UNIQUE WETLAND RESTORATION CONSIDERATIONS IN THE AND BAY

Phil Hicks, P.E., Hull & Associates, Inc. Cassie Lovall, ERT Contractor, NOAA Restoration Center

Ohio Stormwater Conference Kalahari Resort & Conference Center, Sandusky, May 12, 2017 Sandusky

LOWER MAUMEE RIVER AND BAY CONDITIONS

 Hosts largest fish spawning migrations of any tributary

 Lower Maumee River and Maumee Bay has filled and hardened shoreline . Floodplain wetland habitat is almost non-existent . Essential for healthy fish communities and wildlife

 Maumee River Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) include BUI 3: Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations and BUI 14: Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat

 This area absolutely needs more wetlands . Fish nursery habitat is a special need CITY OF TOLEDO’S PENN 7 FORMER CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY RESTORATION

PENN 7 RESTORATION OPPORTUNITY

 Former confined disposal facility . Filled in 1972 – 1973 with approximately one million cubic yards of dredged material from the Toledo shipping channel . Berm surrounds perimeter . Heights range from 3 -12 feet . Creates a hydrologic barrier between the land and river . Interior area with hydric soils supports some wetland vegetation, but wetlands are isolated from the river, dry completely for at least a portion of the year, and have little value as wildlife habitat . Owned by City of Toledo

NOAA GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE GRANT

 City of Toledo sought and received a $175,000 NOAA GLRI grant in 2015 . Site characterization activities and feasibility study to determine the restoration potential of creating emergent coastal/floodplain wetland habitat at Penn 7 . City of Toledo hired the Hull Project Team (MBI, Stock Drilling, Garcia Surveyors, Pace Aalytical) to complete activities. . Toledo-NOAA-Hull Project Team worked closely throughout 2015-2017 project period DATA COLLECTION/EVALUATION TASKS

 Task 1: Preparation of Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

 Task 2: Existing Data Acquisition and Site Reconnaissance

 Task 3: Site Characterization

 Task 4: Topographic Survey/Mapping

 Task 5: Surface Water/Ecological Evaluation

 Task 6: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Evaluation

 Work also included a conceptual grading plan and feasibility determination. NOTEWORTHY DATA COLLECTION/EVALUATION FINDINGS

 Some Chemicals of Concern are present in Penn 7 soils and sediments

 Analysis Findings . Penn 7 materials are no more impacted than surrounding Maumee River sediments . Restoration activities would not have a deleterious impact on the surrounding area, even if some Penn 7 materials are released or come in contact with the Maumee River . Future confirmatory sampling needs should be considered once the final design of the restoration area is complete NOTEWORTHY DATA COLLECTION/EVALUATION FINDINGS

 The presence, condition and numbers of types of biological habitat (fish, macros, etc.) were evaluated to determine the quality of existing conditions.

 Evaluation/Analysis Findings: . All three sampling sites near Penn 7 had low quality biological habitat for lacustuary criteria. . Results fit with the highly modified shoreline habitat of the lower Maumee River and are consistent with historical findings. . Any effort to improve shoreline habitat should result in improved biological quality scores and eventually an increased level of lacustuary criteria. FEASIBILITY DETERMINATION

 Restoration of wetlands at and near Penn 7 will create ideal fish habitat and will improve wildlife habitat conditions . Especially ideal in this location (traditionally neglected Riverine Connectivity sub-region) identified as a priority area by the Maumee AOC Advisory Committee

PROJECTED RESTORATION BENEFITS

 Restoration should improve conditions related to BUIs 3 and 14

 USGS scientists believe that this project will support an extraordinary number of fish per unit area . Over 40 species of Lake Erie fish are anticipated to use restored wetlands for food, spawning & nurseries . Penn 7 is expected to provide critical habitat for: • Juveniles of river spawning and migratory fish, which presently lack delta nursery habitat • Other fish, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals • Resident and migratory birds » Important stopover habitat » Important food source with expected high fish density and proliferation of native aquatic vegetation PENN 7 NEXT STEPS

