Scoping Information Packet

7/29/2019 Scoping Information Packet

1/22

SCOPING INFORMATION PACKET

Section 506 Great Lakes Fisheries and Ecosystem Restoration (GLFER)

Authority Project

Coastal Wetland Restoration

City of Port Clinton, Ottawa County, Ohio

February 25, 2013

Buffalo District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

1776 Niagara Street

Buffalo, New York 14207


2/22

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

2. Background .............................................................................................................................. 1

3. Need for Action and Study Overview ..................................................................................... 3

4. Proposed Action and Measures ............................................................................................... 44.1. Coastal Wetland Restoration Measures............................................................................ 5

4.1.1. Measure 1 - Invasive Plant Species Removal and Re-vegetation ................................ 5

4.1.2. Measure 2 - Wetland Expansion ................................................................................... 6

4.1.3. Measure 3 - Creation of Upland Transition/Riparian Zone .......................................... 7

4.1.4. Measure 4 - Creation of Microtopography within Wetland ......................................... 7

4.1.5. Measure 5 - Creation of Hydraulic Connection to Wetland ......................................... 8

4.1.6. Measure 6 - Creation of Protective Sand Dune Structure ............................................ 9

4.2. No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................... 9

5. Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................... 166. Public Participation and Interagency Coordination ............................................................... 16

7. Compliance with Environmental Protection Statues ............................................................. 16

8. Request for Comments .......................................................................................................... 17

9. References ............................................................................................................................. 18List of Figures

Figure 1: Port Clinton restoration site within the Great Lakes basin ............................................. 2

Figure 2: Port Clinton restoration site on the southern shore of western Lake Erie ...................... 2Figure 3: Aerial depiction of the project area ................................................................................ 3

Figure 4: Map depicting the area under consideration for the implementation of Measure 1 ..... 10





Figure 9: Map depicting the area under consideration for the implementation of Measure 6 ..... 15List of Tables

Table 1: Federal Environmental Protection Laws, Orders, and Policies ..................................... 19


3/22

Port Clinton Coastal Wetland Restoration - Scoping Information Page 1

1. IntroductionImplementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that Federal agenciesinitiate an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for

identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action. The purpose of this Scoping

Information Packet is to disseminate information regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) - Buffalo Districts proposed Port Clinton Coastal Wetland Restoration Project, and toelicit any concerns of potential affected parties. This information has been prepared as part of

the formal scoping process pursuant to NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Part 1500 et seq.).

The USACE - Buffalo District is initiating the study under Section 506 of the Water Resources

Development Act (WRDA) of 2000, as amended, also known as the Great Lakes Fisheries andEcosystem Restoration (GLFER) Authority to ascertain the feasibility of restoring and/or

expanding the ecological integrity of an existing coastal wetland on the Lake Erie shoreline in

Port Clinton, Ohio.

2. BackgroundPort Clinton lies on the southern shore of Lake Erie approximately 33 miles southeast of Toledo,Ohio and 65 miles west of Cleveland, Ohio (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The study area consists of

three adjacent parks along a 0.8-mile stretch of waterfront just outside of the city of Port Clinton,

Ohio. The proposed coastal wetland restoration and expansion project site lies just east of thePort Clinton Harbor and Federal navigation channel where the Portage River empties into Lake

Erie, and stretches east to Maple Street. The southern boundary of the site is East Perry Street

(Figure 3).

The project area is an approximately 12.2-acre existing coastal wetland and an approximately

2.8-acre adjacent upland area residing within a 42-acre park complex that runs along 0.8 miles ofsouthern Lake Erie shoreline. Sand and gravel beach habitat runs the entire length of the threeadjacent city owned parks. Waterworks Park sits at the western end of the site and partially

boarders the Portage River. It is characterized by an unmaintained beach, playing fields, parking

area with access to the harbor jetty, and a man-made fishing pond. The Port Clinton City Beachoccupies the eastern third of the study area and is characterized by a maintained bathing beach,

maintained lawn and picnic area. Also, three storm sewer discharge facilities maintained by the

city are located on the City Beach portion of the project area. Waterworks Park and the Port

Clinton City Beach are connected by the Port Clinton Lakefront Preserve which was purchasedby the city in 2009. The city has entered into a land conservation agreement with the Black

Swamp Conservancy in order to preserve the newly acquired parcel which includes

approximately 12 acres of emergent semi-permanently flooded coastal wetlands and a one-thirdmile sand beach.


