributes

Recovery

(ft/mi) MWH No Riffle No River Mile River QHEI Score No Sinuosity Low Sinuosity Influence MWH Influence No Fast Current Gradient WWH Attributes WWH Sparse/No Cover - Max Depth >40 cm Max Depth <40 cm Silt Substrates Free Fast Current/Eddies Recovering Channel Silt/Muck Substrates Influence Influence Sand Substrate (Boat) - Only 1 2or Cover Typ Fair/Poor Development Intermediate/Poor Pools Moderate/High Sinuosity Hardpan Substrate Origin Substrate Hardpan Channelized/No Extensive/Moderate Cover Heavy/Moderate Silt Cover gh Low/Normal Embeddedness Good/Excellent Development Not Channelized Recovered or High/Moderate Embeddedness Hi Boulder/Cobble/Gravel Substrate High/Moderate Riffle Embeddedness Moderate Killbuck Creek (WWH) 37.1 62.5 1.49 • • • • • • 6 0 • • • • • 5 (Source: OEPA, 2011)

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

2.3 Summary of HUC-12 Pollution Causes and Associated Sources As shown in the 2011 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Killbuck Creek Watershed, no biological sampling sites are located within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12. Biological data was assessed at a site immediately downstream from the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12, and the sampling site is currently in Full Attainment of the WWH designation (Table 10).

Table 10: Causes and Sources of Impairments for Sampling Locations Downstream from the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 (05040003 06 07) RM Primary Cause(s) Primary Source(s) Attainment Status Location Killbuck Creek (WWH) 37.1B -- -- Full Holmesville @ County Rd 320 (Source: OEPA, 2011)

NOTES B Boat site

During the 2009 study, water chemistry analyses were conducted at RM 40.4 in Killbuck Creek, which is located within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12, just downstream of the confluence of Rush Run with

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 14 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Killbuck Creek. Total suspended solids (TSS) were substantially higher at RM 40.05 (29.38 mg/L) compared to the average results of the entire study area (14.76 mg/L). Median results yielded the same trend. Median TSS within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 (22.5 mg/L) was over four times greater than the median value of all data collected during the Killbuck Creek study (5 mg/L). In addition, Escherichia coli (E. coli) levels at this site were substantially higher (445 colony-forming units (cfu)/100 mL) than the geometric mean for Class A Primary Contact Recreation Use (PCR) streams (≤ 126 cfu/100 mL). The negative impacts of elevated bacterial levels are detrimental not only to wildlife species, but this site is near one of only a few access points to the stream that the local community uses for recreational fishing and paddling. Proactive management of sources of NPS pollutants such as sediment and bacteria within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 will help maintain attainment of WQS in Killbuck Creek.

2.4 Additional Information for Determining Critical Areas and Developing Implementation Strategies Assessment data from the 2009 TMDL sampling event and data referenced in the 2011 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Killbuck Creek Watershed, 2009, Technical Report EAS/2011-1-4 and the 2018 Integrated Report were used in the development of this NPS-IS (OEPA, 2011; OEPA, 2018). 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. 15 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

CHAPTER 3: CRITICAL AREA CONDITIONS & RESTORATION STRATEGIES

3.1 Overview of Critical Areas No biological sampling sites are located in the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12, and the site immediately downstream from the subwatershed is in Full Attainment of the WWH designation. However, one water chemistry sampling location in Killbuck Creek at RM 40.4 (just downstream from Rush Run’s discharge point) indicates elevated levels of TSS and bacteria. Based upon observations made throughout the Killbuck Creek watershed during the 2009 study and local first-hand knowledge, potential sources of these elevated levels include severely eroding streambanks, unmanaged forest lands (clear cut lands), runoff from row crop and pasture lands and unrestricted access of livestock to local streams. Actions taken to manage these sources will help ensure that water quality does not degrade through inputs from the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 and will help protect the integrity of the water in Killbuck Creek both within this subwatershed and downstream from it.

