Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategic (NPS ... Creek_Ver1.… · 7/16/2018 · Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (04100010 07 03) 1 Chapter 1: Introduction The

Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategic (NPS-IS) Plan Cedar Creek: Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (04100010 07 03), June 2018, Version 1.0, Approved: July 16, 2018

Created by: The City of Toledo 348 South Erie Street Toledo, OH 43604

In consultation with: Hull & Associates, Inc. 219 South Erie Street Toledo, OH 43604

Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (04100010 07 03) ii

This page intentionally left blank

Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (04100010 07 03) iii

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iv

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Report Background ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Watershed Profile and History ............................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Public Participation and Involvement ................................................................................................. 3

Chapter 2: Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 Watershed Characterization and Assessment Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Summary Watershed Characterization for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 ..................... 5

2.1.1 Physical and Natural Features ...................................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Land Use and Protection .............................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Summary of Biological Trends for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 .................................. 8

2.3 Summary of NPS Pollution Causes and Associated Sources for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 .................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.4 Additional Information for Determining Critical Areas and Developing Implementation Strategies for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 ....................................................................................... 11

Chapter 3: Conditions and Restoration Strategies for Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 Critical Areas .................................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Overview of Critical Areas ................................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Critical Area 1: Conditions, Goals, and Objectives for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 .. 12

3.2.1 Detailed Characterization .......................................................................................................... 12

3.2.2 Detailed Biological Conditions ................................................................................................... 14

3.2.3 Detailed Causes and Associated Sources ................................................................................... 14

3.2.4 Outline Goals and Objectives for the Critical Area .................................................................... 15

Chapter 4: Projects and Implementation Strategy ..................................................................................... 17

4.1 Overview Tables and Project Sheets for Critical Areas ..................................................................... 17

4.2 Critical Area 1: Overview Table and Project Sheet(s) for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 ................................................................................................................................................................ 17

4.2.1 Critical Area 1: Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table ..................................... 17

4.2.2 Critical Area 1: Project Summary Sheet(s) ................................................................................. 19

Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 22

Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. 24

Appendix B: Index of Tables and Figures .................................................................................................... 26

Index of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 26

Index of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... 26

Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (04100010 07 03) iv

Acknowledgements The City of Toledo (City) extends our appreciation to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) for funding the preparation of this NPS-IS plan with Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source Program grant funds and the many partners who came together to share input and propose projects for this HUC-12. This NPS-IS plan will help direct projects to expeditiously address nonpoint source impairments in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. This publication was financed through a grant from Ohio EPA and United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) with Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program funds. The contents and views, including any opinions, findings, or conclusions or recommendations, contained in this publication are those of the authors and have not been subject to any Ohio EPA or U.S. EPA peer or administrative review and might not reflect the views of the Ohio EPA or U.S. EPA, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (04100010 07 03) 1

Chapter 1: Introduction The U.S. EPA has identified nine critical elements for developing management plans to address impaired waters. These nine elements of the planning process are essential components generally required for watershed projects funded under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. A dynamic set of government, academic, non-profit, and industry partners is collaborating to develop Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategic (NPS-IS) plans for each 12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC-12) within the Maumee Area of Concern (AOC; Figure 1). This NPS-IS plan, developed to address nonpoint source impairments in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (04100010 07 03), is one of two being authored by The City of Toledo in conjunction with local partners.

1.1 Report Background The Maumee AOC was established in 1987 to address components of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement administered by the International Joint Commission (IJC). The Maumee Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Committee (comprised of local government, non-profit, academic, and business partners) came together to chart a path toward fishable and swimmable waters within the Maumee AOC. In 2006, the Maumee RAP outlined the Maumee Area of Concern (AOC) Stage 2 Watershed Restoration Plan to satisfy program requirements of the IJC, U.S. EPA, and State of Ohio. The plan never received full endorsement from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and Ohio EPA, pending the inclusion of Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Measures. Watershed planning and management programs have moved toward the nine-element concept developed by the U.S. EPA. The focus is now on developing NPS-IS plans, using data collected for all individual HUC-12 watersheds within the Maumee AOC. This NPS-IS plan, specifically for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12, has been developed to address nonpoint source pollution and habitat issues within a portion of the Maumee AOC (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 is in Wood, Ottawa, and Lucas counties within the Maumee Area of Concern.


By working toward attainment of designated aquatic life uses (ALUs), local stakeholders are improving subwatershed conditions within the Maumee AOC that can lead to meeting the of beneficial use impairments (BUIs) targets within subwatersheds, and eventually, to removing the BUI within the entire Maumee AOC. The Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 was assessed at six locations (four on Cedar Creek and two on Dry Creek) in 2008. Four of the sampling sites were in partial attainment of ALUs for their designated WWH, one site was in full attainment, and one site at the headwaters of Dry Creek was in non-attainment. This NPS-IS plan is being developed to identify key projects that could address NPS pollution in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. This plan supports BUI delisting criteria for wildlife and habitat and meets 319 criteria for nine-element plans.

1.2 Watershed Profile and History The Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (04100010 07 03) is a 58-square mile subwatershed located in Wood, Ottawa, and Lucas counties. The major drainages in the watershed are Dry Creek in the north and Cedar Creek in the south (Figure 2). Both streams flow from the southwest to the northeast and converge at river mile (RM) 7 of Cedar Creek. Cedar Creek ultimately enters Lake Erie just east of Reno Beach. Land use within the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 is primarily agricultural with areas of development throughout and protected parkland in the northeast.