4/22


Figure 1: Port Clinton restoration site within the Great Lakes basin

Figure 2: Port Clinton restoration site on the southern shore of western Lake Erie


5/22


Figure 3: Aerial depiction of the project area

3. Need for Action and Study OverviewThere is an increasing awareness of the need to protect and conserve Great Lakes coastal

wetlands. Natural and cultural practices have greatly altered the coastal wetlands of the Great

Lakes and there is increasing concern by Federal agencies, state agencies and environmentalgroups that past and continued uses of the Great Lakes will lead to continued water quality

problems, as well as significant losses in both globally rare habitats and biological diversity.

Natural habitat loss within the Great Lakes has been influenced by numerous factors over manydecades, including modifications in the basins hydrology, biology, geology, and chemistry. In

particular, the primary loss of natural habitat within Lake Erie is attributed to converting natural

coastlines and tributaries from beach, dune, and marsh into industrial, urban, and recreationallands. Additional habitat destruction and decline on Lake Erie has resulted directly from

channelization, loss of riparian vegetation, sedimentation, eutrophication, increased flooding,

extended summer low flows, toxic contamination, and shoreline armoring. Due to the extensivealteration of the natural coastline environment, ecological function, or how efficiently the habitat

supports the biological community, has been largely altered. The restoration and expansion of

the coastal wetland at Port Clinton would be an effort to enhance ecological function and provide

additional high quality migratory bird stop over habitat to this portion of the Lake Erie coast.


6/22


The Western Lake Erie Marsh Region, stretching from Toledo to Sandusky Bay, is recognized asglobally important for migratory birds as millions of migratory songbirds, shorebirds, and

waterfowl stop to feed and rest during their migrations. Lake Erie shorelines and the adjacent

inland natural areas are also home to a large number of permanent avian residents. Over 350

bird species have been documented in the region. Important migratory pathways and habitatalong Great Lakes shorelines have been identified at more than 60 sites in the region; and 95% of

the waterfowl counted on a recent Ohio Department of Natural Resources - Division of Wildlifeaerial survey occur in the Lake Erie marsh region (ODNR 2012). For a migratory bird species to

thrive, it is crucial that there be sufficient habitat all along its migration route. Port Clinton rests

at the crossroads of the Mississippi and Atlantic flyways; therefore the restoration and expansionof the existing coastal wetland could contribute to the continued viability of many migratory bird

species.

Currently, the coastal wetland residing at the Lakefront Preserve parcel of the Port Clintonproject area provides very little quality habitat for coastal species including migratory birds. The

project site is characterized by an abundance of non-native and invasive plant species, notablyPhragmites sp. (Common Reed). In addition, the existing wetland is isolated and cut off fromexternal sources of surface water, such as upland or Lake connections that would provide for

adequate water input or exchange. The wetland is currently bordered on three sides by large

areas of maintained lawn that provide little in the way of suitable habitat. The proposedrestoration site therefore provides very few of the required habitat qualities sought by coastal and

migratory species.

The following are resource problems that could be addressed by the Port Clinton coastal wetlandrestoration and expansion:

Degradation of migratory bird habitat

Invasive species dominance Lack of native grass and forb species Lack of wetland and lake interactions Excessive human disturbance

Due to its location along a major migratory flyway and to the richness of avian speciesdocumented in the area, the Western Lake Erie Marsh Region has become a destination for those

within the birding community and eco-tourists alike. Therefore, a secondary effect of the

restoration of the coastal wetland could be an increase in tourism to the local area and a boost tothe local economy.

4. Proposed Action and MeasuresMultiple measures are under consideration for the restoration of the coastal wetland. Each of themeasures outlined below could be used alone or in combination with one or more of the others to

accomplish project goals. If chosen for implementation, the proposed measures would be

constructed to integrate with a walking path scheduled to be built by the City of Port Clinton thatwould traverse the back-beach ridge that runs through the Lakefront Preserve project location. If

the measures outlined below are determined to be not suitable for implementation, the USACE -


7/22


Buffalo District may select the No Action alternative in which no Federal action would be taken

on the proposed project.