Three critical areas have been identified to address management of sediments and bacteria to Killbuck Creek and its tributaries (Figure 8). One critical area is delineated and described within this version of the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 NPS-IS. The remaining critical areas will be described in an updated version of this NPS-IS (Table 11).

Figure 8: Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Critical Area Overview

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 16 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 11: Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Critical Area Descriptions Critical Area NPS Pollutant Critical Area Description Number Addressed 1 Streambank and Riparian Restoration Sediment 2 Pasture and Cropland Management Sediment and bacteria 3 Forestland Management Sediment

3.2 Critical Area #1: Conditions, Goals & Objectives for Streambank and Riparian Restoration 3.2.1 Detailed Characterization Local landowners and stakeholders have identified an increasing number of streambanks in need of stabilization throughout the tributaries to Killbuck Creek in the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 (Figure 9). Unstable, non-vegetated streambanks, coupled with the erosive power of flashy storm events are contributing larger sediment loads to the ecologically significant portion of Killbuck Creek (the Killbuck Creek Marsh), as evidenced by the elevated TSS results at RM 40.4. The higher sediment loads within these tributaries is also causing excessive aggradation and negative impacts to existing infrastructure in downstream locations, necessitating dredging in some areas and further exacerbating water quality/suspended sediment issues.

Figure 9: Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Critical Area #1

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 17 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

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 #1 includes approximately 59,110 linear feet (11.2 miles) of tributary stream length and a 75-foot buffer width on each side. The potential for restoration of approximately 204 acres of riparian corridor exists in Critical Area #1.

3.2.2 Detailed Biological Conditions While biological data do not exist within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12, data from the most immediate downstream sampling point in Killbuck Creek are summarized below (Table 12). Analysis of the abundance, diversity and pollution tolerance of existing fish species found by OEPA at the sampling location, in relation to the corresponding QHEI score, aids in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. Fish communities within Killbuck Creek downstream of the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek performed well and were dominated by species classified as moderately intolerant of pollution.

Table 12: Critical Area #1 – Fish Community and Habitat Data Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 (05040003 06 07) Drainage Total Predominant Species RM QHEI IBI MIwb Narrative Evaluation Area (mi2) Species (Percent of Catch) Killbuck Creek (WWH) Golden redhorse (45%), silver 37.1B 313.0 16 62.5 46 8.7 Very Good redhorse (18%), bowfin (7%) (Source: OEPA, 2009)

NOTES QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index IBI Index of Biotic Integrity B Boat site

Characteristics of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community for the sampling location immediately downstream of the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 are summarized below (Table 13). Again, analysis of the abundance, diversity, and pollution tolerance of existing aquatic macroinvertebrates (bugs) found by the OEPA at these sampling locations, related to QHEI scores, can aid in the identification of causes and sources of impairment. The macroinvertebrate communities at this location were predominantly species of low pollution tolerance. Only twelve Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly) and Trichoptera (caddisfly) (EPT) species were recorded at this location, which was the lowest number collected throughout Killbuck Creek in 2009 (OEPA, 2011). Coldwater taxa were found at approximately half of the Killbuck Creek sampling locations; however none were recorded at RM 37.1.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 18 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 13: Critical Area #1 – Macroinvertebrate Community Data Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 (05040003 06 07) RM ICI Score-Narrative Notes (Density of Ql./Qt.) Predominant Species Killbuck Creek (WWH) 36 – Good Moderate Qualitative Midges (MI), hydropsychid 37.1B 18 sensitive taxa density caddisflies (F), riffle beetles (MI) (Source: OEPA, 2009)

NOTES B Boat site 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 The sampling site in Killbuck Creek at RM 37.1 is currently in Full Attainment of its WWH designation. While the site is currently in attainment of WQS, several data points indicate that upstream sources within the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 could jeopardize that attainment if left unaddressed. Higher than average sediment loads currently occur within Killbuck Creek immediately downstream from the confluence of Rush Run and other tributary streams. While macroinvertebrate species are doing well, their abundance is noticeably lower than in other locations within Killbuck Creek.