 The City of Toledo hopes to secure funding for the next project phases: . Final engineering and design . Public involvement . Permitting . Bid specification preparation . Contractor procurement . Construction/restoration CITY OF OREGON’S FACILITY 3 BACKBAY WETLAND RESTORATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY BACKGROUND TOLEDO SHIPPING CHANNEL ISSUES & OPPORTUNTIES

For illustrative purposes

This figure reflects four options of a combination alternative that was the preferred approach identified in the Toledo Harbor Sediment Management and Use Plan (December 2012). TOLEDO – MAUMEE BAY AREA OHIO HEALTHY LAKE ERIE FUND WETLAND RESTORATION EVALUATION PROJECTS

Cullen Park Wetland

Oregon/Facility 3 Wetland City of Toledo

City of Oregon

* Early drawing prepared by ODNR in 2016 CITY OF OREGON’S WATERFRONT RESOURCES OPPORTUNITIES EVALUATION - PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS

* Preliminary Concept prepared by Hull in fall 2016 EVOLUTION OF HEALTHY LAKE ERIE FUND ALLOCATIONS TO THE CITY OF OREGON

 FY2015-2016 State of Ohio capital budget bill provided $10 million for the Ohio Healthy Lake Erie Fund . $7,350,000 awarded to the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority (TLCPA) . Focused on alternatives to the practice of open lake disposal of dredged materials • TLCPA-ODNR Agreement signed October 24, 2014 • Project period end date: June 30, 2017 • Original Allocations: » Demonstration Agricultural Field Improvement Project ($3M) • Edge of Field Filter System Project ($300,000) • Blended Soil Production Facility ($550,000) » Long Term Pumpout Area and Shoreline Protection Planning Projects ($3.5M)

 Subgrants were later issued by TLCPA

 TLCPA subgrant with City of Oregon established in December 2016 for up to $400,000 HULL TEAM

 City of Oregon hired Hull’ Project Team to complete activities, and work the began in early 2017. CITY OF OREGON PHILIP HICKS, PE | PROJECT MANAGER | HULL

JENNY CARTER-CORNELL, APR JOHN HULL, PE, BCEE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TECHNICAL ADVISOR

SITE CHARACTERIZATION MODELING PRELIMINARY DESIGN SUBCONTRACTORS

KRISTIN JENKINS, MS, CE MARK BONIFAS, PE, ECOLOGICAL RECREATIONAL AND CH2M LEED AP CONSTRUCTABILITY KELLY BENSMAN CONSIDERATIONS DAN STARKEY CONSIDERATIONS GARCIA SURVEYORS

JORDAN ROFKAR, PhD HARTMAN: DOYLE HUGH CROWELL, PWS JOHN HULL, PE, BCEE G&P: GRAY & PAPE HARTMAN HUGH CROWELL, PWS BRAD FALKINBURG, PWS PHILIP HICKS, PE HARTMAN: HARTMAN

ENGINEERING BRAD FALKINBURG, PWS KRISTIN JENKINS, MS, CE TRENT HATHAWAY, PE

MBI: MIDWEST BIODIVERSITY SHAWN McGEE, PE JORDAN ROFKAR, PhD SHAWN McGEE, PE INSTITUTE G&P: MICHAEL TUTTLE, TNC: MARK BONIFAS, PE, LEED AP PH.D. PACE ANALYTICAL MATTHEW KOVACH, MS CONNER SMITH MBI: LON HERSHA STOCK DRILLING AMY BRENNEN, MS DENNY GARVIN MBI: MARTIN KNAPP, MS STONE ENVIRONMENTAL ALEXIS SAKAS CH2M: GEORGE HICKS, PE TNC: MATTHEW KOVACH TNC: THE NATURE CONSERVANCY GARCIA SURVEYORS

STOCK DRILLING

PACE ANALYTICAL

OHIO HEALTHY LAKE ERIE FUND PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY OBJECTIVES

 To characterize the back bay area by compiling existing relevant information and collecting the necessary spatial, physical, chemical, and biological data that is of sufficient quantity and quality.

 Determine the feasibility of restoring emergent coastal/floodplain wetlands near Facility 3 or within the Maumee Bay area.