4.1. Coastal Wetland Restoration Measures4.1.1.

Measure 1 - Invasive Plant Species Removal and Re-vegetation

Numerous non-native plant species inhabit the beach and wetland areas of the project location,

the most predominant being Phragmites. The non-native species ofPhragmites is highlyaggressive and is widely found in palustrine persistent emergent wetlands. As in the Lakefront

Preserve wetland, it often forms monotypic stands as other species are excluded by the persistent

shading and extensive utilization of space. Its high biomass blocks light to native plants and

occupies all the growing space below ground quickly resulting in monotypic stands.

The goal of this measure would be to eradicate or at least control invasive plant species and

restore the plant community to one that is characteristic of a native Lake Erie coastal wetland.

The plant community would be restored to the extent that native vegetation communities canbecome established and sustainable in order to contribute to the improvement of ecological

functions and values. The current plant community provides little wildlife value due to its lackof diversity and inability to meet the habitat needs of the multiple wildlife species that inhabit

coastal wetland habitat. An increase in floral diversity within the Lakefront Preserve coastal

wetland would lead to an increase in faunal biodiversity and also provide suitable feeding,

resting, and roosting habitat for migratory shorebirds and waterfowl. The location underconsideration for the implementation of this measure is 12.2 acres in area and is depicted in

Figure 4.

This measure would be accomplished as follows:

a. Invasive Plant RemovalSpecific treatment methods would be prescribed for control, management, or eradication based

on target species physiology, temporal response to treatments, and effectiveness. Treatmenttypes would include the following:

Mechanical Removal - Mechanical methods physically remove or inflict damage on thetarget species using machinery, power tools, or hand devices that cut, dig, or pull plants.Some species, such as Phragmites, can be spread with mechanical tilling or cultivation in

well established stands. Root fragments left in the soil can sprout and recolonize by such

disturbance. Hand digging and removal is an effective method of control in smallinfestations or around desirable plant material. A combination of hand cutting and/ormowing with chemical application is a common practice that can accelerate the site

preparation and landscape restoration phase.

Chemical Treatment - Chemical control includes the use of herbicides to control targetedinvasive plant species. The recommended herbicides are designed to spread throughout

the invasive plant, especially the root system. Options for the chemical treatment of


8/22


invasive plant species occurring at the project location would allow applicators to avoid

non-target species and treatments would include those registered for aquatic use whenneeded. All herbicides would be applied pursuant to manufacturers specifications and

the quantities used would be modified in the field through adaptive management to insure

that the minimum quantities necessary are employed. Specific treatment methods will be

determined based on the target species physiology, temporal response to treatments, andeffectiveness. Most likely an integrated approach would be employed that includes a

combination of mechanical and chemical control that would reduce biomass, therebyminimizing the volume of chemicals needed for treatment.

b. Re-vegetationHabitat modification through re-vegetation is an effective way of controlling invasive species as

well as introducing native species back into the plant community. Re-vegetation is the

introduction of native plant species with growth or cultural characteristics that are capable ofcompeting with or altering habitat conditions critical to the survival of the targeted invasive

species. This is a long term strategy that relies on native plant aggressiveness and resiliency toreduce the amount of habitat that is suitable for invasive plant communities. Native specieswould be planted following the treatment methods described above as part of re-vegetation. It is

expected that native perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs would be planted within the various

habitat zones across the site. A detailed planting plan would be developed that would providethe planting specifications for all plantings and seeding, including any plans for natural re-

vegetation through seed bank re-generation and post construction monitoring.

4.1.2. Measure 2 - Wetland ExpansionThe potential exists to expand the existing coastal wetland into the adjacent upland to the east

(Figure 5). The area in question is currently maintained as an open, maintained lawn and beach,

but is rarely used for recreational purposes. It is believed that the existing adjacent coastalwetland at one time extended into this area, but was altered to provide for additional

park/recreational space. The expansion of the existing coastal wetland would provide

approximately 2.8 additional acres of wetland that would provide for an increase in faunalbiodiversity and also provide suitable feeding, resting, and roosting habitat for migratory

shorebirds and waterfowl.