The data summarized previously in Table 9 (p.13) reveal a direct link between the presence of attributes in the watershed that have moderate to high influence on the aquatic communities throughout Killbuck Creek and land use activities throughout the tributary systems. These contributing attributes include: . Recovering Channel . High/Moderate Riffle Embeddedness

Through its extensive stream monitoring network, Heidelburg University has estimated the annual sediment loss per acre within the Muskingum watershed to be 0.124 tons (Table 14). The Hypoxia Task Force, in which the state of Ohio participates, has outlined a goal for a 20% reduction in nutrients to the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin (MARB). This goal extends to the Ohio River and its tributary watersheds, including the Muskingum. While no specific goals for sediment reduction in these watersheds is outlined, a 20% reduction goal for sediment would also support nutrient reduction goals, since a substantial percentage of nutrients lost from the landscape are sorbed to sediment particles. Projects that address excessive input of sediments to Killbuck Creek will help decrease sediment loading within the waterway and lesson the impacts of substrate embeddedness in riffles throughout the stream. In addition, these types of projects will decrease aggradation, which can shift stream hydrologic dynamics and further exacerbate erosion on unprotected and undercut streambanks.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 19 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 14: Estimated Nutrient Loadings for the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 Estimated Annual 20% Annual Load Estimated Annual Contribution from HUC- Reduction from HUC-12 Mean Load* (lbs/acre) 12 (lbs) (lbs/year) Total suspended solids 249 (0.14 tons) 2,912,829 (1,456 tons) 582,565.8 (291 tons) Total phosphorus 0.58 6,785 1,357 Total nitrogen 7.58 88,672 17,734 (Source: Heidelberg University National Center for Water Quality Research, 2018)

NOTES * Estimated 5-year average loading contribution in the Muskingum River watershed in lbs/acre from years 2013-2017.

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. For Critical Area #1, addressing denuded, undercut and failing streambanks within the tributaries of the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 will help maintain the attainment of WQS and the performance of aquatic communities within Killbuck Creek both within the subwatershed and in downstream locations.

The remaining goals for Critical Area #1 of the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 are to at least maintain, if not improve, the aquatic scores at RM 37.1 in Killbuck Creek through sediment load reduction and the improvement of riparian corridors throughout tributaries within the subwatershed. These goals are to:

Goal 1. Reduce sediment loading contributions in the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 to a level at or below 1,165 tons/year (20% reduction). NOT ACHIEVED: Current estimated load contribution is 1,465 tons.

Goal 2. Maintain IBI score at or above 40 at County Rd 320 in Killbuck Creek (RM 37.1). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 46.

Goal 3. Maintain MIwb score at or above 8.7 at County Rd 320 in Killbuck Creek (RM 37.1). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 8.7.

Goal 4. Achieve ICI score at or above 34 at County Rd 320 in Killbuck Creek (RM 37.1). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 36.

Goal 5. Maintain QHEI score at or above 60 at County Rd 320 in Killbuck Creek (RM 37.1). ✓ACHIEVED: Site currently has a score of 62.5.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 20 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Objectives In order to make substantive progress toward the achievement of the sediment load reduction goal for the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 and maintenance of aquatic community performance in downstream locations of Killbuck Creek, effort must commence on more widespread implementation, according to the following objectives within Critical Area #1.

Objective 1: Stabilize and restore at least five miles (26,400 linear feet) of eroding streambanks through recontouring, regrading and/or natural channel design methods.

Objective 2: Create, enhance or restore at least 100 acres of riparian corridor and/or riparian floodplain wetlands.