Figure 2: River mile mapping for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 and nearby surface waters.

Great Black Swamp The Great Black Swamp once covered much of the Maumee and Portage River watersheds, including the entire Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (Figure 3). The Great Black Swamp was a heterogeneous landscape characterized by diverse areas of open marshland, wet prairies, and swamp forest dominated by ash, elm, sycamore, and cottonwood. Beginning in the late 19th century, the wet forests were cleared


and drained for use in agriculture. Ditches and subsurface tile systems were installed to keep the silt and clay soils drained enough for row crops. Today, drainage water flows from those agricultural fields into miles of channelized ditches, into Cedar Creek and Williams Ditch, and ultimately to Lake Erie.

Oak Openings Region While the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 lies east of the historic extent of the Oak Openings region, much of the AOC is within this roughly 130-square mile area of northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan, so it is shared in this document to serve as a point of reference (Figure 3). The Oak Openings region is home to globally rare and unique plant communities that support a diverse assemblage of wildlife. As water levels in ancestral Lake Erie dropped, beaches were left behind and are now characterized by sandy soils with oak savannah and wet prairie habitats. Because of agriculture and urban development, less than 30% of the original Oak Openings habitat remains today.

Figure 3: The Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 lies within the historic extent of the Great Black Swamp.

1.3 Public Participation and Involvement Watershed planning and restoration plans should include involvement from a diverse group of stakeholders, including representatives from government agencies; counties, municipalities and townships; businesses; academia; non-profit groups; neighborhood organizations; and interested citizens.

Because of the nature of the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12, most direct activities to restore ecological attributes and water quality in this watershed have been completed by the Toledo Area Metroparks at Howard Marsh, and employees and partners with the County Engineer’s and the Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) offices in Wood, Ottawa and Lucas counties. The Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG) has worked with wastewater facility planning


areas and advocated for septic system improvements within this watershed. This NPS-IS plan reflects significant input gained from these agency and organization officials. The City of Toledo is the principal author of this NPS-IS for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. A representative of the City of Toledo serves as a resource member of the Maumee Area of Concern (AOC) Advisory Committee (MAAC). Partners for Clean Streams (PCS) works as the facilitating organization for the MAAC. Through the MAAC, a diverse group of interested citizens, government agencies, businesses, and other nonprofit organizations collaborate and plan for activities and projects to meet the broader goals set for AOCs by under the International Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The AOC Program in Ohio operates under direction of the Ohio EPA with guidance from U.S. EPA. PCS assisted with outreach activities to gain public input during the preparation of this plan. PCS is a non-profit organization that works directly with citizens, businesses, government agencies, and other non-profit organizations who take local ownership in their rivers, streams and lakes. PCS strives for clean, clear and safe waters by connecting organizational and individual partners through educational opportunities, conservation programs, stream clean-ups, and outreach programs for the benefit of local and regional water in Northwest Ohio. Chapters 1, 2 and 3 were primarily authored by the City of Toledo and its consultant Biological and Water Quality Study of the Portage River Basin, Select Lake Erie Tributaries, and Select Maumee River Tributaries, 2006-2008 (Ohio EPA Technical Report EAS/2010-4-4; Ohio EPA, 2010). Project information for Chapter 4 was compiled using the on-line Maumee AOC Data Management and Delisting System (DMDS) (PCS, 2018), information gained during collaborative meetings with stakeholders and community partners, and through public input solicited and received by PCS via social media outlets.


Chapter 2: Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 Watershed Characterization and Assessment Summary

2.1 Summary Watershed Characterization for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 2.1.1 Physical and Natural Features The Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-10 encompasses 207.22 square miles and stretches from just west of Dunbridge, Ohio northeast to the Lake Erie shoreline (PCS, 2018). This NPS-IS plan is intended for the #03 hydrologic unit of the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-10—Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (04100010 07 03). The Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 accounts for 58 square miles of the HUC-10 drainage area, and extends from south of Perrysburg through Walbridge and to the Lake Erie shoreline. A network of agricultural drainage ditches throughout the watershed are tributaries to Dry Creek and Cedar Creek. The Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 is located in the Maumee Lake Plains ecoregion of the Huron/Erie Lake Plains (HELP). Historically, the region was poorly-drained and contained clayey lake deposits, glacial tills, and fertile soils. More recently, the region has been largely drained and converted into productive cropland. Low gradient streams and rivers carry high loads of fine sediments that impact downstream water quality and habitat (Woods, et al., 1998). Specific landmarks and features within the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 include:

• Owens Community College;

• Metcalf Field (airport);

• Woodville mall;

• Meinke Marina

• Meinke Marina East;

• Metzger Marsh Wildlife Area;

• Village of Walbridge;

• Village of Curtice;

• Village of Bono;

• Village of Reno Beach;

• Industrial complexes;

• Landfills;

• Residential development in former agricultural areas; and

• Agricultural production with straight, channelized ditches. Four NPDES-permitted facilities, located within the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12, are permitted for discharge local waterways (Table 1).