The expansion design would integrate other restoration measures as described in this section andwould follow an investigation of the sites geologic and hydraulic characteristics. Excavation of

the site would be required to bring the site to a similar elevation as the existing adjacent wetland.

Analysis of the existing soil would determine if augmentation would be required to establishhydric soils characteristics in this area. Establishment of microtopography within this expansion

area through the creation of channels and isolated depressional areas, combined with native

species plantings and natural recruitment, would serve to create quality marsh wetland habitatand also complement similar features in the existing wetland outlined in Measure 4. A detailedplanting plan would be developed that would provide the specifications for all plantings and

seeding, including post construction monitoring. Ultimately, the design of the wetland


9/22


expansion would be oriented toward the creation of an ecologically, biologically, and

hydrologically functional system.

4.1.3. Measure 3 - Creation of Upland Transition/Riparian ZoneAn ecological transition/riparian zone serving as the interface between upland and freshwaterwetlands are integral to a functioning freshwater wetland ecosystem. Transition/riparian areas

provide important ecological functions including habitat and temporary refuge for wetland-

dependant/migratory wildlife, habitat for breeding, nesting, and wintering for wildlife, and acorridor area that acts to protect wetlands from pollutants moving from uplands towards the

wetlands. Transition/riparian zones also facilitate the movement of wildlife to and from

freshwater wetlands and from and to uplands, streams, and other waterways. In addition,

wetland transition/riparian zones provide a buffer to keep human activities at a distance fromfreshwater wetlands, thus reducing the impact of noise, traffic, and other direct and indirect

human impacts on freshwater wetlands species.

The goal of this measure is to utilize an area that is currently maintained as a mowed lawn and isrelatively unused for recreational purposes to establish a transition/riparian area that would

enhance the ecological function of the adjacent existing wetland. Figure 6 depicts the area underconsideration for this measure (Note: This area is also under consideration for the

implementation of Measure 4). The current condition of the proposed transition/riparian area

would require the reestablishment of native vegetation. The methods for the reestablishment ofnative vegetation could include direct seeding, planting of seedlings, and the introduction of the

desired seed and rootstock by using topsoil from other local buffer areas. It is possible to allow

regeneration to occur naturally within the proposed restoration site; however, this may be a slow

process and have limited success due to competition from weeds. Local native species would beplanted as they are most suited to the local climate and soils, provide habitat for native fauna,

and maintain local varieties and biodiversity. A detailed planting plan would be developed that

would provide the planting specifications for all plantings and seeding, including any plans fornatural regeneration and post construction monitoring.

4.1.4. Measure 4 - Creation of Microtopography within WetlandRestoration of the existing wetland habitat would include the creation of a shallow ridge/swaletopography with isolated depressional areas and channels that would increase wetland edge

habitat, as well as promote the flooding/drying conditions that would be conducive to native

floral species growth. This practice is often referred to as microtopography. Microtopography isimportant because it can provide valuable habitat for amphibians and feeding waterbirds. When

creating microtopography it is important to create as much variation in depth, duration, and

timing of flooding as possible. This irregularity is also important because it creates conditions

that are also compatible with the preferred feeding modes of many species of birds.

The implementation of microtopography combined with native species plantings and natural

recruitment would serve as a source of quality marsh wetland habitat by increasing water flowthroughout the marsh areas and creating an ideal mix of both aquatic and vegetated acreage. The

sloped features of the depressions would serve to accentuate the effect of water level fluctuations


10/22


within the wetland. The water level variation within the depressions would, in turn, promote the

growth of native vegetation and serve to limit the growth ofPhragmites monocultures.

The construction of microtopography within the wetland would be accomplished in the most

environmentally sensitive fashion possible and would complement the features that already exist

within the wetland complex. The details of this proposed habitat creation would be determinedafter an extensive study of the project area existing conditions. Figure 7 depicts the area under

consideration for the implementation of this measure.