Water quality monitoring is an integral part of the project implementation process. Both project-specific and routinely scheduled monitoring will be conducted to determine progress towards meeting the goals (i.e., water quality standards and nutrient reduction targets). Through an adaptive management process, the aforementioned objectives will be reevaluated and modified as necessary. Objectives may be added to make further progress towards attainment or reduction goals, or altered, as a systems approach of multiple BMPs can accelerate the improvement of water quality conditions. The Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update (OEPA, 2013a) will be utilized as a reevaluation tool for its listing of all eligible NPS management strategies to consider including: . Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies; . Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies; . Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies; and, . High Quality Waters Protection Strategies.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 21 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

CHAPTER 4: PROJECTS AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Projects and evaluation needs identified for the Tea Run-Killbuck 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 Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 there is one Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table (subsection 4.1). 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 Tea Run-Killbuck 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. 22 Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

4.1 Critical Area #1 Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table Table 15: Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 (05040003 06 07) — Critical Area #1 Potential/Actual Funding Project Title Lead Organization Time Frame Estimated Cost Goal Objective Project # Source (EPA Criteria g) (EPA criteria d) (EPA Criteria f) (EPA Criteria d) (EPA Criteria d) Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies

Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies $319,830 total Rush Run Stream Restoration Holmes County Short 1 1,2 1 ($30,000 cash Ohio EPA §319, WRRSP and Stabilization Engineer’s Office (1-3 years) match)

Agricultural Nonpoint Source Reduction Strategies

High Quality Waters Protection Strategies

Other NPS Causes and Associated Sources of Impairment

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 23 Holmes Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

4.1.1 Project Summary Sheet(s) The Project Summary Sheets provided below were developed based on the actions or activities needed to achieve nutrient reduction targets in the Tea Run-Killbuck 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.

Table 16: Critical Area #1 – Project #1 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria n/a Title Rush Run Stream Restoration and Stabilization criteria d Project Lead Organization & Partners Holmes County Engineer’s Office criteria c HUC-12 and Critical Area Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 (05040003 06 07) – Critical Area #1 criteria c Location of Project Rush Run: 40.659034, -81.971014 n/a Which strategy is being addressed by Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration this project? criteria f Time Frame Short (1-3 years) criteria g Short Description Stabilize 1,378 linear feet through natural channel design principles criteria g Project Narrative Local stakeholders have identified an increasing number of streambanks in need of stabilization particularly in Rush Run. The higher sediment loads within Rush Run discharge to the Killbuck Creek Marsh Wildlife Area, the largest wetland complex in Ohio outside of the Lake Erie region. These high loads also cause excessive aggradation and negative impacts to existing infrastructure in downstream locations, particularly surrounding bridge and road abutments, necessitating dredging within the stream and further exacerbating water quality/suspended sediment issues. A recent rain event in early 2020 caused Rush Run’s channel to obliterate an existing bank and completely cut off an existing meander. Rush Run is a highly unstable stream at this location, and this dynamic system is in need of swift stabilization to prevent further washouts and massive sediment loading to the sensitive marsh area of Killbuck Creek.

The proposed project would stabilize 1,378 linear feet through natural channel design principles. Dependent upon final design specifications, the project would include at least two grade control structures, and approximately 2.5 acres of floodplain riparian plantings. Grade control will alleviate shear stress on streambanks during higher flow events, while floodplain plantings will allow high flows to reduce velocity. Riparian plantings will also help anchor streambanks and will help sediment and nutrients attenuate on the floodplain. Five rock riffles are proposed to increase