Table 1: NPDES-Permitted Facilities in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12

Ohio EPA ID Facility Name Receiving Waterbody

2IJ00052*ID Stoneco Inc Lime City Plant Dry Creek via B & R Mills Ditch

2IJ00098*DD Cardinal Aggregates Inc unnamed tributary to Cedar Creek

2IN00108*FD Evergreen Recycling & Disposal Dry Creek and Otter Creek

2PY00073*BD Five Point MHP Cedar Creek


2.1.2 Land Use and Protection Most of the of the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 is cropland with pockets of development and a newly created Metropark (Howard Farms) in the northeast. Approximately 63.3% of the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 is cultivated cropland, 2.1% is emergent wetlands, and 27.8% is developed (Table 2; Homer, 2015).

• The headwaters of the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 are home to some heavy industrial uses, including railways, warehousing, product distribution, and landfills. Development in these areas is continuing to expand south and east, pushing further into the Cedar Creek and Dry Creek watersheds.

• Howard Marsh is a newly restored coastal wetland operated by Metroparks Toledo. The park, which was once a working farm adjacent to Metzger Marsh State Wildlife Area, opened to the public in 2018 with miles of kayaking trails and dike-top trails for hiking.

Table 2: Land Use Classifications within the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (Homer, 2015)

Cover Classification Area (acres) Percent of Watershed Area

Open Water 220.0 0.6%

Developed, Open Space 2,644.8 7.1%

Developed, Low Intensity 4,031.4 10.9%

Developed, Medium Intensity 2,194.4 5.9%

Developed, High Intensity 1,444.4 3.9%

Barren Land 274.1 0.7%

Deciduous Forest 799.7 2.2%

Evergreen Forest 1.1 0.0%

Grassland/Herbaceous 686.9 1.9%

Pasture/Hay 518.5 1.4%

Cultivated Crops 23,474.5 63.3%

Woody Wetlands 23.6 0.1%

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 786.5 2.1%

Total 37,100.0 100%


Figure 4: Land use in the Maumee AOC and Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12.

Figure 5: Land use in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12.


2.2 Summary of Biological Trends for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 Ohio EPA sampled Dry Creek and Packer Creek in 2008 during a study of several streams and rivers in northwest Ohio; sampling results were presented in the Biological and Water Quality Study of the Portage River Basin, Select Lake Erie Tributaries, and Select Maumee River Tributaries, 2006-2008 (Ohio EPA Technical Report EAS/2010-4-4; Ohio EPA, 2010). This report supported the development of the Maumee River (lower) Tributaries and Lake Erie Tributaries Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Report (Ohio EPA, 2012). Dry Creek and Cedar Creek have been designated as warmwater habitat (WWH) for aquatic life use (Ohio Administrative Code 3745-1-23). Six Ohio EPA sampling sites are located within the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie Creek HUC-12 (Figure 6; Table 3). One of those locations is in non-attainment and three are in partial attainment of ALUs for the designated WWH. Aquatic communities in those areas were dominated by species tolerant of a range of environmental conditions. The headwater area of the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 is largely industrial and transitions to agricultural land use downstream. The land is typically drained via agricultural and roadside ditches with low sinuosity, fine sediments, and embedded substrates. Agricultural nonpoint sources of impairment include sedimentation, nutrient/organic enrichment, channelization, and destruction of habitat for crop production. These conditions likely degrade habitat and minimize colonization by sensitive species in Dry Creek and Cedar Creek.

Figure 6: Ohio EPA sampling locations and attainment status in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12.


Table 3: Biological Index Scores for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (Ohio EPA, 2010)

RM / Drainage Area (sq. mi.)

IBI Miwba ICIb Status QHEI Score Location

Cedar Creek and Frontal Lake Erie (HUC 04100010 07 03) (WWH) (Cedar Creek)

20.8H / 12.1 30 NA F Partial 45.0 Oregon Road

17.3H / 18.5 26ns NA MGns Full 33.0 East Broadway Road

14.5W / 23.2 32 6.7* 32ns Partial 38.0 Lemoyne Road

9.6W / 38.6 28 6.7* 42 Partial 51.5 Billman Road

Cedar Creek and Frontal Lake Erie (HUC 04100010 07 03) (WWH) (Dry Creek)

7.0 H / 8.2 22* NA LF* NON 26.5 East Broadway Road

0.01 H / 13.2 32 NA F* Partial 50.0 At mouth * Significant departure from ecoregion biocriterion; poor and very poor results are underlined a The MIwb is not applicable to headwater sites b Narrative evaluation used in lieu of ICI (G = Good; MG = Marginally Good; F = Fair; L = Low Fair; P = Poor; VP = Very Poor) W Wading Site H Headwater Site, MIwb not applicable

Fish (Modified Index of Well-Being [MIwb] & Index of Biotic Integrity [IBI]) During the 2008 Ohio EPA sampling event, the Dry Creek (RM 0.01) sampling location received a rating of Fair for the fish community based on IBI scores (Ohio EPA, 2010). The Lemoyne Road (RM 14.5) and Billman Road (RM 9.6) sampling locations of Cedar Creek were below expectations for fish communities in WWH. Tolerant fish species dominated the community at each of these sampling locations, including dominance by invasive round gobies near the confluence of Dry Creek and Cedar Creek. In some parts of the watershed (e.g., Dry Creek RM 7.0), fish communities were impaired by suspected releases of high-organic materials from failing HSTS.