4.1.5. Measure 5 - Creation of Hydraulic Connection to WetlandThe movement, distribution, and quality of water are the primary factors that influence wetland

structure and function. In Lake Erie coastal wetlands, lake water level and seiche (temporarywater level fluctuation in response to wind conditions) drive the movement and distribution of

water within the wetland and can result in daily changes in water level. When a coastal wetland

is isolated from the lake, groundwater and surface drainage provide the dominant source of water

input. When open to the lake, water levels in coastal wetlands are further influenced by lakewater levels; however, the rate of water-level change in the wetland is determined by the rate of

flow through the connecting channel. Since the existing coastal wetland has been severed fromconsistent water input from Lake Erie, the goal of this measure is to create a permanent

connecting channel between the existing coastal wetland and Lake Erie. Figure 8 depicts the

area under consideration for the implementation of this measure.Restoring the connection between the existing coastal wetland and Lake Erie would promote the

sustainable reestablishment of lake-driven hydrology as the ecological driver of the system and

serve to enhance biotic and abiotic conditions within the wetland. Providing passage structuresfor water to move into and out of the wetland would also affect the transport of nutrients, nutrient

cycling, and many other abiotic conditions. In addition, restoring connectivity would yield

substantial ecological benefits in terms of water quality, species demography, and physicalhabitat. The introduction of variable or pulsing hydroperiods would enhance productivity and

species richness, as opposed to that of a permanently flooded or stagnant wetland. The

connecting channel would not be constructed to facilitate fish passage as it is not expected thatthe Lakefront Preserve wetland would provide suitable fish habitat. Hydrology is considered the

single most important overall factor affecting the composition and structure of wetland

vegetation in Great Lakes coastal marshes and the connection of the Lakefront Preserve coastal

wetland to Lake Erie would be a major contributing factor to the reestablishment of a nativeplant community.

A hydraulic connection between the existing coastal wetland on the Lakefront Preserve and LakeErie would be created through the excavation of a channel extending from the shoreline of Lake

Erie to some point within the existing coastal wetland. The channel would be lined with armor

stone in order to prevent erosion and allow for the unobstructed passage of water to and from thewetland. The exact location, length, width and depth of the connecting channel would bedetermined during the design phase of the study and after an extensive study of the physical,

hydrological and biological effects such a channel would have on the site. Also, full

consideration would be given to any impacts to the walking trail proposed for construction in the


11/22


summer of 2013 during the design of the connecting channel. If needed, the channel would also

be designed to integrate with the protective sand dune structure proposed in Measure 6.

4.1.6. Measure 6 - Creation of Protective Sand Dune StructureFigure 9 depicts the location of a proposed sand dune structure that would be built along thenorthern boundary of the existing coastal wetland. The purpose of this type of structure is to

provide greater protection to the restored wetland from Lake Erie wave action and high water

events. The dune structure would be built of sand and gravel that is similar in type and grain sizeto that of the existing shoreline. The proposed structure would follow the existing foredune that

runs the entire shoreline length of the coastal wetland complex. To provide stability, the dune

would be planted with pioneer species (e.g., dune grasses and other native vegetation appropriate

for this type of habitat). The exact dimensions of the dune structure would be determined duringthe design phase of the project and after an extensive study of the existing coastal processes and

potential effects to physical, hydrological and biological processes to the project location. Also,

full consideration would be given to any impacts to the walking trail proposed for construction in

the summer of 2013 during the design of the protective sand dune structure. If needed, the dunewould be designed to integrate with the connecting channel proposed in Measure 5. Given the wide variation in lake levels and the

4.2.No Action AlternativeUnder the no-action plan, the Corps would do nothing to restore coastal wetland habitat in PortClinton, and the coastal wetland would remain a poorly functioning system overrun by invasive

plant species. Additionally, no new wetland habitat or transition/riparian area would be created

and the land adjacent to the existing coastal wetland would remain as a maintained lawn.Biodiversity will continue to decrease as the range of invasive plant species expands and the

existing habitat would continue to provide very few of the required habitat qualities sought by

coastal and migratory species.