 Prepare preliminary design components to support the feasibility and potential final design and construction of a wetland restoration project near Facility 3. GENERAL STUDY AREA

Potential Restoration Area DATA COLLECTION/EVALUATION TASKS

 Existing Literature Review

 Soil/Sediment Characterization . Chemical . Geotechnical . Sediment Thickness Investigation

 Aquatic Habitat & Community Assessment . Wetland . Ecological

 Survey . Bathymetric . Topographic

 Hydrologic & Hydraulic (H&H) Modeling

 Preliminary Design & Feasibility Determination

 Public Involvement NEARBY ATTRIBUTES FOR CONSIDERATION SOIL/SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION CHEMICAL SAMPLING SOIL/SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION GEOTECHNICAL SAMPLING AQUATIC HABITAT & COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT AQUATIC HABITAT & COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT (CONT.)

 Existing Literature Review . Identify sources of wetland, fish, and macroinvertebrate data previously collected in the vicinity of the project area

 Aquatic Habitat & Community Assessment . Wetland survey – Spring 2017 . Map location, extent, and community composition of any fringing or submerged wetlands within the vicinity of the site . Assess quality and Ohio Antidegradation Category of all wetlands . Fish community – Late Summer 2017 . Complete two passes of electrofishing at three locations in the project area . Calculate baseline Ohio Lacustuary QHEI, MIwb, and Lacustuary-IBI . Macroinvertebrate sampling – Late Summer 2017 . Quantitative macroinvertebrate sampling based on placement and retrieval of Hester- Dendy samplers in the project area . Calculate a baseline Lacustuary-ICI SURVEY HYDROLOGIC & HYDRAULIC (H&H) MODELING H&H MODELING (CONT.)

 Scenario 1 - Existing Conditions (Flows to the Back Bay Area) . Focus on flows and sediment loading from existing studies . Existing sediment load from Maumee River . Affects from open-lake placement of dredged materials . Driftmeyer Ditch inflow . Power Plant non-contact cooling water . WWTP discharge

 Scenario 2 – Potential Future Condition (no Power Plant flows) . Considers discontinuation of flow from the Power Plant and all other existing conditions remain H&H MODELING (CONT.)

 Scenario 3 – Implementation of a Wetland Restoration near Facility 3 (no other changes to existing conditions) . Determine how the restoration area will affect sediment loading in the back bay area from the following sources: . Maumee River . Dredging Operations . Power Plant Discharge . Driftmeyer Ditch . WWTP Discharge H&H MODELING (CONT.)

 Scenario 4 – Implementation of a Wetland Restoration without Power Plant flow

 Scenario 5 – Implementation of a Wetland Restoration without Power Plant flow and creation of flow from a new channel

Source: Toledo Airport Speed: m/s Occurrence: % PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY DETERMINATION

 The preliminary design will incorporate viable Lake Erie coastal wetland management practices; design principles of functional wetlands to create a restored site with diverse native flora and minimum invasive species; and engineering considerations including: . Results of study area evaluation . Resilience to fluctuating water levels . Recreational amenities . Aesthetically suitable landscape . Native plant communities (aquatic and terrestrial) . Effects of design on surrounding bay area PROJECTED RESTORATION BENEFITS

 Restoration should provide: . Varied aquatic and terrestrial habitats complementary to the region; . Nursery area for juvenile migratory fish as well as ideal habitat for many other aquatic, and upland avian species; . Improved access for hiking, fishing, birding, and paddling; and . Other potential improvements to soften the existing shoreline. POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS

 Based on the results of the study, and feedback from the community, the next project phases may include: . Final engineering and design . Permitting . Logistics and coordination for incorporation of dredged material . Restoration implementation OPEN DISCUSSION Phil Hicks, P.E. Cassie D. Lovall Project Manager Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Hull & Associates, Inc. Specialist; ERT Contractor 219 S. Erie Street NOAA Restoration Center Toledo, Ohio 43604 National Marine Fisheries Service (419) 385-2018 (734) 741-2339 [email protected] [email protected]