Macroinvertebrates (Invertebrate Community Index [ICI]) During the 2008 Ohio EPA sampling event, macroinvertebrate communities in Cedar Creek and Dry Creek were characterized by limited occurrence of EPT and sensitive taxa. The ratings of the macroinvertebrate communities in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 ranged from Low Fair at RM 7.0 of Dry Creek to Marginally Good at RM 17.3 of Cedar Creek. Impacts to these communities were likely due to excessive siltation.

Habitat (Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index [QHEI]) Ohio EPA completed qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI) assessments at six locations in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 in 2008 (Table 4). The QHEI scores ranged from Poor to Fair in the watershed. The Poor locations were generally channelized and had heavy silt loads that impact development of diverse habitats.


Table 4: QHEI Matrix with WWH and MWH Attribute Totals for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (Ohio EPA, 2006)

Key QHEI Components

WWH Attributes MWH Attributes

High Influence Moderate Influence

R

iver

Mile

QH

EI S

core

Gra

die

nt

(ft/

mi)

No

t C

han

nel

ized

or

Re

cove

red

Bo

uld

er/C

ob

ble

/Gra

vel S

ub

stan

ces

Silt

Fre

e Su

bst

rate

s

Go

od

/Exc

elle

nt

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Mo

der

ate/

Hig

h S

inu

osi

ty

Exte

nsi

ve/M

od

erat

e C

ove

r

Fast

Cu

rren

t/Ed

die

s

Low

/No

rmal

Em

bed

ded

nes

s

Max

Dep

th >

40

cm

Low

-No

rmal

Rif

fle

Emb

edd

edn

ess

WW

H A

ttri

bu

tes

Ch

ann

eliz

ed/N

o R

eco

very

Silt

/Mu

ck S

ub

stra

tes

No

Sin

uo

sity

Spar

se/N

o C

ove

r

Max

Dep

th <

40

cm

Hi-

Infl

uen

ced

Mo

dif

ied

Att

rib

ute

s

Rec

ove

rin

g C

han

nel

Hea

vy/M

od

erat

e Si

lt C

ove

r

San

d S

ub

stra

te (

Bo

at)

Har

dp

an S

ub

stra

te O

rigi

n

Fair

/Po

or

Ch

ann

el D

evel

op

men

t

Low

Sin

uo

sity

On

ly 1

or

2 C

ove

r Ty

pes

Inte

rmed

iate

/Po

or

Po

ols

No

Fas

t C

urr

ent

Hig

h/M

od

erat

e Su

bst

rate

Em

bed

ded

nes

s

Hig

h/M

od

erat

e R

iffl

e Em

bed

ded

nes

s

No

Rif

fle

M.I

. MW

M A

ttri

bu

tes


20.77 45 6.85 ● 1 ● ● ● 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 7

17.32 33 2.36 ● 0 ● ● ● 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● 6

14.5 38 5.68 ● 1 ● 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 8

9.59 51.5 3.07 ● 1 ● 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● 6


7.00 26.5 2.42 0 ● ● ● ● ● 5 ● ● ● ● ● 5

0.01 50.0 5.26 ● ● ● ● 4 ● 1 ● ● ● ● ● 5

2.3 Summary of NPS Pollution Causes and Associated Sources for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 As determined by Ohio EPA in the Maumee River (lower) Tributaries and Lake Erie Tributaries Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Report (Ohio EPA, 2012), biological impairments in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 are likely caused by siltation and nutrient/organic enrichment in surface waters (Table 5). The sources of excessive siltation are likely agricultural practices and channelization/erosion of streams and ditches. Runoff from agricultural fields and aging septic systems are potential sources of nutrients and organics.


Table 5: Causes and Sources of Nonpoint Source Impairments at the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 Sampling Locations (Ohio EPA, 2010)

River Mile

Drainage Area (sq. mi.)

Primary Cause(s) Primary Source(s) Status Location


20.8 12.1 Phosphorus, siltation Non-irrigated crop

production, Channelization

Partial Oregon Road

17.3 18.5 -- -- Full East Broadway Road

14.5 23.2 Siltation Non-irrigated crop


Partial Lemoyne Road



Partial Billman Road

7.9 NA -- -- -- Wildacre Road

4.3 48.0 -- -- -- Yondota Road

Cedar Creek and Frontal Lake Erie (HUC 04100010 07 03) (WWH) (Ditch to Cedar Creek)

0.01 NA -- -- -- Adjacent to railroad


7.0 8.2

Ammonia-N, Dissolved oxygen,

Organic enrichment, Siltation, Phosphorus

(total)

On-site treatment systems, Non-irrigated crop production,

Channelization

NON East Broadway Road



Partial At mouth

2.4 Additional Information for Determining Critical Areas and Developing Implementation Strategies for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 The Maumee AOC has a rich history of public involvement and interest in improving water quality and habitat, including in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. Documents previously created through collaborations between Partners for Clean Streams, the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, the Maumee Area of Concern Advisory Committee, Ohio EPA, and others have been used to supplement Ohio EPA sampling data to prepare this NPS-IS plan.


Chapter 3: Conditions and Restoration Strategies for Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 Critical Areas

3.1 Overview of Critical Areas Six Ohio EPA sampling sites are located within the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. One location is in non-attainment of ALUs for the designated WWH, four are in partial attainment, and one is in full attainment. Restoration strategies and projects are identified in this plan for one Critical Area that addresses NPS issues in the watershed (Table 6; Figure 7). Table 6: Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 Critical Areas

Sample Site(s) Critical Area Description Critical

Area No. Critical Area

Status

Cedar Creek (RM 14.5, 9.6) and Dry Creek (RM 0.01)

Riparian corridors along Cedar Creek (RM 12 to Lake Erie) and Dry Creek (Walbridge to the confluence with Cedar Creek)

1 Included in this

version

Figure 7: Critical Areas in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12.