12/22


Figure 4: Map depicting the area under consideration for the implementation of Measure 1


13/22




14/22

Port Clinton Coastal Wetland Restoration - Scoping Information Page 12Figure 6: Map depicting the area under consideration for the implementation of Measure 3


15/22




16/22



17/22



18/22


5. Environmental ImpactsFuture conditions with the no-action alternative and anticipated potential effects with theproposed action will be assessed for several social, economic and environmental categories

including:

Biological Resources Recreation Cultural Resources Socioeconomics Transportation Geology & Soils Water Resources Solid Waste Management Contaminated Materials Air Quality Noise Aesthetics Health and Safety Environmental Justice

6. Public Participation and Interagency CoordinationThroughout the scoping process, stakeholders and interested parties are invited to providecomment on the alternatives that will be evaluated as part of the Port Clinton Coastal Wetland

Restoration Project. An Environmental Assessment will eventually be completed to document

the evaluation the potential social, economic and environmental benefits and potential adverse

impacts that would result from each alternative plan selected for detailed analysis.

7. Compliance with Environmental Protection Statuesa. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In accordance with the Council on

Environmental Qualitys Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA

of 1969 (40 CFR 1500-1508) and Engineer Regulation 200-2-2 (Procedures for ImplementingNEPA), the USACE - Buffalo District will assess the potential environmental effects of the

project alternatives on the quality of the human environment. Using a systematic and

interdisciplinary approach, an assessment will be made of the potential environmental impacts

for each plan as judged by comparing the with-project and without-project conditions. Theimpact assessment process will determine if an Environmental Impact Statement is required, or if

an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.

b. Clean Water Act. Measures associated with the proposed alternative involve the

potential placement of fill material into waters of the U.S. Therefore, the project would be

evaluated in accordance with the guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army under the authority of Section 404(b)(1)


19/22


of the Act. A Section 404(a) Public Notice would be issued and any party that may be

significantly impacted by the project would be afforded the opportunity to request a publichearing. Under Section 401 of the Act, the USACE - Buffalo District would request certification

from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency that the proposed project is in compliance with

established water quality standards.

c. National Historic Preservation Act. Under Section 106 of this Act, this Scoping

Information Packet initiates USACE consultation with the National Park Service, the OhioHistoric Preservation Office, interested Indian nations, historic preservation organizations and

others likely to have knowledge of, or concern with, historic properties that may be present

within the area of potential effect. A Section 106 Review - Project Summary Form will beprovided to the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office.

d. Coastal Zone Management Act. The Act requires that Federal actions reasonably

likely to affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone, regardless oflocation, be consistent with approved state coastal management programs. A Federal

consistency determination will be submitted to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources(ODNR) - Office of Coastal Management for their concurrence.

e. Endangered Species Act. In accordance with Section 7 of this Act, USACE - Buffalo

District is requesting information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on anylisted or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat that may be present in the

project area. If this consultation with USFWS identifies any such species or critical habitat, then

USACE - Buffalo District will conduct a biological assessment to determine the proposed

projects effect on these species or critical habitat.

f. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. USACE - Buffalo District is coordinating this

study with the Ohio Field Office of the USFWS and ODNR - Division of Wildlife. Theproposed project is an ecosystem restoration project. USACE - Buffalo District will collaborate

with these agencies to identify fish and wildlife concerns, identify relevant information on the

study area, obtain their views concerning the significance of fish and wildlife resources andanticipated project impacts, and identify those resources which need to be evaluated in the study.

Full consideration will be given to their comments and recommendations resulting from this

coordination.

g. Other Coordination Requirements. In addition to the aforementioned Federal statutes,

the proposed project must also comply with other applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal

laws. Table 1 presents a comprehensive list of environmental protection statutes, executiveorders, etc. Therefore, an additional intent of this fact sheet is to disseminate pertinent project

information to meet the applicable coordination/consultation requirements required under their

provisions.

8. Request for CommentsThe purpose of the scoping process is to provide an opportunity for the public and government

agencies to comment on and provide input to help identify issues related to the proposed project


20/22


to be addressed in the Environmental Assessment. If, after this evaluation, it is concluded that

the proposed project would have no significant environmental impacts and an environmentalimpact statement is not required, the District Commander will sign a Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI).