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 24 Holmes Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 16: Critical Area #1 – Project #1 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria habitat and promote pool/riffle development within the stream. In addition, livestock exclusion fencing will be installed around the project area to prevent further bank erosion from livestock entry and exit points and allow floodplain vegetation to establish. Livestock water access will be controlled through the installation of an alternative watering system criteria d Estimated Total cost $319,830 ($30,000 cash match) criteria d Possible Funding Source Ohio EPA §319, WRRSP criteria a Identified Causes and Sources Cause: Sediment loadings Source: Unstable streambanks criteria b & h Part 1: How much improvement is Goals: The overall goal in Critical Area #1 is to maintain IBI, MIwb and IC scores at RM 37.1 in needed to remove the NPS Killbuck Creek by reducing sediment loading from the Tea Run-Killbuck Creek HUC-12 by at least impairment for the whole Critical 291 tons/year. Area? Part 2: How much of the needed It is expected that this project will cause a decrease in sediment loads by 84 tons sediment/year improvement for the whole Critical (29%). Area is estimated to be accomplished by this project? Part 3: Load Reduced? Estimated: 137 #N/year; 52 #P/year; 84 tons sediment/year criteria i How will the effectiveness of this Staff from the Ohio EPA-DSW Ecological Assessment Unit will perform both pre and post-project project in addressing the NPS monitoring. In addition, sites within Killbuck Creek (RM 37.1 or RM 40.4) will also be monitored (as impairment be measured? part of the State’s ongoing surface water monitoring program cycle) to determine progress towards maintaining State of Ohio WQS (through IBI, MIwb, ICI, and QHEI). criteria e Information and Education Holmes County Engineer has partnered with the Holmes SWCD. Holmes SWCD will lead public outreach and education activities. Holmes SWCD will facilitate three outreach days for the community, bringing together members from neighborhood groups/church districts to view the project, learn about the improvements to water quality in Rush Run and Killbuck Creek and openly discuss conservation and land management topics. A fact sheet will be developed for the outreach days and distributed to attendees. It will also be available on the Holmes SWCD website for a broader audience.

The Holmes SWCD will develop written content about the project for submission to two local circulars, The Bargain Hunter and The Holmes County Shopper, which garner a readership of approximately 15,000 – 18,000 people. The SWCD will actively provide project updates to their

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 25 Holmes Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Table 16: Critical Area #1 – Project #1 Nine Element Information needed Explanation Criteria website and social media page. Holmes SWCD has also identified an available funding source for project signage and will submit an application to secure that funding. The informational signage will be displayed on a public township bridge overlooking the project site.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 26 Holmes Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

CHAPTER 5: WORKS CITED

Heidelberg University National Center for Water Quality Research (2018). Unpublished data provided by Rick Wilson, OEPA - Division of Surface Water.

Holmes Soil and Water Conservation District (Holmes SWCD). 2020. www.holmesswcd.com/support. Accessed April 15, 2020.

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, April 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.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1988. Soil Survey of Holmes County. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/ohio/OH075/0/holmes.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2020.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed April 20, 2020.

Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). 2018. SWCD Watershed Program Updates. https://agri.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/oda/divisions/soil-and-water- conservation/resources/watershed_program_report. Accessed April 15, 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 July 26, 2019.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2012. Killbuck Marsh Wildlife Area. http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/killbuckmarsh#tabr1. Accessed March 6, 2020.

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

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

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 27 Holmes Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2011. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Killbuck Creek Watershed, 2009, Technical Report EAS/2011-1-4. https://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/2009%20Killbuck%20Creek%20TSD1.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2020.

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

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

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2016. Guide to Developing Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategic Plans in Ohio. https://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/nps/319docs/NPS- ISPlanDevelopmentGuidance816.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2019.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2018. 2018 Ohio Integrated Report. https://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/OhioIntegratedReport#123145148-2018. Accessed March 6, 2020.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). 2020. River Miles Index Interactive Map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4f93b8e37d4640a6ab3ac43d2914d25e. Accessed April 1, 2020.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2017. Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load (STEPL) Input Data Server. http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/steplweb/steplweb.html. Accessed April 11, 2020.

United States Census Bureau (US Census Bureau). 2010. Fact Finder. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk. Accessed April 10, 2020.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2012. Census of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/. Accessed April 11, 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.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 28 Holmes Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy

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

United States 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 March 26, 2020.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US). https://maps.usgs.gov/padus/. Accessed March 26, 2020.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. StreamStats: Streamflow Statistics and Spatial Analysis Tools for Water-Resources Applications. https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water- resources/science/streamstats-streamflow-statistics-and-spatial-analysis-tools?qt- science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects. Accessed April 11, 2020.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 29 Holmes Soil & Water Conservation District CEC Project 195-767 Nonpoint Source-Implementation Strategy