3.2 Critical Area 1: Conditions, Goals, and Objectives for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12

3.2.1 Detailed Characterization The Village of Walbridge is the most densely populated area in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. Walbridge experiences regular, significant flooding due to downstream accumulations of sediment and debris in the Cedar Creek channel. Agricultural use has led to significant hydromodification of the


Dry Creek and Cedar Creek channels, including channelization, removal of riparian vegetation, and disconnection from large portions of the natural floodplain. The sampling sites in this reach of the watershed are located just upstream of, and at, the confluence of Dry Creek and Cedar Creek; all are in partial attainment of ALUs for their designation as WWH. During the 2008 Ohio EPA sampling event, the Lemoyne Road (RM 14.5) sampling site was characterized by heavy silt load and extensive embeddedness. The Billman Road (RM 9.6) site was characterized by embedded substrates, and the Dry Creek location (RM 0.01) had a moderately heavy silt load. These loadings were attributed to agricultural practices upstream and channel modification throughout the watershed. Narrow riparian buffers were found throughout the reach, whether bordered by agricultural fields or residential homes. Channelized ditches also transport water from agricultural fields to the creeks. Based on the need for improved sinuosity, reconnection to the floodplain, improved riparian habitat, protection of downstream restoration at Howard Marsh, and to mitigate flood events in Walbridge, this NPS-IS plan identifies the riparian corridors along Dry Creek (from Walbridge to the confluence with Cedar Creek) and Cedar Creek (from RM 12 to Lake Erie) an area in critical need of restoration (Figure 8). Critical Area 1 includes approximately 16.5 miles of stream corridor within the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12.

Among several recommendations in The Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (U.S. EPA, 2008), the statement most relevant to addressing challenges in this Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 is: “In general, management practices are implemented immediately adjacent to the waterbody or upland to address the sources of pollutant loads.” Additional Critical Areas may be identified in future revisions to this NPS-IS plan.

Figure 8: Critical Area 1 of the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12.


3.2.2 Detailed Biological Conditions Composition of the fish community (i.e., diversity, abundance, occurrence of sensitive species), coupled with the QHEI evaluation, is used to indicate potential impairment in streams. Habitat quality in Critical Area 1 ranged from Poor to Fair. The Lemoyne Road (RM 14.5) and Billman Road (RM 9.6) sampling locations of Cedar Creek were below expectations for fish communities in WWH (Table 7). Tolerant fish species dominated the community at each of these sampling locations, including dominance by invasive round gobies near the confluence of Dry Creek and Cedar Creek. These fish communities have likely been impacted by channelization, siltation, and removal of riparian vegetation.

Like fish, aquatic macroinvertebrates (i.e., diversity, abundance, presence of sensitive species) are used as indicators of potential impairment in stream habitat. The macroinvertebrate communities in Critical Area 1 were dominated by facultative taxa, with small percentages of sensitive and EPT taxa (Table 8). Impairments to these communities were attributed to siltation, organic/nutrient enrichment, and low dissolved oxygen in Dry Creek. Table 7: Fish Community and Habitat Data for Critical Area 1 (Ohio EPA, 2010)

RM D.A.

(sq. mi.) Total

Species QHEI MIwba IBI

Predominant Species (% of catch)

Narrative Evaluation

Dry Creek - WWH

0.01H 13.8 14 50.0 NA 32 Round goby (43%), Creek chub

(35%) Fair

Cedar Creek - WWH

14.5W 23.2 18 38.0 6.7 32 Creek chub (38%), Common shiner

(27%) Poor

9.6W 38.6 18 51.5 6.7 28 Round goby (41%), Creek chub

(24%) Fair

a The MIwb is not applicable to headwater sites L Site is affected by Lake Erie; Evaluated using Lacustuary IBI and MIwb

Table 8: Macroinvertebrate Community Data for Critical Area 1 (Ohio EPA, 2010)

RM D.A.

(sq. mi.) ICI Scorea

(Narrative) Notes Predominant species

Dry Creek - WWH

0.01H 13.8 NA (Fair) Dominated by facultative taxa Baetid mayflies (F), Hyropsychid

caddisflies (F)

Cedar Creek - WWH

14.5W 23.2 32 Dominated by facultative taxa Hydropsychid caddisflies (F),

Midges (MI, MT, F)

9.6W 38.6 42 Dominated by facultative taxa Mayflies (F), Midges (MI, MT), Hydropsychid caddisflies (F)

a Narrative evaluation used in lieu of ICI (G = Good; MG = Marginally Good; F = Fair; L = Low Fair; P = Poor; VP = Very Poor) L Site is affected by Lake Erie 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 Critical Area 1 sampling locations are in partial attainment of ALUs for the designation as WWH. The cause of this partial attainment is predominantly siltation due to agriculture and channelization of Dry


Creek, Cedar Creek, and the nearby drainage ditches. Logjams and debris are prevalent downstream, resulting in flooding and sediment deposition in the area near Walbridge. Water quality samples collected throughout the watershed indicate elevated levels of nitrogen (ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate) and total phosphorus, but were generally acceptable within Critical Area 1. Projects that address channelization and sediment and nutrient loading to Dry Creek and Cedar Creek will positively influence the ALUs in Critical Area 1.