Interested parties are encouraged to contact USACE - Buffalo District with their comments andrecommendations regarding the Port Clinton Coastal Wetland Restoration Project. Please review

the study information and send your comments or recommendations in writing within thirty (30)days to the following e-mail address:

[email protected]

or via mail to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo DistrictEnvironmental Analysis Team

1776 Niagara StreetBuffalo, NY 14207-3199ATTN: Environmental Analysis - Port Clinton

9. ReferencesOhio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). (2012). Ohios Bi-weekly Aerial Waterfowl

Survey. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Data retrieved from:http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/wild_resourcessubhomepage/ResearchandSurveys/Biw

eeklyAerialWaterfowlSurvey/tabid/19166/Default.aspx


21/22


Table 1: Federal Environmental Protection Laws, Orders, and Policies

1. PUBLIC LAWS

(a) American Folklife Preservation Act, P.L. 94-201; 20 U.S.C. 2101, et seq.

(b) Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, P.L. 89-304; 16 U.S.C. 757, et seq.

(c) Antiquities Act of 1906, P.L. 59-209; 16 U.S.C. 431, et seq.(d) Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, P.L. 93-291; 16 U.S.C. 469, et seq. (Also

known as the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, as amended; P.L. 93-291, as amended; the Moss-Bennett Act; and the Preservation of Historic and Archaeological Data Act of 1974.)

(e) Bald Eagle Act; 16 U.S.C. 668.

(f) Clean Air Act, as amended; P.L. 91-604; 42 U.S.C. 1857h-7, et seq.

(g) Clean Water Act, P.L. 92-500; 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. (Also known as the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act; and P.L. 92-500, as amended.)(h) Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, 16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; 12 U.S.C. 1441 et seq.

(i) Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, P.L. 92-583; 16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq.

(j) Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, P.L. 93-205; 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.

(k) Estuary Protection Act, P.L. 90-454; 16 U.S.C. 1221, et seq.

(l) Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, P.L. 92-516; 7 U.S.C. 136.(m) Federal Water Project Recreation Act, as amended, P.L. 89-72; 16 U.S.C. 460-1(12), et

seq.

(n) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended, P.L. 85-624; 16 U.S.C. 661, et

seq.

(o) Historic Sites Act of 1935, as amended, P.L. 74-292; 16 U.S.C. 461, et seq.

(p) Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, P.L. 88-578; 16 U.S.C. 460/-460/-11, et seq.

(q) Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1928; 16 U.S.C. 715.

(r) Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918; 16 U.S.C. 703, et seq.

(s) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, P.L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C. 4321, et

seq.

(t) National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, P.L. 89-655; 16 U.S.C. 470a, et

seq.(u) Native American Religious Freedom Act, P.L. 95-341; 42 U.S.C. 1996, et seq.

(v) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, P.L. 94-580; 7 U.S.C. 1010, et seq.

(w) River and Harbor Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 403, et seq. (Also known as the Refuse Act of

1899.)

(x) Submerged Lands Act of 1953, P.L. 82-3167; 43 U.S.C. 1301, et seq.

(y) Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977, P.L. 95-89; 30 U.S.C. 1201, et seq.

(z) Toxic Substances Control Act, P.L. 94-469; 15 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.

(aa) Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended, P.L. 83-566; 16 U.S.C.

1001, et seq.

(bb) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, P.L. 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271, et seq.

2. EXECUTIVE ORDERS

(a) Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment. May

13, 1979 (36 FR 8921; May 15, 1971).

(b) Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26951; May 25,

1977).

(c) Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26961; May 25,

1977).


22/22


(d) Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, March 5,1970, as amended by Executive Order, 11991, May 24, 1977.

(e) Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, October

13, 1978.

(f) Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, July 14, 1982.(g) Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution

Prevention Requirements, August 3, 1993.(h) Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations, February 11, 1994.

3. OTHER FEDERAL POLICIES

(a) Council on Environmental Quality Memorandum of August 11, 1980: Analysis of

Impacts on Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands in Implementing the National Environmental

Policy Act.(b) Council on Environmental Quality Memorandum of August 10, 1980: Interagency

Consultation to Avoid or Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers in the National Inventory.

(c) Migratory Bird Treaties and other international agreements listed in the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended, Section 2(a)(4)

Documents

Scoping Information Packet