3.2.4 Outline Goals and Objectives for the Critical Area Critical Area 1 is impaired by impacts of agriculture and channelization, specifically, nutrient/organic enrichment and siltation. Restoration efforts in Critical Area 1 should focus on creating buffers between crop fields and streams, improving sediment and nutrient retention, improving stream habitat, and removing debris from streams and ditches in the lower reach of the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12.

Goals The goal of NPS-IS planning is to improve habitat quality scores (QHEI, IBI, MIwb, and ICI) and achieve full attainment status for warmwater habitat ALU. The Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 is in partial attainment of the ALUs as a designated WWH. Index scores for biological communities (fish and macroinvertebrates) and habitat quality have not reached their targeted values in Dry Creek and Cedar Creek. To achieve full attainment status and confront emerging threats to habitat and water quality, the goals for Critical Area 1 are:

Goal 1: Maintain IBI score of 28 at the Lemoyne Road (RM 14.5), Billman Road (RM 9.6), and mouth of Dry Creek (RM 0.01) sampling locations.

• ACHIEVED: The sites currently have scores of 32, 28, and 32, respectively. Goal 2: Achieve and/or maintain ICI score (or narrative rating) of 34 (or good) at the Lemoyne Road

(RM 14.5), Billman Road (RM 9.6), and mouth of Dry Creek (RM 0.01) sampling locations.

• PARTIALLY ACHIEVED: The sites currently have scores of 32, 42, and Fair, respectively.

Goal 3: Achieve QHEI score of 60 at the Lemoyne Road (RM 14.5), Billman Road (RM 9.6), and mouth of Dry Creek (RM 0.01) sampling locations.

• NOT ACHIEVED: The sites currently have scores of 38, 51.5, and 50, respectively.

Objectives To achieve the goals of restoring full attainment to the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12, the following objectives should be achieved in Critical Area 1:

Objective 1: Restore/protect riparian buffers along Cedar Creek and Dry Creek in Critical Area 1 to control erosion and reduce sediment, nutrient, and organic loading to streams and ditches.

• Install at least 40 acres of forested riparian buffers (at least 100 feet wide) along approximately 17,000 feet of stream/ditch to reduce phosphorus loading by approximately 28 pounds each year. This stream length represents 20% of the three miles of major streams in the Critical Area, and could be accomplished by foresting both sides of streams/ditches.


• Install/preserve grass buffers (at least 35 feet wide) along 30,000 feet of stream/ditch (equivalent to 24 acres of buffer) in Critical Area 1 to reduce phosphorus loading by approximately 17 pounds each year.

Objective 2: Restore natural channel morphology to Cedar and Dry Creeks.

• Apply natural channel design techniques to approximately 10% (8,700 feet) of the length of Cedar Creek and Dry Creek in Critical Area 1.

• Use the opportunity to create vegetated riparian buffers along both sides of the naturally-aligned channel to meet other objectives listed here.

Objective 3: Restore flow in the downstream reach of Cedar Creek to prevent upstream flooding

and protect Howard Marsh.

• Remove all logjams and debris built up in the Cedar Creek channel downstream of Walbridge.

To keep up with the ever-changing landscape, project-specific and routine watershed monitoring should be conducted in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. An adaptive management process will be put in place to evaluate the objectives outlined above and modify management strategies as necessary. This NPS-IS plan is intended to serve as a guide and should be amended as emerging needs and concerns arise. The Ohio EPA Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update (Ohio EPA, 2013) will serve as a guide for NPS management strategies that include:

• Urban sediment and nutrient reduction strategies;

• Altered stream and habitat restoration strategies;

• Nonpoint source reduction strategies; and

• High quality waters protection strategies.


Chapter 4: Projects and Implementation Strategy

4.1 Overview Tables and Project Sheets for Critical Areas Projects and assessment needs have been developed for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 based on the causes and sources of impairment identified during the preparation of this NPS-IS plan. It is expected that the Critical Areas identified herein will be reevaluated regularly to determine progress toward habitat and water quality goals. It should be noted that impairments other than nonpoint source pollution might arise and would need to be addressed outside the limitations of this plan. At this time, there are two Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Tables for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. Future amendments to this NPS-IS plan might include new tables that outline new Critical Areas and/or projects. The projects described below were prioritized based on a three-step process:

Priority 1 Projects that address one or more objectives listed for a Critical Area. Priority 2 Projects with landowners willing to address cause(s) and source(s) of impairment, or

where projects are expected to improve water quality in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12.

Priority 3 A public engagement and education campaign to generate interest by local stakeholders

and encourage participation in Priority 1 and 2 projects. Project Summary Sheets for each Critical Area are included in this NPS-IS plan for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. As projects are implemented, Project Summary Sheets will be updated. Future project concepts will be submitted in the form of Project Summary Sheets to the State of Ohio for verification of completeness and compliance with the nine-element format. Upon approval, those projects will be added to this document; amended documents will be noted as updated versions on the report cover, table of contents, project summary sheets, and elsewhere in this report as appropriate.

4.2 Critical Area 1: Overview Table and Project Sheet(s) for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 Project Summary Sheets for short-term projects (or others seeking upcoming funding) have been included in this NPS-IS plan. Only projects with complete Project Summary Sheets within this or another NPS-IS plan will be eligible for future state and federal NPS program funding.

4.2.1 Critical Area 1: Project and Implementation Strategy Overview Table Critical Area 1 in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 is based on partial attainment of ALUs for the designated WWH at the Lemoyne Road (RM 14.5), Billman Road (RM 9.6), and mouth of Dry Creek (RM 0.01) sampling locations. The following Critical Area 1 Overview Table summarizes the goals, objectives, projects at any level of development, and causes/sources addressed by each project. This table could grow as priorities change or new project concepts become available.


Project Overview Table for the Packer Creek HUC-12 (04100010 06 02) – Critical Area 1

Goal Objective Project

Number Project Title (Criteria g)

Lead Organization (Criteria d)

Time Frame (Criteria f)

Estimated Cost (Criteria d)

Potential/Actual Funding Source (Criteria d)

Urban Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Strategies

Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategies

1, 2, 3 1, 2 1 Howard Marsh Phase 2 Restoration

Toledo Metroparks

Short (1-3 Years)

$300,000 for engineering & design; $3,000,000 for implementation

Ohio EPA §319, GLRI, WRRSP, Local Stakeholders

Agricultural Nonpoint Sources Reduction Strategies

High Quality Waters Protection Strategies

1, 2, 3 1, 2 1 Howard Marsh Phase 2 Restoration

Toledo Metroparks

Short (1-3 Years)

$300,000 for engineering & design; $3,000,000 for implementation


Other NPS Causes and Associated Sources of Impairment


4.2.2 Critical Area 1: Project Summary Sheet(s) These Project Summary Sheets were developed with the aim of bringing the Lemoyne Road (RM 14.5), Billman Road (RM 9.6), and mouth of Dry Creek (RM 0.01) sampling site to full attainment for the aquatic life use designation. These are priority/short-term projects and are ready for implementation. Medium- and long-term projects might not be included (or their associated Project Summary Sheets might be incomplete) because these projects are either not ready for implementation or need more detailed analysis and planning.

Critical Area 1: Project 1

Nine Element Criteria

Information Needed Explanation

n/a Title Howard Marsh Phase 2 Restoration

Criteria d Project Lead Organization and Partners

Toledo Metroparks, Partners for Clean Streams

Criteria c HUC-12 and Critical Areas

Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie (041000100703) Critical Area 1

Criteria c Location of Project Howard Marsh (41°38'58.2"N 83°16'49.1"W)

n/a Which strategy is being addressed?

Altered Stream and Habitat Restoration Strategy High Quality Waters Protection Strategies

Criteria f Time Frame Short (1-3 Years)

Criteria g

Short Description Final restoration of Howard Marsh Metropark located in eastern Lucas County near the shores of Lake Erie through wetland restoration. This area is where stream(s) meet Lake Erie, and an area historically, of lacustuary marshlands (i.e., lakeside wetlands) before being drained for agricultural purposes. By allowing for retention/detention of high flow runoff waters into these restored areas, will reduce peak nutrient loading events and restore habitat.

Criteria g

Project Narrative This project will complete final restoration of Howard Marsh Metropark located in eastern Lucas County near the shores of Lake Erie. Under Phase I of Howard Marsh restoration, Metroparks worked in collaboration with Ohio Division of Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited and NOAA to restore over 700 acres of coastal marsh and associated upland forest habitat that will be open to the public for a variety of recreation activities. The Phase 1 project site, located east of Howard Road, included the construction of wetland dikes, pumps and a fish passage structure providing a direct hydrologic connection between the restored wetlands and Lake Erie via Ward’s Canal. Howard Marsh Restoration Phase 2 will restore an additional 240 acres of coastal marsh habitat and associated uplands located on the west side of Howard Road. This phase 2 project will include construction of wetland dikes and installation wetland pumps and fish passage structure


providing a direct hydrologic connection between these restored wetlands and Lake Erie via Cooley Canal. By allowing for retention/detention of high flow runoff waters into these restored areas, will reduce peak nutrient loading events and restore habitat. This site will also be accessible to the general public through installation of boardwalks, fishing platforms, and canoe/kayak launch. Project needs include: engineering/design, construction of dikes/pumps, and pre/post construction biological monitoring.

Criteria d Estimated Total Cost Estimated $300,000 for engineering & design; $3,000,000

for implementation

Criteria d Possible Funding Source


Criteria a

Identified Causes and Sources

Causes: Ammonia (Total) – Nutrients; Phosphorus (Total); Excess Algal Growth; Physical substrate habitat alterations; Direct Habitat Alterations Sources: Crop Production (Crop Land or Dry Land); Crop Production with Subsurface Drainage; Habitat Modification - other than Hydromodification; Drainage/Filling/Loss of Wetlands

Criteria b & h

Part 1: How much improvement is needed to remove the NPS impairment associated with this Critical Area?

This NPS-IS plan recommends restoration of the riparian corridors along 16.5 miles of Dry and Cedar Creeks.

Part 2: How much of the needed improvement for the whole Critical Area is estimated to be accomplished by this project?

Objective 1: Restore/protect riparian buffers along Cedar Creek and Dry Creek.

• Approximately one mile of Cedar Creek flows through Howard Marsh, providing nearly 1.5 acres of riparian restoration.

Objective 2: Restore natural channel morphology to Cedar Creek.

• Approximately one mile of Cedar Creek flows directly through the Howard Marsh restoration.

Goals: There is recognition that there is lag time associated with nonpoint source-related projects and measured wetland restoration. The monitoring point at the mouth of Dry Creek is in partial attainment and one goal of the project is to maintain the IBI score and improve the ICI and QHEI scores. It is expected that this project will cause an incremental increase the QHEI scoring by 2-5 points. One reasonable objective includes the restoration of floodplain areas and improvement of infiltration and


filtration areas to improve water quality, habitat and downstream sedimentation.

Part 3: Load reduced? Estimated*: 0.5 ton sediment/year, 2 lb P/year, 30 lb N/year *These estimates will be revised at the time of implementation and will be based on available runoff data and watershed lbs/acre yield data.

Criteria i

How will the effectiveness of this project in addressing the NPS impairment be measured?

Staff from the OEPA-DSW Ecological Assessment Unit will perform both pre- and post- project monitoring as part of the State’s ongoing surface water monitoring program cycle to determine progress (through IBI, ICI, and QHEI) from partial attainment to full attainment.

Criteria e

Information and Education

This project will be promoted with press releases, project signage and newsletter articles. In addition, the project sites will be used as demonstration sites for tours of wet prairie restoration.


Works Cited Homer, C.D. (2015). Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States – Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5, p. 345-354. Ohio EPA. (2010). Biological and Water Quality Study of the Portage River Basin, Select Lake Erie Tributaries, and Select Maumee River Tributaries, 2006-2008 (Ohio EPA Technical Report EAS/2010-4-4). http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/PortageLETribsMaumeeTribs2010.pdf Ohio EPA. (2012). Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Maumee River (Lower) Tributaries and Lake Erie Tributaries Watershed. http://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/tmdl/MLLEtribs_Final_Report.pdf Partners for Clean Streams. (2018). Maumee AOC Data Management and Delisting System. Retrieved January 29, 2018, from Maumee AOC Advisory Committee: http://dmds.maumeerap.org/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). The Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. https://www.epa.gov/nps/handbook-developing-watershed-plans-restore-and-protect-our-waters U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2018). Retrieved February 20, 2018. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Cedar_Point/about.html Woods, A.J., J.M. Omernik, C.S. Brockman, T.D. Gerber, W.D. Hosteter, and S.H. Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of Indiana and Ohio (2-sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Scale 1:500,000.


Appendices


Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations The acronyms and abbreviations listed below are commonly used with respect to Ohio’s watersheds and nutrient reduction practices. A AOC Area of Concern B BMP Best Management Practice BOD Biological Oxygen Demand C CSO Combined Sewer Overflow D DELT Deformities, Erosions, Lesions, and Tumors DNR Department of Natural Resources E EOLP Erie-Ontario Lake Plains Ecoregion EWH Exceptional Warmwater Habitat G GIS Geographical Information System H HELP Huron-Erie Lake Plains Ecoregion HUC Hydrologic Unit Code I IBI Index of Biotic Integrity ICI Invertebrate Community Index L LRW Limited Resource Water M MIwb Modified Index of Well-Being MWH Modified Warmwater Habitat N NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O ODA Ohio Department of Agriculture ODH Ohio Department of Health ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources


OEPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works Q QHEI Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index R RAP Remedial Action Plan S SRP Soluble Reactive Phosphorus SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District T TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSD Technical Support Document U USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey USPC Unites States Policy Committee V VAP Voluntary Action Program W WAP Watershed Action Plan WBP Watershed Based Plan WQ Water Quality WQS Water Quality Standards (Ohio Administrative Code 3745-1) WRAS Watershed Restoration Action Strategy WWH Warmwater Habitat WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant


Appendix B: Index of Tables and Figures

Index of Tables Table 1: NPDES-Permitted Facilities in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 ..................................... 5

Table 2: Land Use Classifications within the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (Homer, 2015) .......... 6

Table 3: Biological Index Scores for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (Ohio EPA, 2010) .............. 9

Table 4: QHEI Matrix with WWH and MWH Attribute Totals for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 (Ohio EPA, 2006) .................................................................................................................................... 10

Table 5: Causes and Sources of Nonpoint Source Impairments at the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 Sampling Locations (Ohio EPA, 2010) .................................................................................................... 11

Table 6: Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 Critical Areas ................................................................... 12

Table 7: Fish Community and Habitat Data for Critical Area 1 (Ohio EPA, 2010) ....................................... 14

Table 8: Macroinvertebrate Community Data for Critical Area 1 (Ohio EPA, 2010) .................................. 14

Index of Figures Figure 1: The Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 is in Wood, Ottawa, and Lucas counties within the Maumee Area of Concern. ............................................................................................................................ 1

Figure 2: River mile mapping for the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 and nearby surface waters. . 2

Figure 3: The Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12 lies within the historic extent of the Great Black Swamp. .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 4: Land use in the Maumee AOC and Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. ................................. 7

Figure 5: Land use in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. ................................................................ 7

Figure 6: Ohio EPA sampling locations and attainment status in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. ................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 7: Critical Areas in the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. ....................................................... 12

Figure 8: Critical Area 1 of the Cedar Creek-Frontal Lake Erie HUC-12. ..................................................... 13